Re: Cyclist rant: back in black

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Peter Amey:
> > So when TRL measured the crash rates of different kinds of road and
> > found that the crash rate increased with average traffic speeds for
> > each type of road studied, they were actually using the
> > attention-o-meter instead of the speed gun and they hadn't noticed,
> > yes?
> >
>
> Which is even more paradoxical given that Adrian assures us that those
> travelling at the higher speed will be paying more attention not less.
>
> So we have:
>
> Higher speed -> higher crash rate (TRL)
> Higher speed -> more attention (Adrian)
> Less attention -> higher crash rate (Adrian)

I mentioned earlier that the Cat & Fiddle has dropped out of the top ten
most dangerous roads, following stricter enforcement of speed limits; it
has only just struck me, following Adrian's line of thinking, that all
those motorcyclists who used to die there must have had *incredible*
levels of attention at the time. It almost beggars belief that they
still crashed and died; but, as we all know, motorcyclists will turn out
to be a Totally Different Case. ;-)

--
Mark, UK.

"There was never a century nor a country that was short of experts who
knew the Deity's mind and were willing to reveal it."

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Adrian:
> >> Doing 80mph on a motorway is far less unsafe than doing 29mph past a
> >> school at kicking-out time.
>
> > The usual fallacy. If its dangerous doing 29mph past a school at kicking
> > out time you shouldn't be driving at 29mph even if the speed limit is
> > 150mph.
>
> Did I say you should? No. It's not speeding, though, and Speed Kills.
> Allegedly.

Two things: firstly, you should read up on the Fallacy of the Heap, e.g.:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Line-Drawing


Secondly, if Speed does not Kill, why on earth should you care what speed
you drive past a school? What possible reason should there be to take
greater care by driving more slowly? (And come to that, wouldn't your
increased powers of concentration provide greater protection both to
yourself and to anybody else around?)


You seem incapable of comprehending the idea of limits, of enforcement of
limits, or of the setting of limits using criteria which are not
instantly apparent to *one* of the users of a public space.

--
Mark, UK.

"There are some things only intellectuals are crazy enough to believe."

 

[Not Responding]

Steve Walker wrote:

> I don't really care if people break the 70 limit on the dual
> carriageway. It's not antisocial and it isn't necessarily dangerous. The
> enforcement of 30/40 limits in built-up areas should be their priority,
> and the fact that it isn't makes me suspicious of their motives.
>

Sadly the government rules make it almost impossible to get a speed
camera put up in these locations. Almost monthly I have meetings with
people demanding speed cameras and have to explain that until they find
a few volunteer human sarifices they'll get nothing.

 

[Not Responding]

Adrian wrote:
> David Martin ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>
>>Well, if you are going to collect voluntary contributions from the
>>motorists, you may as well go to places where they are actually
>>prepared to make such contributions.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I thought these were *safety* cameras, absolutely definitely
> specifically not revenue ones.
>
> **Speeding is not inherently unsafe.**
>
> Driving without due care and attention is, regardless of the speed limit.
> Sometimes there is no added danger in exceding the speed limit. Other
> times, it's vastly dangerous to be driving at a speed within it.

So ask for a higher speed limit - don't ask for the law to be ignored.
Speed limits are set by the council; it's simple to pitch up and ask.

Those who get caught and whinge are particularly pitiable. Someone has
just demonstrated that they lack the skill to control a car and then
moans that they've had a rap on the knuckles.

Most councils subsidise some form of driver improvement training for
people like this who can't cope on today's roads. I just wish more of
'em would take up the offer.

 

[Not Responding]

Adrian wrote:
> David Martin ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>
>>>**Speeding is not inherently unsafe.**
>
>
>>Do you have an absolute definition of safety?
>
>
> As has been pointed out by Guy elsewhere, 100% safety is not physically
> possible. Beyond that point, it's all down to risk mitigation.
>
> Doing 80mph on a motorway is far less unsafe than doing 29mph past a
> school at kicking-out time.

Not a good logic to use when setting regulations that effect everyone at
all times. You could just as well argue that driving having had four
pints of beer on a clear road late at night is safer than drinking three
and driving past a school at kicking out time. Yeah, it's true but not
useful.

> Motorways are the safest roads in this country and in many
> others.

Mways are the safest because they are designed for high speeds and
exclude all other road users. There is no relation between mways and
99.99% of the roads in the UK.

 

[Not Responding]

Steve Walker wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> On 10 Mar 2005 15:27:52 GMT someone who may be Adrian
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>> "Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime"
>>
>>
>> Again, a view of things from behind a windscreen.
>>
>> I doubt if those who feel afraid to walk out of their homes because
>> of the high speed of motor vehicle drivers in the vicinity feel the
>> same way.
>
>
> A view of things from behind a hobby-horse. You may remember that both
> Adrian and I were pleased that a police officer was present catching
> people speeding in the vicinity of people's homes.

OK, so we're agreed that residential areas, homes and schools are places
that benefit from strict speed enforcement. It's good for safety,
pollution and quality of life.

But why do you insist there must be real life coppers doing it?
Personally, as a tax payer, I want real coppers doing the things
machines can't.

Speed cameras achieve the results we apear to agree on but at a far
reduced cost.

 

[Not Responding]

Adrian wrote:
> Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
>
>>>"Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime",
>
>
>>Wrong. Quite apart from the involvements in crashes
>
>
> Which aren't "speeding". They're "crashes".

By the same logic drunk drivers do not equate to crashes.

>>which you can debate 'til the cows come home, speeding leads to increased
>>chemical pollution, increased noise pollution
>
>
> Does a small car doing 80 emit more pollution than a large 4x4 doing 60?

Let's make the radical assumption that the limit applies to all vehicles
equally. Your question should, therefore, be "does a small car doing 80
emit more pollution than a small car doing 60?" I suspect you can answer
that.

>>increased costs of policing
>
> If they don't crash, how? Exclude "speeding offences" from your answer,
> please. Bear in mind that "safety cameras" <washes mouth out> are a revenue
> creater for most local authorities.

And if a drunk doesn't crash?

>>reduced quality of life,
>
> For who and how?

For anyone who lives near the road or has to use it. As very few people
don't live near a road, reduced limits increase quality of life for most
people.

>>increased time for pedestrian journeys
>
>
> How does 80mph on a motorway do that?

M-ways are irrelevant to this argument. But if you're happy to accept
that your argument is only about m-ways, you may find a few more
supporters for it.

 

[Not Responding]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:14:09 GMT someone who may be
> [email protected] wrote this:-
>
>
>>And apply the "carbon tax" to the emissions from cyclists.
>>
>>Who produce a surprising amount of CO2 as a result of their hobby / means of
>>transport compared to a car driver + car.
>
>
> Only by the sort of dodgy mathematics beloved of the road lobby.
>
>
C'mon not even the most befuddled petrol addict could come up with a
"logic" to support this one.

 

[Not Responding]

Adrian wrote:
> Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>
>>In the absence of the camera, what happens? Mr Nice gets no fine, but
>>Mr Nasty still doesn't get caught.
>
>
> Mr Nice gets a bollocking by a policeman, who points out the error of his
> ways in person.
>
> Mr Nasty gets locked up.

Where does this policeman come from then? You've claimed that removing
speed cameras will reduce government funding so, presumably, there'll be
*fewer* coppers around.

 

[Not Responding]

JLB wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>
>> "Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime",
>
>
> Complete ****. Among other things, it is intimidating other road users
> and potential users. It is a crime against everyone else using the road,
> and against those who would use the road if they were not discouraged by
> the way cars are driven. So, even on a completely empty road, it is a
> crime, unless you can show conclusively that nobody else was even
> thinking of using that road.
>
> I wonder if you've ever tried walking a mile or two (perhaps to a pub,
> so there's an incentive to not take a car) along an unlit country road
> (no pavement) in the dark with significant numbers of cars using it at
> the same time. Would you even consider doing that? How many other people
> would?
>
> I've tried it. It is terrifying.

Yeah, that describes the road outside my house. The road between my
house, the school, the shops and everything else. Last time I walked it
someone hit me with a wing mirror; despite the bang, they didn't even
stop or slow down.

It is too frightening to walk into the village now.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Apparently on date 10 Mar 2005 17:36:25 GMT, Adrian
> <[email protected]> said:
>
>>Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
>>like they were saying :
>>
>>>> Does a small car doing 80 emit more pollution than a large 4x4
>>>> doing 60?
>>
>>> Straw man.
>>
>>Not at all.
>>
>>If pollution is the basis of our road policing, perhaps we should
>>introduce legislation to cap the size of vehicles.
>
> And apply the "carbon tax" to the emissions from cyclists.
>
> Who produce a surprising amount of CO2 as a result of their hobby /
> means of transport compared to a car driver + car.

Not so. They produce a surprising amount compared to the /car/, but
exactly the same as the driver.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin

 

[Adrian]

David Martin ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

> Except that in my kids case they go to the park (across the road from
> the school), the swimming pool, library (across the road from another
> local school), the high street (outside of school hours of course).
>
> Kids may also be arriving/departing at various times for any number of
> reasons.

At a noticably higher rate than other peds elsewhere?

 

[Adrian]

Not Responding ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> Personally, as a tax payer, I want real coppers doing the things
> machines can't.

So do I.

 

[Adrian]

Not Responding ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>> I wonder if you've ever tried walking a mile or two (perhaps to a
>> pub, so there's an incentive to not take a car) along an unlit
>> country road (no pavement) in the dark with significant numbers of
>> cars using it at the same time. Would you even consider doing that?
>> How many other people would?

> Yeah, that describes the road outside my house. The road between my
> house, the school, the shops and everything else. Last time I walked
> it someone hit me with a wing mirror; despite the bang, they didn't
> even stop or slow down.

What's the speed limit, and what speed were they doing?

Most of the unlit country lanes round here are 60 limits.

FWIW, I grew up on the edge of a peak district village, and now live on the
edge of countryside in Herts, so - yes - I have walked down a few lanes in
my time. And I'm alive.

BTW - It's my b'day today, and SWMBO is taking me away for a weekend, so
I'll be quiet in this thread from nowish on. Please don't assume I'm
sulking because I've lost... For me, it's not been about that. I've taken
on board a few things, and hopefully some of you lycrafetishists have, too.

Now, go and play in the traffic... <grin>

 

[Richard]

Steve Walker wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Richard
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>> Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
>>> like they were saying :
>>>
>>>>> "Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime",
>>>
>>>
>>>> Wrong. which you can debate 'til the cows come home, speeding leads
>>>> to increased chemical pollution, increased noise pollution
>>>
>>> Does a small car doing 80 emit more pollution than a large 4x4
>>> doing 60?
>>
>>
>> Straw man. The question you should be asking is, does a small car
>> doing 80 pollute more than the same small car doing 60? Does a large
>> 4x4 doing 60 pollute more than the same 4x4 doing 40? Etc. (Clue: the
>> answer is "yes").
>
>
> And therefore, to reduce emissions, speed should be restricted by law?
> In which other areas of life would you introduce such sanctions?

Quite a lot of other areas already have similar restrictions. The
Clean Air Act. Various factory emissions regulations.

R.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 8 Mar 2005 21:39:11 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'd suggest that the relative numbers indicate that it's actually
>**hugely** more likely that any given cyclist will cause an accident than
>any given motorist.

In thinking about different measures for risk per unit exposure it
occurred to me that there is an alternative interpretation which you
seem not to have considered. It is this:

The risk comes from interactions between vehicles. As has been
pointed out, I will interact with far more cars on an average ride
than they will with bikes. But you want to put figures on it.

In 2003 there were 392 billion vehicle km travelled by car and 4.5bn
by bike. No, let's make this look as good for the car as possible and
assume that bikes /never/ use major roads, so that's 176bn for cars on
roads with cyclists, and 4.5bn for cyclists. Let's assume that
cycling is under-counted by half, it is probably more than that.

The ratio of car miles to bike miles on roads the two share is
therefore 39:1, implying that for each bike a driver interacts with,
the cyclist will interact with 39 cars. So on a typical journey where
I might be passed by 100 cars, they might pass 2 or 3 bikes. Which
sounds plausible. Many times I'm the only bike on the road.

Now, taking again the figure most favourable to drivers, 40% of
crashes are the fault of the cyclist. But the cyclist has to avoid 40
times as many cars as the driver does cycles. So overall it rather
looks as if the cyclists are doing a better job of it.

I don't necessarily say that this is the best way of looking at it,
but it is certainly more realistic than your version of mileage
adjustment. Actually I'd stick with the 17% to 40% cyclist fault
figure, remembering that in 100% of cases it's the cyclist that's
injured.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[David Hansen]

On 11 Mar 2005 09:00:55 GMT someone who may be Adrian
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>lycrafetishists

Such comments don't do much for your arguments. Not much lycra in
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5349


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> In 2003 there were 392 billion vehicle km travelled by car and 4.5bn
> by bike. No, let's make this look as good for the car as possible and
> assume that bikes /never/ use major roads, so that's 176bn for cars on
> roads with cyclists, and 4.5bn for cyclists. Let's assume that
> cycling is under-counted by half, it is probably more than that.

Nice little set of assumptions. You've instantly closed the gap by 4:1.

 

[Adrian]

David Hansen ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>>lycrafetishists

> Such comments don't do much for your arguments.

Jeez, does too much pedalling surgically removing your sense of humour?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 10 Mar 2005 21:16:30 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Hit a deer that jumps in front of you within your 'thinking
>> distance'.. I'd rather be going slower.
>I'd rather be watching the hedges for movement and being alert to my
>surroundings.

Which is much easier when you're going slower.

>> Have a puncture?
>> I'd rather be going slower.
>I'd rather be checking the tyres regularly and watching the road surface
>for debris.

Which is much easier when you're going slower.

>> Gust of wind pushing you sideways?
>> I'd rather be going slower
>I'd rather be watching for traffic or trees ahead feeling the effect,
>and watching for likely gaps in the roadside scenery that may cause wind
>funneling.

Which is much easier when you're going slower.

>> There are many reasons why roads will have limits reduced. It is
>> impossible to generalise.
>There's often a very good guess.

Yes, demands from local residents. Very much the most common reason
at present, I think.

>> So it wasn't the higher speed at all, it was the better driver
>> behaviour.
>Which was brought about by....?

Dunno, but it's undoubtedly the case that the allegedly highly skilled
Germans manage to have a worse crash rate on their unlimited Autobahns
than we do on our speed limited motorways, and the French yielded a
massive reduction in all road deaths by applying rigorous enforcement
of all traffic laws.

You do know that the probability of fatality in a crash rises with
roughly the fourth power of mean speed on the road, don't you?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound