The Speed Trap - BBC1 Scotland



"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt B wrote:

>> >> >> But can only be attributed as the prime cause in 4.3%.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wrong. Was only attributed as the prime cause in a small proportion
>> >> > ,
>> >>
>> >> 4.3%, as I correctly stated.
>> >>
>> >> > was attributed as a major factor in over a third,
>> >>
>> >> Was "assumed" (by the DfT IIRC) not attributed in the report.
>> >
>> > No, attributed. The form was filled in. It was extrapolated, based on
>> > detailed investigation, that this figure should really have been much
>> > higher, probably as high as 2/3 but there were deficiencies in teh
>> > reporting system (which is what the study was set up to examine).
>>
>> So not based on data, based on guesswork then.
>
> 1/3 were attributed. Based on teh mechanism and accuracy of attribution
> (where factors that could/should have been attributed wern't) this
> scales to around 50-60%. Have you read the report?

I don't have it to hand, but IIRC 4% had speed attributed as the prime
cause, and 15% included it as the prime or a contributory cause (i.e.
something else was the actual _prime_ cause). Apparently the DfT then tried
to scrape together another 18% or so by adding in all those which were
attributed to anything that could conceivably have involved moving traffic.
With much imagination, it seems, they then arrived at the "one third"
assertion - which was what they had claimed before - how convenient.

>> > Where is your evidence that there is no link between speed and accident
>> > rate?
>>
>> There _is_ a link, as there is between sneezing and having the flu.
>
> Yup. If you have the flu, you sneeze. If you have speed, you have
> accidents.
> That is clear.

I thought you were going to say if you sneeze you have accidents ;-)

You cannot, however, cure the flu by suppressing the sneezing. Do you think
you can prevent bad driving by suppressing the speeding?

--
Matt B
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You are still arguing by assertion and misinterpretation of a second
> hand reading of a report that is well qualified and annotated, if you
> could be bothered to read it.


TRL323? I have only read extracts, it is not freely available (to me at
least). Do you have a link, or a digital copy I can borrow?

--
Matt B
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Let's apply that hypothesis to, say, London. According to the TfL
>> website the average traffic speed in London is less than 10 mph, and the
>> KSI for 2004-5 was about 5200. That "proves" that moving traffic only
>> accounts for about 40% of accidents because the projected KSI for 0 mph
>> traffic speed is still over 3000!
>
> It's like the 4x4 thread all over again.

Yes, I was was right then too. 4x4's are not _all_ anti-social vehicles.

> You come up with an isolated case and then convince yourself that because
> you've got a single exception the whole case collapses. Deary me...

Don't patronise me. Given that London accounts for about 15% of the GB KSI
figure, it is hardly an "isolated case".

>> But not as effectively or efficiently as other methods. Every little
>> helps, but there comes a point where no amoumt of flagellation will
>> achieve any equine response.
>
> And your evidence that there's nothing left to be gained from enforcing
> speed limits is?

I never claimed that. My modest claim is that concentrating on "speeding"
distracts from the big issue.

>> Weren't they ;-) Of course not. Good intentions may have been present.
>> But it is the bloody minded insistence that, flying in the face of much
>> subsequent research and the development of superior alternative
>> approaches, driven, perhaps, by the cash flow generated, that they have
>> persisted with their use that must take the biscuit.
>
> There is nothing you've come up with to suggest other methods won't work
> if there are speed cameras present as well.

No, although I suspect (no proof) that the effect may be negative. Trust is
part of the social deal.

>> No, they seem to be the only ones still prepared to administer the
>> aspirin. Those who realise that speed is a sympton and not the disease
>> itself, and are seeking a vaccine, are in a much better position to halt
>> the epidemic.
>
> And your evidence that they have an effective vaccine is, what? Some
> Naked Streets initiatives?

They do demonstrate the possibilites rather well don't you think.

>> I'm not in a position to commission the research.
>
> Doesn't mean it's okay to state unsupportable nonsense and pretend it's a
> Challenging Initiative.

Hehe. I feel a bit like a referee denying a goal to the home team because
it was offside. No matter how fair the decision he will be jeered and
insulted by the home crowd.

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:
> > You come up with an isolated case and then convince yourself that because
> > you've got a single exception the whole case collapses. Deary me...
>
> Don't patronise me. Given that London accounts for about 15% of the GB KSI
> figure, it is hardly an "isolated case".

You are the one being patronising. Do you really think that all
accidents in London happen at the average speed? Of course not, so your
little 'reducto ad absurdum' doesn't work.

> >> But not as effectively or efficiently as other methods. Every little
> >> helps, but there comes a point where no amoumt of flagellation will
> >> achieve any equine response.
> >
> > And your evidence that there's nothing left to be gained from enforcing
> > speed limits is?
>
> I never claimed that. My modest claim is that concentrating on "speeding"
> distracts from the big issue.

And who is concentrating mostly upon speeding? It is those who are
upset about not being able to play with their toys in the way they
want.

>
> >> Weren't they ;-) Of course not. Good intentions may have been present.
> >> But it is the bloody minded insistence that, flying in the face of much
> >> subsequent research and the development of superior alternative
> >> approaches, driven, perhaps, by the cash flow generated, that they have
> >> persisted with their use that must take the biscuit.
>>
> > There is nothing you've come up with to suggest other methods won't work
> > if there are speed cameras present as well.
>
> No, although I suspect (no proof) that the effect may be negative. Trust is
> part of the social deal.

Well, it would be, but in the absence of constraints, I cannot trust
the motorists in this quiet and otherwise well behaved city, to drive
in a manner which respects the right of my children to be able to walk
to school in safety.


> >> No, they seem to be the only ones still prepared to administer the
> >> aspirin. Those who realise that speed is a sympton and not the disease
> >> itself, and are seeking a vaccine, are in a much better position to halt
> >> the epidemic.
> >
> > And your evidence that they have an effective vaccine is, what? Some
> > Naked Streets initiatives?
>
> They do demonstrate the possibilites rather well don't you think.

For a very limited set of environments. However, the most effective
methods of speed control and accident reduction are even more unpopular
than speed cameras. And are not readily applicable to speeds above
30mph.

>
> >> I'm not in a position to commission the research.
> >
> > Doesn't mean it's okay to state unsupportable nonsense and pretend it's a
> > Challenging Initiative.

Come on Pete, this is Usenet ;-)

> Hehe. I feel a bit like a referee denying a goal to the home team because
> it was offside. No matter how fair the decision he will be jeered and
> insulted by the home crowd.

You have delusions of grandeur. You are being jeered becasue you are
spouting unsupported rubbish, and refusing to accept that smarter
people with better access to data than you have come up with
conclusions you don't like. (I'm not talking about myself, but the
authors of the research that has been and continues to be published.)

...d
 
Dave Larrington wrote:
> So did I imagine the campaigns against drinking and driving, to name but
> one?

Yes. Just like "clunk click on every trip" is a figment of my own
fevered brain.

d.
 
Matt B wrote:

> Yes, I was was right then too. 4x4's are not _all_ anti-social vehicles.

And nobody has said they are, but you persist in trying to make out that
because not all of them are it is pointless trying to argue against any
cases where they really are.

> Don't patronise me. Given that London accounts for about 15% of the GB KSI
> figure, it is hardly an "isolated case".

But it is certainly not a typical case, with average traffic speeds of
10 mph in many places. If it doesn't suit your case then anything less
than 100% is useless, if it does suit your case then any amount anywhere
is as good as perfect. You can't have it both ways, and that you
continue to go on like you can in such a patronising manner is why you
get patronised yourself.

> I never claimed that. My modest claim is that concentrating on "speeding"
> distracts from the big issue.

That it is only /part/ of the issue nobody here is denying, but you
persist in implying that it's effectively nothing to do with the big
issue at all (well, it's less than 100%, so that might as well be
nothing, right?). As David's pointed out to you with plenty of
references, it is.

> No, although I suspect (no proof) that the effect may be negative. Trust is
> part of the social deal.

While your usual, "it's my idea, so any percentage at all practically
proves my case" is again in force the sad fact is that for those cases
where your optimism breaks down we're left with dead and maimed people.

> They do demonstrate the possibilites rather well don't you think.

If you google you'll find we've been talking about them since February
and the mood is basically supportive. But again you extrapolate any
amount of success anywhere under any circumstances practically
guarantees it's as good as perfect anywhere, anytime /if/ it suits your
agenda, and that is a wild and unsupported extrapolation. But you make
it anyway, and if that is criticised you dismiss it as anti car groupthink.

> Hehe. I feel a bit like a referee denying a goal to the home team because
> it was offside. No matter how fair the decision he will be jeered and
> insulted by the home crowd.

You probably do feel a bit that way, without realising that though
you're being as genuinely fair as you can possibly be the fact of the
matter is your eyesight is very, very bad and the goal wasn't illegal in
the way you said, and the score really /should/ be one more for the home
side.

Like David has said, go away and read the research if you really think
you've got something. It isn't anyone here's job to spoon feed it to
you, especially as it's an awful lot of work for no reward. That it's
difficult for you to access isn't anyone here's fault, and if you're
*genuinely* interested in what it has to say the obstacles in your path
are really not too difficult to overcome.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
davek wrote:
>
> Yes. Just like "clunk click on every trip" is a figment of my own
> fevered brain.

This just /proves/ that urc Groupthink is so deeply ingrained that we
even have the same hallucinations!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:48:02 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>davek wrote:
>>
>> Yes. Just like "clunk click on every trip" is a figment of my own
>> fevered brain.
>
>This just /proves/ that urc Groupthink is so deeply ingrained that we
>even have the same hallucinations!
>

"Think once, think twice, think 'don't drive your car on the
pavement'"


Tim
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Yes, I was was right then too. 4x4's are not _all_ anti-social vehicles.
>
> And nobody has said they are, but you persist in trying to make out that
> because not all of them are it is pointless trying to argue against any
> cases where they really are.

Not at all! I persisted in arguing that because not all of them are, don't
group them all as if they all were.

>> They [naked streets] do demonstrate the possibilites rather well don't
>> you think.
>
> If you google you'll find we've been talking about them since February and
> the mood is basically supportive.

2005? Yes. I googled too, and found that I was promoting their potential at
least as far back as early 2002.

--
Matt B
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt B wrote:

> Do you really think that all
> accidents in London happen at the average speed? Of course not, so your
> little 'reducto ad absurdum' doesn't work.

Isn't the TRL line that each 1% reduction in _average_ speed results in a 5%
reduction in accidents? My point still stands.

>> >> But not as effectively or efficiently as other methods. Every little
>> >> helps, but there comes a point where no amoumt of flagellation will
>> >> achieve any equine response.
>> >
>> > And your evidence that there's nothing left to be gained from enforcing
>> > speed limits is?
>>
>> I never claimed that. My modest claim is that concentrating on
>> "speeding"
>> distracts from the big issue.
>
> And who is concentrating mostly upon speeding?

The camera partnerships?

> It is those who are
> upset about not being able to play with their toys in the way they
> want.

Sorry?

>> >> No, they seem to be the only ones still prepared to administer the
>> >> aspirin. Those who realise that speed is a sympton and not the disease
>> >> itself, and are seeking a vaccine, are in a much better position to
>> >> halt
>> >> the epidemic.
>> >
>> > And your evidence that they have an effective vaccine is, what? Some
>> > Naked Streets initiatives?
>>
>> They do demonstrate the possibilites rather well don't you think.
>
> For a very limited set of environments. However, the most effective
> methods of speed control and accident reduction

The most possible, or the _most_ from the ones compared, which didn't
include "naked streets"?

> are even more unpopular
> than speed cameras. And are not readily applicable to speeds above
> 30mph.

More imaginitive thinking is required then?

>> Hehe. I feel a bit like a referee denying a goal to the home team
>> because
>> it was offside. No matter how fair the decision he will be jeered and
>> insulted by the home crowd.
>
> You have delusions of grandeur.

Now now. I have "delusions" of a rational discussion on the subject
occurring.

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:

> Not at all! I persisted in arguing that because not all of them are, don't
> group them all as if they all were.

You still assume nobody but you can tell the difference between most
cases and all cases. Some of us can, despite your contrary opinion.

> 2005? Yes. I googled too, and found that I was promoting their potential at
> least as far back as early 2002.

And? Does that magically make them work everywhere? Does that
magically make all issue of speed everywhere disappear? No and no.

Go away and read the research David's pointed you at. That means go
away and read it, rather than asking someone to spoon feed it to you and
pretending that until someone does it's Really Useful to indulge in
largely baseless speculation.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Not at all! I persisted in arguing that because not all of them are,
>> don't group them all as if they all were.
>
> You still assume nobody but you can tell the difference between most cases
> and all cases. Some of us can, despite your contrary opinion.
>
>> 2005? Yes. I googled too, and found that I was promoting their potential
>> at least as far back as early 2002.
>
> And? Does that magically make them work everywhere?

Have they actually (really) appeared _anywhere_ in the UK yet?

> Does that magically make all issue of speed everywhere disappear?

If they aren't tried how can they?

> Go away and read the research David's pointed you at.

Sheesh.

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:

> Yes, I thought so. I recommended the very same reading (Mountain) to
> yourself in a thread in June. Did you read it? Your follow up comment was
> interesting :)

I asked for specific citations. You didn't provide any. You've been
given several here.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Matt B wrote:
> I wrote:
>>And? Does that magically make them work everywhere?

> Have they actually (really) appeared _anywhere_ in the UK yet?

And? Does that magically make them work everywhere?

>>Go away and read the research David's pointed you at.

> Sheesh.

I take it that means you won't? Please feel free to prove me wrong there.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>>And? Does that magically make them work everywhere?
>
>> Have they actually (really) appeared _anywhere_ in the UK yet?
>
> And? Does that magically make them work everywhere?
>
>>>Go away and read the research David's pointed you at.
>
>> Sheesh.
>
> I take it that means you won't? Please feel free to prove me wrong there.

Haven't got them. Can't find them on the web. Can't justify buying them.
Any suggestions?

--
Matt B
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Yes, I thought so. I recommended the very same reading (Mountain) to
>> yourself in a thread in June. Did you read it? Your follow up comment
>> was interesting :)
>
> I asked for specific citations.

You wanted spoon feeding.

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:

> You wanted spoon feeding.

Double standards again. Sheesh. A citation tells me what I'm looking
for. Spoon feeding involves not only telling you what to look for, but
goeing to considerable trouble to get it to you as well. There is a
very big difference, so you're actually the pot accling the electric jug
kettle black on this occasion.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Matt B wrote:

> Haven't got them. Can't find them on the web. Can't justify buying them.
> Any suggestions?

A library.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Haven't got them. Can't find them on the web. Can't justify buying
>> them. Any suggestions?
>
> A library.

Ah, should have mentioned, there are no libraries out here.

Would you imagine that a County library would buy that sort of "specialist"
report for me?

--
Matt B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
cycling speed trap in Bournemouth
Replies
0
Views
418
UK and Europe
MartinM
M
D
cycling speed trap in Bournemouth
Replies
17
Views
727
UK and Europe
James Hodson
J
A
Shimano Ultegra R8100 Di2 12 Speed Disc Groupset
Replies
1
Views
1K
UK and Europe
joe087797
J
R
10 speed to 10 speed
Replies
4
Views
748
UK and Europe
Roger Merriman
R
R
Judging cyclists speed
Replies
14
Views
702
UK and Europe
Roger Merriman
R
Top Bottom Back