Road safety press release from CTC

[Henry Braun]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Geraint Jones wrote:
> On the contrary: it is that part of the kinetic energy which is neither retained by the hammer,
> nor efficiently transferred to the nail. Spectacular rates of change of momentum do little damage
> to billiard balls, for example. Kinetic energy is not in general conserved, and that which is lost
> is what does the damage.
>
> I am still working on a safe, comfortable and efficient means of transport based on
> billiard balls.

You've got guts, so you don't want balls. I mean, you can count me out of the queue for your North
Oxford Newton's Cradle Commuter Bracket until whatever holds my innards inwards is sufficiently
inelastic that I can avoid messy hysteresis.

 

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:02:55 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Speed cameras linked to 30mm cannon. It's the only way to be sure.
>
>Seems fair to me.

You know those A10 "Warthog" planes with their Gattling guns? Seems like a good place to start.

I think I recall hearing that the recoil of the gun is equal to (may have been half of) the trust
provided by the engines. Beats your regular reverse thrust hands down.

Whatever, that gun would certainly make a bit of a mess of any speeding cager.

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.

 

[Tim Woodall]

On 6 Feb 2003 18:23:40 -0000, Geraint Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim [email protected] wrote:
>> > It's not the momentum that kills you, it's the kinetic energy.
>> ITYM rate of change of momentum.
>
> On the contrary: it is that part of the kinetic energy which is neither retained by the hammer,
> nor efficiently transferred to the nail. Spectacular rates of change of momentum do little damage
> to billiard balls, for example. Kinetic energy is not in general conserved, and that which is lost
> is what does the damage.
>
Debatable. But I can't be bothered Needless to say, both energy and momentum are conserved in
the global scheme. So if you like it is the localized disipation of KE that does the damage which,
in turn, is related to the localized change in momentum as you can't get a change in KE without a
force.

> I am still working on a safe, comfortable and efficient means of transport based on
> billiard balls.

IIRC the human head can only withstand accelerations of up to about 70g before the brain crushes
itself against the inside of the skull so you are going to need an interesting suspension system
inside the billiard ball


OTOH, provided the billiard ball is big enough (and there is only one then maybe the biggest
danger is inhalation of vomit (except to everybody else on the road

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 18:49:36 +0000, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Speed cameras linked to 30mm cannon. It's the only way to be sure.

>>Seems fair to me.

>You know those A10 "Warthog" planes with their Gattling guns? Seems like a good place to start.

I think you mean a Minigun <http://www.vwip.org/images/air/minigun.jpg>

Also works on bloated gits in Range Rovers. Allegedly.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Geraint Jones]

Tim [email protected] wrote: ( > I am still working on a safe, comfortable and efficient means
of ) > transport based on billiard balls. ( ) IIRC the human head can only withstand accelerations
of up to about 70g ( before the brain crushes itself against the inside of the skull so you ) are
going to need an interesting suspension system inside the billiard ball

Ah, "inside". I hadn't thought of that.

I've just come back from an excellent production of Copenhagen, and (apart from the usual "if you've
not seen it, go to see it, if you have, go again") would like to remark here that in it Heisenberg
twice mentions being on a bicycle.

 

[Andymorris]

russell pinder wrote:
> "Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:48:53 -0000, russell pinder <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> You, of course, are a superior driver?
>>>
>>> I like to think I'm more responsible, more alert and have better hazard perception than average
>>
>> I don't. As soon as I get into a car I turn from a normal, considerate pro- cycing pro-pedestrian
>> person into a cretin. That's what cars do to people and that's one of the main reasons I dislike
>> them so much.
>>
>> Ian
>
> I suspect you have a point - but shouldn't we be doing something to address this rather than just
> arguing for lower speed limits which will be resolutely ignored by exactly those drivers who we'd
> most want to comply with them.
>
> Russ

They might not if the speed cameras where behind the majority of speed limit signs.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Andymorris]

James Annan wrote:
>
> ........ I've observed a substantial proportion of usually reasonable and considerate people
> becoming considerably less so once they are behind the steering wheel. Part frustration in
> congestion, part a long ingrained attitude of 'car is king'. It's unpleasant to witness and I
> think an attitude shift in the general population is long overdue.
>
Some thoughts on why this is....

Looking back at my early years, getting into a car certainly turned me into a stupid git. Even
though I was a cyclist at the time, for many years, I drove way too fast.

I remember fooling myself that 20 over the limit was the 'real' speed limit.

"They don't do you until your more than 10 over, I have a clean licence so I wont lose it unless
I'm 20 over".

I carried on that way until I had kids. The thought of leaving a widow and orphans was unbearable,
and also the thought of someone else getting killed or injured, caused a strong empathetic reaction.
If I drive too fast I think of my own family morning, or a kid dying or losing a parent.

When I was speeding, I was never troubled by such things, I remember taking great pleasure in taking
corners as fast as possible.

I was never into motersport, or performance cars, just drove a Nova like a ****.

I don't think , I ever saved much time in the speeding years, you always end up waiting at the
lights or behind someone else, round here (West Yorkshire) you can hardly ever overtake anyway, and
if you do there's another car a few yards up the road.

There was defiantly a macho element in it. I was weird in that I never *owned* a car until my late
20's, I cycled and used public transport and caged lifts, I suppose once I got a car I had to make
up for it.

Now, I try to keep to the speed limits, sometimes I find myself a bit over after changing lanes, I
slow down.

Motorways are a temptation though, it seams so easy, and on a long trip can save you time. I
working on that.

My names Andy and I'm a **** driver.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[James Annan]

Roger Thorpe <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> Of course if you talk to a tandem pair about how their braking compares to a solo during a descent
> they're surprised by the answer too.
>
> Twice the mass Same aero drag (roughly) same braking force (on cheapies)
>
> sq root 2 * the speed of a solo
>1/ 2 the deceleration of a solo
> so 4*the braking distance
>
> This is something my own recklessness taught me.

If you talk to a tandem pair with a decent bike, you might be surprised too. Given the lack of the
geometrical limitation that most normal singles have, a tandem can be stopped substantially
quicker. Your figures seem to rely on the tandem both having ridiculously inadequate brakes and
also going much much faster than is realistic ('same aero drag' is very optimistic to the point of
being simply false).

James

 

[James Annan]

"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Geraint Jones" <[email protected]> wrote >
> > The relationship isn't linear. It's twice as bad to be hit by someone who has doubled their
> > momentum by doubling their speed as it is to be hit by someone who has doubled their mass. Speed
> > is worse than pudding.
>
> Never having taken it I'll have to take your word for it that speed is worse than pudding. Does it
> make you fat?
>
> BTW I do know that KE=(mv^2)/2 and momentum=mv. Something in the brevity of your initial remark
> led me to infer a certain hostility. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

I think the point you both may be missing is that the mass of the larger object doesn't come into it
at all, assuming the objects in collision (eg person and vehicle) are of substantially different
weights. It's just the impact speed that matters (and for example a person running into brick wall
at 20mph is basically the same as lorry running into stationary person at 20mph). Making the
hypothetical lorry heavier or lighter makes essentially no difference at all, until it gets down to
something approaching the weight of the person.

James

 

[Jonathan Larmou]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> enlightened us with:
>Myra VanInwegen wrote:
>
>> You guys seem to be attacking Russ. I think this is pointless. [snip]
>
>Nothing personal, he just jumped in with the usual P**l Sm*th mantra of "speeding isn't dangerous"

Unfortunately for the rest of your argument he didn't say that. And from what he's said elsewhere in
the thread, he doesn't believe it either.

Besides, driving 20mph below the speed limit can also be dangerous depending on the conditions. I'd
prefer coppers on the road in unmarked cars and video cameras trying to catch dangerous drivers no
matter what way they're being dangerous.

Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]-- --[ can rejoice because thorns have
roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine

 

[Jonathan Larmou]

David Damerell <[email protected]> enlightened us with:
>russell pinder <[email protected]> wrote: [A couple of hundred lines of quoted and OE-mangled
>text. Ugh.]
>>And therein lies the problem - why just accept something that's plainly not working very well
>
>Places with the political will to use speed cameras sensibly have found that speed limits work
>perfectly well.

In a very limited radius aroudn the camera. And I for one am not prepared, for environmental
reasons, to have luminous GATSOs every 100m on every road! I certainly wouldn't want one next to my
house (which wouldn't happen anyway where I am).

>>and say 'Oh we'll just have more of that' rather than supporting a more ambitious proposal to
>>improve standards and safety dramatically. The problem is that most people are afraid they'll not
>>make the grade and can't accept the limitations of not being allowed to drive.
>
>Nonsense. I for one do not fear this at all.

If you mean because you don't drive, then you're pretty dumb not to notice he said "most".

I know many drivers would object to retesting, and I'm _sure_ the primary reason would be that most
know they've picked up bad habits and fear failing. After all they feel that using a car is a right
not a privilege
:-|.

>>Why you and others in this group seem to be against this proposal defeats
>>me.
>
>Because it's not feasible?

And lowering every speed limit would be? It would just result in mass disobedience resulting in less
support for speed limits in general. So much disobedience that it would be enforced even less than
now (if that's possible). It would give the motoring lobby even more ammunition.

Now retesting wouldn't be popular either, but it's obviously not a blanket change that reeks of
unfairness (councils could already change 40s to 30s if they wanted to...). However, you could start
by insisting on retesting every 15 years. Then later bring it down to every 10, then
5...

>>The argument isn't about not being able to keep to the speed limits - it's about having speed
>>limits that are realistic enough to be accepted and which are therefore enforcable. History tells
>>us that if a law is seen as unjust and unecessary it's unenforceable in a democracy - speed limits
>>are in danger of going this way.
>
>Nonsense. Camouflage the speed cameras, move them around, don't put up any warning signs, have
>plenty of dummies if they help, and pass out an automatic fine (rendering this approach
>self-financing, unlike your proposal)

Uh huh. I've read the reports in the news about the speed cameras that were intended to be
self-financing, but once they started working (in a limited radius of course) no-one got trapped by
them, so it was no longer able to pay for itself.

Like the Cambridge tow-away scheme, if you remember that, if it works too well, you'll find it gets
canned if it is meant to fund itself.

> and an automatic 3 points. _That_ would enforce the law perfectly well - some portion of drivers
> would ignore it, but 4 flashes will get them off the roads anyway (and reduce congestion to
> boot.

I noticed if you type in "speed camera" into google you get lots of links and adverts for radar
detectors :-|.

And separately, last time I went up the A14, not a single speed camera wasn't vandalised. They're
expensive to install, replace and run, and I'd prefer the money going on officers personally. It's
difficult to beat a copper in an unmarked car with a video camera.

The annoying thing about the cameras close to where I live is the number of cars that brake before
them and rev off after them. You may as well just put in a speed bump for all it matters. Obviously
it's the regular i.e. most frequent users of the road that will never get caught. Only strangers
will, and that won't be that often.

Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]-- --[ can rejoice because thorns have
roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine

 

[Jonathan Larmou]

David Damerell <[email protected]> enlightened us with:
>Myra VanInwegen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>You guys seem to be attacking Russ. I think this is pointless. I know him; he's a good guy, and I
>>happen to agree with him. I'm much more offended by someone who overtakes me at 20mph with just
>>inches to spare in town than someone who overtakes me at 60mph on a straight B-road by going
>>entirely into the opposing lane.
>
>This is the classic fallacy here; comparing only "bad and slow" with "good and fast", asking which
>we prefer, and concluding that fast's OK.
>
>One must also consider being overtaking with inches to spare at 60mph and being overtaken with
>masses of room at 20mph.

Would you like furgnuls or kizbids with that? It's not a relevant thing to be considering.

Put it another way. Put these in order of preference:

1) Overtaken with lots of room at 20
2) Overtaken with lots of room at 60
3) Overtaken with inches to spare at 20
4) Overtaken with inches to spare at 60

Is there anyone who would really choose 3 *or* 4 before 1 or 2? After having experienced all 4. I
know what I'd choose.

But it's not a choice. Russ/Myra/I advocate raising the quality of driving regardless, which
*includes* adhering better to speed limits. Focussing efforts on one specific symptom of the problem
is daft, when we should focus on the underlying cause, and aim to fix that.

What if Russ said to remove driving licences from the bottom 60% of drivers, as assessed by a test.
Do you still think that's a bad idea?

Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]-- --[ can rejoice because thorns have
roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine

 

[James Annan]

"AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Looking back at my early years, getting into a car certainly turned me into a stupid git. Even
> though I was a cyclist at the time, for many years, I drove way too fast.

It's not particularly (or even at all) the speed I was thinking about. I was actually thinking about
attitudes towards pedestrians on the roadway (whether or not there's actually a separate pavement,
which in Japan is usually very narrow if it exists at all). We've noticed lot of older generation
british visitors and expats display a very strong 'car is king' attitude whichever side of the
windscreen they are on. It's wholly inappropriate in urban Japan, and increasingly anachronistic in
the UK too. I'm hopeful that it may be starting to die out though.

James

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 02:30:18 +0000, [email protected] (Jonathan Larmour) wrote:

>>Places with the political will to use speed cameras sensibly have found that speed limits work
>>perfectly well.

>In a very limited radius aroudn the camera. And I for one am not prepared, for environmental
>reasons, to have luminous GATSOs every 100m on every road!

No problem, leave them grey.

>I know many drivers would object to retesting, and I'm _sure_ the primary reason would be that most
>know they've picked up bad habits and fear failing. After all they feel that using a car is a right
>not a privilege

Well, they might feel it subconsciously but they behave as if it's a right.

>Now retesting wouldn't be popular either, but it's obviously not a blanket change that reeks of
>unfairness (councils could already change 40s to 30s if they wanted to...).

True enough. You would probably have to allow for a grace period so that if they fail they have 14
days to retake the test before the licence is forfeit, and a few other hedges here and there.

I think there might be a problem, though, in that licenses issued to date are valid until the
holder's 70th birthday. It would be easy to introduce time-limited licenses for new drivers, but
there might be issues with applying it retrospectively. Which is not a reason for not doing it, IMO.

>>>The argument isn't about not being able to keep to the speed limits - it's about having speed
>>>limits that are realistic enough to be accepted and which are therefore enforcable.

I take issue with this (you prolly didn't say it). You have to remember that most drivers
overestimate their own skill. And why should we give drivers new speed limits when they don't use
the ones they've got? Start by getting closer to full compliance with the existing limits, then you
can relax the limits in places in the knowledge that people will not assume it's OK to do at least
10mph more.

>Uh huh. I've read the reports in the news about the speed cameras that were intended to be
>self-financing, but once they started working (in a limited radius of course) no-one got trapped by
>them, so it was no longer able to pay for itself.

No problem. Part of the running cost vanishes with the new digital cameras anyway, and if my tax
money is being used to pay for cameras which don't catch people I don't mind. And in any case,
removing the yellow Diamond Grade will reduce the scale of this problem

But enforcement activity is rarely self-financing, and I don't see why this should be an exception.

>I noticed if you type in "speed camera" into google you get lots of links and adverts for radar
>detectors :-|.

Good point. Six points if caught with a radar detector. Next case!

>And separately, last time I went up the A14, not a single speed camera wasn't vandalised. They're
>expensive to install, replace and run, and I'd prefer the money going on officers personally. It's
>difficult to beat a copper in an unmarked car with a video camera.

Except that coppers cost more than cameras.

>The annoying thing about the cameras close to where I live is the number of cars that brake before
>them and rev off after them.

That's an annoying thing about the drivers, not the cameras. The cameras are inanimate. And has been
made immeasurably worse (IME) by the stupid yellow reflective stuff - people assume that if they
can't see a cmaera, they are safe.

One place locally had a very bad accident record, they put up a camera and people braked for the
camera and sped off again. Accidents went down, but not by much. So they put in a second camera,
just round the corner, and that was the one with the film in. Worked like a charm! The regulars on
that road now know that you can't get away with it. And it was the regulars who caused the problem.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Myra Vaninwegen]

Geraint Jones wrote
> I've just come back from an excellent production of Copenhagen, and (apart from the usual "if
> you've not seen it, go to see it, if you have, go again") would like to remark here that in it
> Heisenberg twice mentions being on a bicycle.

We saw an excellent production in Cambridge. We were almost on top of the actors: they had a couple
rows of seating around the edge (back and side) of the stage, and it only cost 10 quid to sit there!
I agree it's a fabulous play.

We recorded a broastcast of it that they put on TV some time ago. We still haven't gotten around to
watching it, but at least we can see it again at our leisure.

-Myra

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:27:28 -0000, "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote:

>They might not if the speed cameras where behind the majority of speed limit signs.

Not the first time that's been suggested. I thought that instead of painting the cameras yellow they
should have put the speed limit sign on the back of them (which would also ensure that clueless
twats who don't know the limit will not brake to 20 as they pass a camera in a 60 limit).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Colin Blackburn]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:27:28 -0000, "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >They might not if the speed cameras where behind the majority of speed limit signs.
>
> Not the first time that's been suggested. I thought that instead of painting the cameras yellow
> they should have put the speed limit sign on the back of them (which would also ensure that
> clueless twats who don't know the limit will not brake to 20 as they pass a camera in a 60 limit).

One of the scariest car rides of my life (excluding all those head on towards a lorry in Vietnam
type ones) was in Slough. The guy driving was an "employment consultant" for a contract employment
agency and I was a potential victim for blood draining.

He demonstrated his driving skills from Slough station to British Gas somewehre-or-other by proving
he knew where every single camera was and turning on his radar detector. Every camera meant slamming
on the brakes at the last second and then flooring the accelerator as soon as his back wheels were
over the last measuring line. He drove, well I say drove but I think destroyed is probably a better
word, an MR2.

I didn't cycle back then and I'm glad I didn't otherwise I might have been put off sharing roads
with twats like this for life. It also taught me that working in academia has many benefits, one of
which is that I am marginally less likely to meet his ilk again.

Colin

 

[Jose Marques]

On 6 Feb 2003, David Damerell wrote:

> Speed cameras linked to 30mm cannon. It's the only way to be sure.

Nah, you need to nuke the site from orbit to do that.

--
Jose Marques

 

[Myra Vaninwegen]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote
> Myra VanInwegen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >You guys seem to be attacking Russ. I think this is pointless. I know him; he's a good guy, and I
> >happen to agree with him. I'm much more offended by someone who overtakes me at 20mph with just
> >inches to spare in town than someone who overtakes me at 60mph on a straight B-road by going
> >entirely into the opposing lane.
>
> This is the classic fallacy here; comparing only "bad and slow" with "good and fast", asking which
> we prefer, and concluding that fast's OK.
>
> One must also consider being overtaking with inches to spare at 60mph and being overtaken with
> masses of room at 20mph.

OK, I admit that I was comparing a person doing 10mph *under* the speed limit and behaving
dangerously with someone doing exactly the speed limit but driving safely. Clearly I'd prefer the
latter to the former.

But what I object to is the thinking that wholesale reduction of speed limits and installing traffic
calming is going to help anything. I happen to agree with Russ that speed limits are by and large
sensible as they are, but they very much need to be enforced!

Some people seem to think that since we can't really do anything about bad driving, but we can do
something about speed (via speed cameras, for instance), then it makes sense to reduce the speed
limits so that dangerous drivers are less likely to kill people as they continue their dangerous
driving habits. Thus David might argue that on my hypothetical flat straight B-road (which
incidentally we have alot of around Cambridge, so it's not hypothetical at all) we should reduce the
speed limits from 60mph to 40, because that way when the cretin who refuses to give me enough space
when overtaking hits me, I'm less likely to die. Sorry, I don't think this makes sense. I figure
that I'm just a likely to die being hit at 40 as at 60, and (putting on my driver's hat, for the
rare instances when I actually do drive our car) it seems stupid to require that I drive at 40 on a
road where 60 is safe, just because a few motorists can't be bothered to leave sufficient space when
overtaking cyclists.

So I agree 100% with Russ that what we need to enforce existing speed limits and to dramatically
improve driver behavior. I don't know exactly how to improve driver behaviour, but one thing could
be to make it an offense to overtake a cyclist without leaving sufficient space (eg on roads lower
than a certain width, not going into the opposing lane), and prosecuting people who cause accidents
when overtaking cyclists when they haven't left enough room.

-Myra

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 02:43:16 +0000, [email protected] (Jonathan Larmour) wrote:

>But it's not a choice. Russ/Myra/I advocate raising the quality of driving regardless, which
>*includes* adhering better to speed limits. Focussing efforts on one specific symptom of the
>problem is daft, when we should focus on the underlying cause, and aim to fix that.

I don't think anybody is against higher standards of driving, but at the moment there is no such
thing as a Twatso camera[1], so it's reasonable to suggest that the things which can be enforced by
automatic means (red lights, speed limits, bus lanes) are, and the plod are left to concentrate on
the things which require judgement to detect.

[1] Camera which detects and records people driving like a ****, obviously

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.