Lights blue touchpaper...

[John Hearns]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JVAR2VXUL3N33QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/motoring/2007/01/27/mrjon27.xml



# Yesterday I had to take a half-mile walk in the early evening. The air
was damp and so was the ground. When I got to the traffic-choked main
road, however, I noticed that it and the pavement were dry, presumably
warmed by the heat of engines and exhaust systems. I can only surmise
from this (very unscientifically, I admit) that the vehicular
contribution to global warming (actually only 0.03 per cent) is caused
by traffic jams created by the likes of Ken Livingstone, not by drivers
going as quickly as they can. The purpose of most of the dodgy
statistics we are fed is to clobber us in a manner most voters will find
more acceptable than VAT or income tax rises.



Yup, that's Honest John trying to claim that the contribution to global
warming by cars is the heat given out by their engines.
Nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
I'm sure he knows better - just seems to be a bizarre way of having a
dig at Ken Livingstone.

[John Hearns]

TinyURL:

http://tinyurl.com/2uq5mr

[Matt B]

John Hearns wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JVAR2VXUL3N33QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/motoring/2007/01/27/mrjon27.xml
> # Yesterday I had to take a half-mile walk in the early evening. The air
> was damp and so was the ground. When I got to the traffic-choked main
> road, however, I noticed that it and the pavement were dry, presumably
> warmed by the heat of engines and exhaust systems. I can only surmise
> from this (very unscientifically, I admit) that the vehicular
> contribution to global warming (actually only 0.03 per cent) is caused
> by traffic jams created by the likes of Ken Livingstone, not by drivers
> going as quickly as they can. The purpose of most of the dodgy
> statistics we are fed is to clobber us in a manner most voters will find
> more acceptable than VAT or income tax rises.
>
> Yup, that's Honest John trying to claim that the contribution to global
> warming by cars is the heat given out by their engines.

You misread, or are misrepresenting what he is saying.

> Nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

Where does he say that?

He is suggesting that sitting in jams /is/ causing more greenhouse gases
to be emitted than using the engine efficiently for propulsion. Do you
disagree?

> I'm sure he knows better - just seems to be a bizarre way of having a
> dig at Ken Livingstone.

Jams, caused by poor road provision, and poor traffic management, create
unnecessary emissions. Do you disagree with that?

Perhaps you believe that the London road system, and its traffic
management, is optimised to cause the least amount of queuing traffic?

--
Matt B

[Roger Thorpe]

Matt B wrote:

> John Hearns wrote:
>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JVAR2VXUL3N33QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/motoring/2007/01/27/mrjon27.xml
>> # Yesterday I had to take a half-mile walk in the early evening. The
>> air was damp and so was the ground. When I got to the traffic-choked
>> main road, however, I noticed that it and the pavement were dry,
>> presumably warmed by the heat of engines and exhaust systems. I can
>> only surmise from this (very unscientifically, I admit) that the
>> vehicular contribution to global warming (actually only 0.03 per cent)
>> is caused by traffic jams created by the likes of Ken Livingstone, not
>> by drivers going as quickly as they can. The purpose of most of the
>> dodgy statistics we are fed is to clobber us in a manner most voters
>> will find more acceptable than VAT or income tax rises.
>>
>> Yup, that's Honest John trying to claim that the contribution to
>> global warming by cars is the heat given out by their engines.
>
>
> You misread, or are misrepresenting what he is saying.
>
>> Nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
>
>
> Where does he say that?
>
> He is suggesting that sitting in jams /is/ causing more greenhouse gases
> to be emitted than using the engine efficiently for propulsion. Do you
> disagree?
>
>> I'm sure he knows better - just seems to be a bizarre way of having a
>> dig at Ken Livingstone.
>
>
> Jams, caused by poor road provision, and poor traffic management, create
> unnecessary emissions. Do you disagree with that?
>
> Perhaps you believe that the London road system, and its traffic
> management, is optimised to cause the least amount of queuing traffic?
>
Well, It can't be denied that the fuel used while the vehicle is
stationary is wasted, but things aren't quite as simple as that.
If charging motorists more to dissuade them seems ineffective it may
well be that reducing the utility of them might provide the motivation
needed to get them to use the alternatives. It's the flip side to the
build bigger roads and the traffic will increase phenomenon.
I would also argue that if cars do use a significant amount of fuel
while in heavy, slow moving traffic then they have not been properly
designed for the real world.

Oh, and by the way, to observe that;
quote
I noticed that it and the pavement were dry, presumably warmed by the
heat of engines and exhaust systems.
unquote
and connect this DIRECTLY with global warming does suggest a
misunderstanding.

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

[Daniel Barlow]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Oh, and by the way, to observe that;
> quote
> I noticed that it and the pavement were dry, presumably warmed by the
> heat of engines and exhaust systems.
> unquote
> and connect this DIRECTLY with global warming does suggest a
> misunderstanding.

Given that the poor man had just "had" to take a half mile walk I can
quite understand that he was under emotional strain and not thinking
clearly, but he's not comparing like with like anyway. The ground was
damp, the congested busy road was not, but he hasn't compared with an
uncongested busy road. If he were to do so, he would most probably find
that that is also dry. This can be observed on many roads in central
London at times of day when the traffic levels are low enough to allow
free flow between one set of lights and the next.



-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

[Steve]

In article >, Daniel Barlow says...

>
> Given that the poor man had just "had" to take a half mile walk I can
> quite understand that he was under emotional strain and not thinking
> clearly, but he's not comparing like with like anyway. The ground was
> damp, the congested busy road was not, but he hasn't compared with an
> uncongested busy road. If he were to do so, he would most probably find
> that that is also dry. This can be observed on many roads in central
> London at times of day when the traffic levels are low enough to allow
> free flow between one set of lights and the next.
>
>
>
> -dan
>
>
Nah. I'm sure there are people around here that would argue a true like
for like comparison would be with a disused railway line in Benidorm in
the summer - after all the OP was thinking about his forthcoming holiday
in Spain when he wrote what he did!

[Matt B]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Jams, caused by poor road provision, and poor traffic management,
>> create unnecessary emissions. Do you disagree with that?
>>
>> Perhaps you believe that the London road system, and its traffic
>> management, is optimised to cause the least amount of queuing traffic?
>>
> Well, It can't be denied that the fuel used while the vehicle is
> stationary is wasted, but things aren't quite as simple as that.
> If charging motorists more to dissuade them seems ineffective

You assume that suppressing traffic is the only way to alleviate the
problem. Another solution is to make/allow traffic to flow more freely.
We had a notorious traffic problem on a t-junction junction near us.
The morning and evening rush resulted in long queues. The problem was
solved by dividing the existing road space on the 'stem' into two lanes
out and one lane in (it was one out, one in before), so that traffic
waiting to turn right didn't hold-up traffic waiting to turn left.
Simple, but effective.

The problem in London though is the conflict of interest between
allowing traffic to flow freely and justifying the revenue-raising
congestion charge.

> it may
> well be that reducing the utility of them might provide the motivation
> needed to get them to use the alternatives.

Or /increasing/ the 'utility' of the alternatives. A free door-to-door
bus service for schools, offices, and shops might tempt some to leave
their cars at home.

> It's the flip side to the
> build bigger roads and the traffic will increase phenomenon.

That is a fallacy though. The only increase is where there is already
latent demand, or where the resulting road network is poorly balanced
(like the M25). I'm sure you can think of many roads which have been
built in the last 50 years which are not constantly congested.

> I would also argue that if cars do use a significant amount of fuel
> while in heavy, slow moving traffic then they have not been properly
> designed for the real world.

Or the road and traffic planners haven't actually kept pace with real
world demands of their paymasters and customers.

--
Matt B

[Jon]

On 30 Jan, 10:22, Matt B > wrote:

> He is suggesting that sitting in jams /is/ causing more greenhouse gases
> to be emitted than using the engine efficiently for propulsion. Do you
> disagree?

It does indeed (although this can be reduced by drivers switching off
warm engines in longer delays). This is why the car is not a sensible
mode of transport in a setting where mass car use will necessarily
cause jams.

> Jams, caused by poor road provision, and poor traffic management, create
> unnecessary emissions. Do you disagree with that?

Jams, whatever the cause, create emissions. Excessive use of space-
wasting types of vehicle is a common cause.

> Perhaps you believe that the London road system, and its traffic
> management, is optimised to cause the least amount of queuing traffic?

No - it is clearly not yet effective at discouraging the inefficient
use of road space.

Jon

[Matt B]

Jon wrote:
> On 30 Jan, 10:22, Matt B > wrote:
>
>> He is suggesting that sitting in jams /is/ causing more greenhouse gases
>> to be emitted than using the engine efficiently for propulsion. Do you
>> disagree?
>
> It does indeed (although this can be reduced by drivers switching off
> warm engines in longer delays). This is why the car is not a sensible
> mode of transport in a setting where mass car use will necessarily
> cause jams.

It is also a reason why we should not accept that there is nothing more
that can be done to improve traffic flow - other than reducing traffic.

>> Jams, caused by poor road provision, and poor traffic management, create
>> unnecessary emissions. Do you disagree with that?
>
> Jams, whatever the cause, create emissions. Excessive use of space-
> wasting types of vehicle is a common cause.

I would suggest that a more common cause is poor traffic management.

How often are cars stationary at traffic lights when the junction is
completely clear of any reason why they shouldn't proceed?

How often does an unnecessary/deliberate bottleneck cause a tailback
upstream where there is no congestion downstream?

>> Perhaps you believe that the London road system, and its traffic
>> management, is optimised to cause the least amount of queuing traffic?
>
> No - it is clearly not yet effective at discouraging the inefficient
> use of road space.

Do you think that London roads and their traffic management systems,
such as junction design etc. are optimised to minimise queuing?

--
Matt B

[Roger Thorpe]

Matt B wrote:

> I would suggest that a more common cause is poor traffic management.
>
> How often are cars stationary at traffic lights when the junction is
> completely clear of any reason why they shouldn't proceed?
>
> How often does an unnecessary/deliberate bottleneck cause a tailback
> upstream where there is no congestion downstream?
>

In london 20 years ago the sequencing of lights certainly used to be
arranged to encourage a smooth flow. The only way that I ever actually
noticed its operation was when travelling AWAY from the centre during
the INWARD rush hour or vice versa. that's when you really did catch
every red light.
Are things different now?

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that a more common cause is poor traffic management.
>>
>> How often are cars stationary at traffic lights when the junction is
>> completely clear of any reason why they shouldn't proceed?
>>
>> How often does an unnecessary/deliberate bottleneck cause a tailback
>> upstream where there is no congestion downstream?
>>
>
> In london 20 years ago the sequencing of lights certainly used to be
> arranged to encourage a smooth flow. The only way that I ever actually
> noticed its operation was when travelling AWAY from the centre during
> the INWARD rush hour or vice versa. that's when you really did catch
> every red light.
> Are things different now?

Light sequencing is organised to optimise overall traffic flow within the
abilities of the designers to manage this.

I know that in London the timings are dynamically altered with traffic
conditions. I imagine it's the case in much of the rest of the country.

If Matt B has any ideas of where this dynamic timing is inadequate, I'm sure
TfL would love to hear from him.

A

[Matt B]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that a more common cause is poor traffic management.
>>
>> How often are cars stationary at traffic lights when the junction is
>> completely clear of any reason why they shouldn't proceed?
>>
>> How often does an unnecessary/deliberate bottleneck cause a tailback
>> upstream where there is no congestion downstream?
>>
>
> In london 20 years ago the sequencing of lights certainly used to be
> arranged to encourage a smooth flow. The only way that I ever actually
> noticed its operation was when travelling AWAY from the centre during
> the INWARD rush hour or vice versa. that's when you really did catch
> every red light.
> Are things different now?

Didn't they tamper with the phasing before congestion charging was
introduced to "bolster their case" that congestion was getting worse?

Additionally, we now have many more sets of traffic lights, and each set
now has longer "dead" periods when nothing is allowed to enter the junction.

I've often witnessed, and often heard others mention, that traffic light
junctions flow more freely when the lights are out-of-order.

Haven't you ever been at the head of a queue at a junction waiting for a
light to turn green when the junction is already perfectly clear, and
nothing has crossed it for 30 seconds or more? That is a wanton waste
of road capacity which should be eliminated before they have the cheek
to charge for road use.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
> Light sequencing is organised to optimise overall traffic flow within the
> abilities of the designers to manage this.
>
> I know that in London the timings are dynamically altered with traffic
> conditions. I imagine it's the case in much of the rest of the country.
>
> If Matt B has any ideas of where this dynamic timing is inadequate, I'm sure
> TfL would love to hear from him.

Do you know of a /single/ light controlled junction left in the whole
country that doesn't have a dead period between each change when /all/
the lights are on red?

That is an unnecessary waste of road lane capacity for umpteen seconds
during each light change. Then multiply it by the number of changes per
cycle at a given junction - and then by the number of light cycles per
day - and then by the number of road lanes entering the junction - and
then by the number of light-controlled junctions in the city. An awful
lot of waste.

--
Matt B

[Alan Braggins]

In article . com>, Jon wrote:
>On 30 Jan, 10:22, Matt B > wrote:
>
>> He is suggesting that sitting in jams /is/ causing more greenhouse gases
>> to be emitted than using the engine efficiently for propulsion. Do you
>> disagree?
>
>It does indeed

But that's completely irrelevent to "Honest John"'s observation that
the busy road was drier, which didn't mention greenhouse gases at all.

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Jon wrote:
>> On 30 Jan, 10:22, Matt B > wrote:
>>
>>> He is suggesting that sitting in jams /is/ causing more greenhouse
>>> gases to be emitted than using the engine efficiently for
>>> propulsion. Do you disagree?
>>
>> It does indeed
>
> But that's completely irrelevent to "Honest John"'s observation that
> the busy road was drier, which didn't mention greenhouse gases at all.

Especially not the greenhouse gas and car exhaust constituent known as water
vapour.

A

[Nigel Randell]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>
>> Light sequencing is organised to optimise overall traffic flow within the
>> abilities of the designers to manage this.
>>
>> I know that in London the timings are dynamically altered with traffic
>> conditions. I imagine it's the case in much of the rest of the country.
>>
>> If Matt B has any ideas of where this dynamic timing is inadequate, I'm
>> sure TfL would love to hear from him.
>
> Do you know of a /single/ light controlled junction left in the whole
> country that doesn't have a dead period between each change when /all/ the
> lights are on red?

Pentagon Island in Derby for one. Admittedly it's not a junction as such
but the principle is the same. As soon as the light in one direction is red
you get the red/amber signal on the other direction. Now I know that
pedantically speaking for the couple of seconds of the red/amber phase all
directions are on red, but given the tendancy of some road users to either
set off a second or two before green or conversly to go through on the
first couple of seconds of red you really don't want to see less separation
between the "go" phases.

>
> That is an unnecessary waste of road lane capacity for umpteen seconds
> during each light change. Then multiply it by the number of changes per
> cycle at a given junction - and then by the number of light cycles per
> day - and then by the number of road lanes entering the junction - and
> then by the number of light-controlled junctions in the city. An awful
> lot of waste.
>

What is your value for "umpteen"? - Your actual measured value for this
period of time? If the separation between the phases is too small then any
time saved will be offset by the amount of time it takes to clear the
wreckage from the junction.

--

Nigel

[Matt B]

Nigel Randell wrote:
> "Matt B" > wrote:

>> Do you know of a /single/ light controlled junction left in the whole
>> country that doesn't have a dead period between each change when /all/ the
>> lights are on red?
>...
>> That is an unnecessary waste of road lane capacity for umpteen seconds
>> during each light change. Then multiply it by the number of changes per
>> cycle at a given junction - and then by the number of light cycles per
>> day - and then by the number of road lanes entering the junction - and
>> then by the number of light-controlled junctions in the city. An awful
>> lot of waste.
>...
> If the separation between the phases is too small then any
> time saved will be offset by the amount of time it takes to clear the
> wreckage from the junction.

How do we manage at junctions /without/ lights? How do we manage when
the lights are out? Why are many European towns removing traffic lights
to improve safety and reduce congestion? Have traffic light collisions
been eliminated by this tactic?

--
Matt B

[Simon Dean]

Matt B wrote:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>
>> Light sequencing is organised to optimise overall traffic flow within
>> the abilities of the designers to manage this.
>>
>> I know that in London the timings are dynamically altered with traffic
>> conditions. I imagine it's the case in much of the rest of the country.
>>
>> If Matt B has any ideas of where this dynamic timing is inadequate,
>> I'm sure TfL would love to hear from him.
>
> Do you know of a /single/ light controlled junction left in the whole
> country that doesn't have a dead period between each change when /all/
> the lights are on red?

On the way to where I work, there's frequently a light controlled
junction that goes out of action. A main crossroads, drivers have to use
their wits. But in all that, unlike when it's controlled by traffic
lights, I've never seen a queue. Drivers take it slower, are more
cautious, but are off.

I've heard other suggestions, like, permitting left turns on a red light
(where road is clear), kind of like the right turns in America....

Just some thoughts....

Cya
Simon

[Simon Dean]

Matt B wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:

>> it may well be that reducing the utility of them might provide the
>> motivation needed to get them to use the alternatives.
>
> Or /increasing/ the 'utility' of the alternatives. A free door-to-door
> bus service for schools, offices, and shops might tempt some to leave
> their cars at home.

I would happily take the bus to work, if it didn't take an hour and a
half to get there compared to 30 minutes by car, not to mention the
frequent smells of "blow" that drifs from the top deck whenever I've
been on a bus.

Then of course there's the undeniable fact, that, well, I do actually
need a car for work... it's in the nature of my job.

Perhaps we should just get back to telling people "YOU HAVE NO CHOICE,
YOU WILL SEND YOUR KIDS TO THE LOCAL SCHOOL, YOU WILL GO TO THE LOCAL
HOSPITAL". Eh, but that'll only be achieved by decent investment to
bring school and health standards up. How shall we do that? oh I know,
lets tax the motorist.

[Nigel Randell]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> Nigel Randell wrote:
>> "Matt B" > wrote:
>
>>> Do you know of a /single/ light controlled junction left in the whole
>>> country that doesn't have a dead period between each change when /all/
>>> the lights are on red?
>>...
>>> That is an unnecessary waste of road lane capacity for umpteen seconds
>>> during each light change. Then multiply it by the number of changes per
>>> cycle at a given junction - and then by the number of light cycles per
>>> day - and then by the number of road lanes entering the junction - and
>>> then by the number of light-controlled junctions in the city. An awful
>>> lot of waste.
>>...
>> If the separation between the phases is too small then any time saved
>> will be offset by the amount of time it takes to clear the wreckage from
>> the junction.
>
> How do we manage at junctions /without/ lights?

Sounds like you need to talk with your driving instructor ;-)

>How do we manage when the lights are out?

Usually with difficulty, in fact faulty traffic lights are often warned
about on radio traffic bulletins so that they can be avoided.

Why are many European towns removing traffic lights
> to improve safety and reduce congestion?

Which ones? Do you have a reference?

In the US many crossroads are uncontrolled and operate on the "4 way stop"
principle where you stop at the junction and remain there until every
vehicle which was already there has gone. No one has priority based on
which road they are on. Often these junctions have traffic lights (can be
used at peak periods) but are denoted as 4 ways by a red flashing light. It
does work for relatively light traffic, but for busy grid roads you need the
alternating priority at intersections that traffic lights give.

>Have traffic light collisions been eliminated by this tactic?

Obviously. No traffic lights = no traffic light collisions. Other
collisions are available.

--

Nigel

[Matt B]

Simon Dean wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>
>>> Light sequencing is organised to optimise overall traffic flow within
>>> the abilities of the designers to manage this.
>>>
>>> I know that in London the timings are dynamically altered with
>>> traffic conditions. I imagine it's the case in much of the rest of
>>> the country.
>>>
>>> If Matt B has any ideas of where this dynamic timing is inadequate,
>>> I'm sure TfL would love to hear from him.
>>
>> Do you know of a /single/ light controlled junction left in the whole
>> country that doesn't have a dead period between each change when /all/
>> the lights are on red?
>
> On the way to where I work, there's frequently a light controlled
> junction that goes out of action. A main crossroads, drivers have to use
> their wits. But in all that, unlike when it's controlled by traffic
> lights, I've never seen a queue. Drivers take it slower, are more
> cautious, but are off.

Exactly. They go slower without the need for more speed limit
enforcement! A miracle? No just applied psychology. Remove the safety
cues and increase the perception of risk and people behave more
cautiously. When will the speed limit worshippers cotton-on?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

Nigel Randell wrote:
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nigel Randell wrote:
>>> "Matt B" > wrote:
>>>> Do you know of a /single/ light controlled junction left in the whole
>>>> country that doesn't have a dead period between each change when /all/
>>>> the lights are on red?
>>> ...
>>>> That is an unnecessary waste of road lane capacity for umpteen seconds
>>>> during each light change. Then multiply it by the number of changes per
>>>> cycle at a given junction - and then by the number of light cycles per
>>>> day - and then by the number of road lanes entering the junction - and
>>>> then by the number of light-controlled junctions in the city. An awful
>>>> lot of waste.
>>> ...
>>> If the separation between the phases is too small then any time saved
>>> will be offset by the amount of time it takes to clear the wreckage from
>>> the junction.
>> How do we manage at junctions /without/ lights?
>
> Sounds like you need to talk with your driving instructor ;-)

We do manage though, and without excessive carnage, so what do lights
give us?

>> How do we manage when the lights are out?
>
> Usually with difficulty, in fact faulty traffic lights are often warned
> about on radio traffic bulletins so that they can be avoided.

There may be the odd, strategic, poorly designed junction, yes. But on
the whole lights-out means better traffic flow.

> Why are many European towns removing traffic lights
>> to improve safety and reduce congestion?
>
> Which ones? Do you have a reference?

http://mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=296902&area=/wheels_deals/wheels_news/


--
Matt B

[Roger Thorpe]

Simon Dean wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
>
>>> it may well be that reducing the utility of them might provide the
>>> motivation needed to get them to use the alternatives.
>>
>>
>> Or /increasing/ the 'utility' of the alternatives. A free
>> door-to-door bus service for schools, offices, and shops might tempt
>> some to leave their cars at home.
>
>
> I would happily take the bus to work, if it didn't take an hour and a
> half to get there compared to 30 minutes by car, not to mention the
> frequent smells of "blow" that drifs from the top deck whenever I've
> been on a bus.
>
> Then of course there's the undeniable fact, that, well, I do actually
> need a car for work... it's in the nature of my job.
>
> Perhaps we should just get back to telling people "YOU HAVE NO CHOICE,
> YOU WILL SEND YOUR KIDS TO THE LOCAL SCHOOL, YOU WILL GO TO THE LOCAL
> HOSPITAL". Eh, but that'll only be achieved by decent investment to
> bring school and health standards up. How shall we do that? oh I know,
> lets tax the motorist.
>
>
>
Ok, I know I'm going to get into trouble, but this is a cycling group so
I have to ask....
Why not go to work by bike?


--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

[Daniel Barlow]

Simon Dean wrote:
> Perhaps we should just get back to telling people "YOU HAVE NO CHOICE,
> YOU WILL SEND YOUR KIDS TO THE LOCAL SCHOOL, YOU WILL GO TO THE LOCAL
> HOSPITAL". Eh, but that'll only be achieved by decent investment to
> bring school and health standards up. How shall we do that? oh I know,
> lets tax the motorist.

Yes, I can't get free treatment from Swiss hospitals or from dentists in
Poland, and if I had kids I'm sure some interfering busybody would throw
a spanner in my plans to educate them in Belgium. It's an unacceptable
curtailment of my civil liberties not to be given free stuff wherever I
want it.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Simon Dean wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just get back to telling people "YOU HAVE NO CHOICE,
>> YOU WILL SEND YOUR KIDS TO THE LOCAL SCHOOL, YOU WILL GO TO THE LOCAL
>> HOSPITAL". Eh, but that'll only be achieved by decent investment to
>> bring school and health standards up. How shall we do that? oh I know,
>> lets tax the motorist.
>
> Yes, I can't get free treatment from Swiss hospitals

Do/have you paid through the nose to buy the Swiss health service?

> or from dentists in
> Poland,

Or from dentists in Britain. Even those who /have/ paid through the
nose to buy the British health service don't get that.

> and if I had kids I'm sure some interfering busybody would throw
> a spanner in my plans to educate them in Belgium.

Not if you have paid, or are willing to pay for it.

> It's an unacceptable
> curtailment of my civil liberties not to be given free stuff wherever I
> want it.

Free? Certainly not in the UK. But, having paid well over the odds for
the provision of these services, don't you think that it is reasonable
to expect to be allowed to use the ones that suit you best?

--
Matt B

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B wrote:
> Free? Certainly not in the UK. But, having paid well over the odds for
> the provision of these services, don't you think that it is reasonable
> to expect to be allowed to use the ones that suit you best?

Can you show me the receipt for any of these purchases you claim to have
made? Or the contracts you signed for the provision on these services?
No. Because you haven't. You have paid into a general pool of
taxation, and those who subsequently authorise spending on services that
may benefit you are under no compulsion to consider your personal
convenience to the detriment of everyone else's.

Grow up.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Free? Certainly not in the UK. But, having paid well over the odds for
>> the provision of these services, don't you think that it is reasonable
>> to expect to be allowed to use the ones that suit you best?
>
> Can you show me the receipt for any of these purchases you claim to have
> made?

Yes. It is the two big deduction numbers on every payslip I've ever
had, and the vast majority of the money I've ever spent on motor fuel,
and about 15% of most of what I've ever spent in the shops.

> Or the contracts you signed for the provision on these services?

Contracts are a little more tricky, it being a 'government' that is
involved in providing the services, but there is a de facto situation in
the UK that education and health care will be provided to those who
require it.

> No. Because you haven't.

Whoa, read above.

> You have paid into a general pool of
> taxation, and those who subsequently authorise spending on services that
> may benefit you are under no compulsion to consider your personal
> convenience to the detriment of everyone else's.

As our servants they are absolutely obliged to consider the requirements
of every individual who they serve. They are also obliged to seek
permission to continue their regimes every 5 years.

> Grow up.

You are happy to let them squander it as they need to to maximise their
chances of re-election, and to let them tell you how to live your own
life???

--
Matt B

[Simon Dean]

Roger Thorpe wrote:

>>
>>
> Ok, I know I'm going to get into trouble, but this is a cycling group so
> I have to ask....
> Why not go to work by bike?
>
>

No no, quite. That's why Im careful never to initiate a thread.... But
Im just replying....

Im looking to buy a bike, but Im still recovering from a second
quadricep tendon rupture. Hey ho. But 13 miles to work... Im not that
fit either... Besides, I've seen the way I drive. Would I want to be on
a bike when there's people like ME on the road :-)

Cya
Simon

[Simon Dean]

Matt B wrote:

> Exactly. They go slower without the need for more speed limit
> enforcement! A miracle? No just applied psychology. Remove the safety
> cues and increase the perception of risk and people behave more
> cautiously. When will the speed limit worshippers cotton-on?
>

That reminds me of an hilarious joke, rambling, muttering, whatever you
want to call it with regards to road safety and speed limits.

It went something along the lines...

There was this bridge, and every now and again, tall vehicles kept
getting stuck. So they altered the sign to say the bridge was lower than
it was. Success. It bought down the number of accidents.

So then the bright planners thought this is fantastic, by lowering the
limits we can reduce accidents...

However they were reduced so much that people found them unrealistic and
tall vehicles continued to get stuck. So they decided that they'd better
continue reducing the limits because it's obvious, height kills...

http://www.abd.org.uk/ht-kills.htm

Cya
Simon

[Nigel Randell]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> Nigel Randell wrote:
>> "Matt B" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Nigel Randell wrote:
>>>> "Matt B" > wrote:
>>>>> Do you know of a /single/ light controlled junction left in the whole
>>>>> country that doesn't have a dead period between each change when /all/
>>>>> the lights are on red?
>>>> ...
>>>>> That is an unnecessary waste of road lane capacity for umpteen seconds
>>>>> during each light change. Then multiply it by the number of changes
>>>>> per cycle at a given junction - and then by the number of light cycles
>>>>> per day - and then by the number of road lanes entering the junction -
>>>>> and then by the number of light-controlled junctions in the city. An
>>>>> awful lot of waste.
>>>> ...
>>>> If the separation between the phases is too small then any time saved
>>>> will be offset by the amount of time it takes to clear the wreckage
>>>> from the junction.
>>> How do we manage at junctions /without/ lights?
>>
>> Sounds like you need to talk with your driving instructor ;-)
>
> We do manage though, and without excessive carnage, so what do lights give
> us?
>
>>> How do we manage when the lights are out?
>>
>> Usually with difficulty, in fact faulty traffic lights are often warned
>> about on radio traffic bulletins so that they can be avoided.
>
> There may be the odd, strategic, poorly designed junction, yes. But on
> the whole lights-out means better traffic flow.
>
>> Why are many European towns removing traffic lights
>>> to improve safety and reduce congestion?
>>
>> Which ones? Do you have a reference?
>
> http://mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=296902&area=/wheels_deals/wheels_news/
>


Hmm... "In this utopian world, cars, motorcyclists, cyclists and
pedestrians would blend into a peaceful stream."

Nice idea, but granite cobblestones? Is this the best way to encourage
cycling?

--

Nigel

[Al C-F]

Simon Dean wrote:

>
> Im looking to buy a bike, but Im still recovering from a second
> quadricep tendon rupture. Hey ho. But 13 miles to work... Im not that
> fit either...

Soon will be.


> Besides, I've seen the way I drive. Would I want to be on
> a bike when there's people like ME on the road :-)
>
So cycling might teach you a bit about being a considerate driver.

[Simon Dean]

Al C-F wrote:
> Simon Dean wrote:
>
>>
>> Im looking to buy a bike, but Im still recovering from a second
>> quadricep tendon rupture. Hey ho. But 13 miles to work... Im not that
>> fit either...
>
> Soon will be.
>
>
> > Besides, I've seen the way I drive. Would I want to be on
>> a bike when there's people like ME on the road :-)
>>
> So cycling might teach you a bit about being a considerate driver.

I see the smilie and the, er, whatever it was I meant, I'll say sarcasm,
went over the top of your head?

No need to lecture me my old chum on considerate driving and all that...
I already am, and leave ample room for cyclists...

I argue to have the same consideration shown back at me. That's all.

Cya
simon

[Matt B]

Nigel Randell wrote:
> "Matt B" > wrote:
>> Nigel Randell wrote:
> >> "Matt B" > wrote:
> >>> Why are many European towns removing traffic lights
>>>> to improve safety and reduce congestion?
>>> Which ones? Do you have a reference?
>> http://mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=296902&area=/wheels_deals/wheels_news/
>
> Hmm... "In this utopian world, cars, motorcyclists, cyclists and
> pedestrians would blend into a peaceful stream."

Yes. As they currently do in several Dutch towns. Have you seen the
BBC news video with Hans Monderman in Drachten, and discussing the
planned scheme for Exhibition Road in London[1]?

> Nice idea, but granite cobblestones? Is this the best way to encourage
> cycling?

It isn't specifically designed to /encourage/ cycling, but to remove the
de facto priority which motorists currently are given, and to emphasise
that the space is available for all road users, equally. Although I
suppose it /could/ all be paved in Afzelia :-)

[1] Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk and search for "'Shared space' to make
roads safer" (including all the quotation marks). It may say "sorry no
results", but then go to the "BBC Audio & Video" tab and you should see
the link.

--
Matt B

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Simon Dean wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Exactly. They go slower without the need for more speed limit
>> enforcement! A miracle? No just applied psychology. Remove the
>> safety cues and increase the perception of risk and people behave
>> more cautiously. When will the speed limit worshippers cotton-on?
>>
> That reminds me of an hilarious joke, rambling, muttering, whatever
> you want to call it with regards to road safety and speed limits.
>
> It went something along the lines...
>
> There was this bridge, and every now and again, tall vehicles kept
> getting stuck. So they altered the sign to say the bridge was lower
> than it was. Success. It bought down the number of accidents.> So then the
> bright planners thought this is fantastic, by lowering the
> limits we can reduce accidents...
>
> However they were reduced so much that people found them unrealistic
> and tall vehicles continued to get stuck. So they decided that they'd
> better continue reducing the limits because it's obvious, height
> kills...

I don't understand. Is there an analogy you're trying to draw here?

--
A

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ambrose Nankivell >:
>Simon Dean wrote:
>>However they were reduced so much that people found them unrealistic
>>and tall vehicles continued to get stuck. So they decided that they'd
>>better continue reducing the limits because it's obvious, height
>>kills...
>I don't understand. Is there an analogy you're trying to draw here?

Remember that "safe speed" kooks don't believe that kinetic energy is
proportional to the square of velocity.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!
Today is Teleute, February.

[Ambrose Nankivell]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Ambrose Nankivell >:
>> Simon Dean wrote:
>>> However they were reduced so much that people found them unrealistic
>>> and tall vehicles continued to get stuck. So they decided that
>>> they'd better continue reducing the limits because it's obvious,
>>> height kills...
>> I don't understand. Is there an analogy you're trying to draw here?
>
> Remember that "safe speed" kooks don't believe that kinetic energy is
> proportional to the square of velocity.

That's just left-wing liberal talk. Everyone knows that thanks to the
Evangelical Centre for Faith Based Reasoning, we now have the theory of
Intelligent Falling, and thus can *prove* that it's safer to exceed the
speed limit.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

--
A

[Matt B]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Ambrose Nankivell >:
>> Simon Dean wrote:
>>> However they were reduced so much that people found them unrealistic
>>> and tall vehicles continued to get stuck. So they decided that they'd
>>> better continue reducing the limits because it's obvious, height
>>> kills...
>> I don't understand. Is there an analogy you're trying to draw here?
>
> Remember that "safe speed" kooks don't believe that kinetic energy is
> proportional to the square of velocity.

If you say so, and whoever they may be.

However, amongst those of us who know otherwise, and who wish to see a
serious reduction in casualties on our roads - across the whole country,
there is a serious question-mark over the use of speed limits, and speed
limit enforcement, to achieve those goals.

What many /know/ we need, are measures that are likely to ensure that
traffic does not travel at inappropriate speeds - ever. We are not
prepared to tolerate these half-cocked measures, which have not
delivered any significant national reduction in road casualties, and
which actually /allow/ (some say encourage) inappropriate speed
absolutely anywhere, so long as it is below some arbitrary speed limit.

Please don't smugly suggest that those who disagree with the current
discredited and failed policies are idiots, or selfish, or have no
interest in reducing the carnage on our roads. Quite the opposite is
more likely to be the case.

Don't complacently accept the government spin on this issue - look at
the evidence, the RCGB statistics.

--
Matt B

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

David Damerell >typed

> Remember that "safe speed" kooks don't believe that kinetic energy is
> proportional to the square of velocity.

Many have difficulty understanding the concepts in that statement.

Many will not understand how braking distance is related to kinetic
energy etc...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Matt B]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> David Damerell >typed
>
>> Remember that "safe speed" kooks don't believe that kinetic energy is
>> proportional to the square of velocity.
>
> Many have difficulty understanding the concepts in that statement.
>
> Many will not understand how braking distance is related to kinetic
> energy etc...

And many more realise that it is inappropriate speed, not /speeding/
that is the real danger, especially given that most injury collisions
occur at speed /within/ the speed limit.

Now let us examine the thought process of those who worship at the speed
limit altar. Obviously many of them have difficulty in accepting that
the laws of physics don't magically cease to apply at speeds within the
speed limit - and assume that casualties which result from collisions at
those speeds are /simply unavoidable/.

I'd rather have _safe_ roads, even if it means abandoning the flawed
speed limit obsession - any day.

--
Matt B

[Roger Thorpe]

Matt B wrote:

> However, amongst those of us who know otherwise, and who wish to see a
> serious reduction in casualties on our roads - across the whole country,
> there is a serious question-mark over the use of speed limits, and speed
> limit enforcement, to achieve those goals.
>
> What many /know/ we need, are measures that are likely to ensure that
> traffic does not travel at inappropriate speeds - ever.

Who could disagree with that?
We are not
> prepared to tolerate these half-cocked measures, which have not
> delivered any significant national reduction in road casualties, and
> which actually /allow/ (some say encourage) inappropriate speed
> absolutely anywhere, so long as it is below some arbitrary speed limit.
>
Um... here logic seems to have failed. There's no reason why we can't
have speed limits AND some mechanism that enforces/encourages driving at
(god help me) a 'safe speed'.
The problem is that such a mechanism doesn't yet exist as far as I can
see and it is difficult to think of one that the 'poor, persecuted
motorist' will tolerate.

> Please don't smugly suggest that those who disagree with the current
> discredited and failed policies are idiots, or selfish, or have no
> interest in reducing the carnage on our roads. Quite the opposite is
> more likely to be the case.
>
> Don't complacently accept the government spin on this issue - look at
> the evidence, the RCGB statistics.
>
The argument that speed limit enforcement is ineffective as a road
safety measure goes against 'common sense' and, like the helmet issue is
what makes it a point of passionate argument. The anti-helmet and
anti-speed limit protagonists should all accept that they need shoulder
the burden of proof for their argument.
And that some people will think them nitwits.

For cyclists some roads are only usable at all because of speed limits
and the current trend to bigger, faster roundabouts must deter novices.
I would go so far as to say that cycling is a Good Thing and to
encourage that Good Thing we need to reduce traffic speed on the
majority of our roads.

By the way, do you ride a bike through that junction and do you really
feel safer? at night too?
--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

[Matt B]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> However, amongst those of us who know otherwise, and who wish to see a
>> serious reduction in casualties on our roads - across the whole
>> country, there is a serious question-mark over the use of speed
>> limits, and speed limit enforcement, to achieve those goals.
>>
>> What many /know/ we need, are measures that are likely to ensure that
>> traffic does not travel at inappropriate speeds - ever.
>
> Who could disagree with that?
> We are not
>> prepared to tolerate these half-cocked measures, which have not
>> delivered any significant national reduction in road casualties, and
>> which actually /allow/ (some say encourage) inappropriate speed
>> absolutely anywhere, so long as it is below some arbitrary speed limit.
>>
> Um... here logic seems to have failed.

It seems perfectly consistent to me.

> There's no reason why we can't
> have speed limits AND some mechanism that enforces/encourages driving at
> (god help me) a 'safe speed'.

The mere existence of speed limits send the wrong message, and they
trigger various subconscious psychological processes into action. They
provide a feeling of satisfaction and well-being for those who drive at
the limit, even if to drive at that speed might well be reckless for the
given conditions. They also provide a challenge and the prospect of the
rewards associated with rebelling to those who are so inclined.

TPIAW, the limits themselves can promote dangerous driving.

> The problem is that such a mechanism doesn't yet exist as far as I can
> see and it is difficult to think of one that the 'poor, persecuted
> motorist' will tolerate.

Such mechanisms do exist and have been seen to work elsewhere.

>> Please don't smugly suggest that those who disagree with the current
>> discredited and failed policies are idiots, or selfish, or have no
>> interest in reducing the carnage on our roads. Quite the opposite is
>> more likely to be the case.
>>
>> Don't complacently accept the government spin on this issue - look at
>> the evidence, the RCGB statistics.
>>
> The argument that speed limit enforcement is ineffective as a road
> safety measure goes against 'common sense' and, like the helmet issue is
> what makes it a point of passionate argument.

Yes, I completely agree. It is though, often the counter-intuitive
measures which are the most successful. It is like the "risk
compensation" effect. If you perceive more danger you take more care.
To make the roads safer we have to remove the cues which give us a comfy
feeling of safety, speed limits being one of them.

> The anti-helmet and
> anti-speed limit protagonists should all accept that they need shoulder
> the burden of proof for their argument.
> And that some people will think them nitwits.

Absolutely. The odds though are stacked against them, in terms of
resources and the ability to commission the appropriate research.

> For cyclists some roads are only usable at all because of speed limits

That assumes that nothing would replace the speed limits. We know
simply removing the limits won't work. We need to treat the roads in a
different way.

> and the current trend to bigger, faster roundabouts must deter novices.

The problem is the de facto priorities given to motor traffic.

> I would go so far as to say that cycling is a Good Thing and to
> encourage that Good Thing we need to reduce traffic speed on the
> majority of our roads.

One of the results of sound policies would inevitably be reduced traffic
speeds, but that shouldn't be the measure, or objective. The objective
should be the delivery of road usability for all (motor, pedal cycle,
horse, pedestrian) road users and sustainable road safety.

> By the way, do you ride a bike through that junction and do you really
> feel safer? at night too?

Which junction would that be?

--
Matt B

[Roger Thorpe]

Matt B wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
>> By the way, do you ride a bike through that junction and do you really
>> feel safer? at night too?
>
>
> Which junction would that be?
>
I meant the junction with the failed lights that i thought you were
talking about earlier. Irealise now it was someone else! sorry.


--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

[Matt B]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, do you ride a bike through that junction and do you
>>> really feel safer? at night too?
>>
>> Which junction would that be?
>>
> I meant the junction with the failed lights that i thought you were
> talking about earlier. Irealise now it was someone else! sorry.

Have you ever watched the BBC news video of the de-regulated traffic
scheme in Fryslân?[1] It shows how it can work, with no traffic lights
(or any other signs, lines or aids either).

[1] Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk and search for "'Shared space' to make
roads safer" (including all the quotation marks). It may say "sorry no
results", but then go to the "BBC Audio & Video" tab and you should see
the link.

--
Matt B

[Roger Thorpe]

Matt B wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
>> Matt B wrote:
>>
>>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, do you ride a bike through that junction and do you
>>>> really feel safer? at night too?
>>>
>>>
>>> Which junction would that be?
>>>
>> I meant the junction with the failed lights that i thought you were
>> talking about earlier. Irealise now it was someone else! sorry.
>
>
> Have you ever watched the BBC news video of the de-regulated traffic
> scheme in Fryslân?[1] It shows how it can work, with no traffic lights
> (or any other signs, lines or aids either).
>
> [1] Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk and search for "'Shared space' to make
> roads safer" (including all the quotation marks). It may say "sorry no
> results", but then go to the "BBC Audio & Video" tab and you should see
> the link.
>
An interesting experiment, and I didn't hear the sound but.....
I'd be astonished if motorists tolerated this except for localised zones.
The experience of Holland may be quite different from the UK. Fewer
bikes around make getting noticed that much harder. This will probably
only work where the density of peds and bikes is high.
I don't know what your experience of cycling is, but I have cycled
around London and elsewhere for a number of years. One of the most
frightening places is the Mall, outside the queen's gaff where it's so
posh that they can't have white lines. That, and the experience of
passing failed traffic lights tells me that it won't work. You're
invisible on a bike here. It makes all the difference.
I want the roads to be designed for cars, lorries and bikes, with safe
crossing for pedestrians. There are a lot of road features that make my
life more difficult, but that's not the issue. I want more people to be
out there on bikes and the current road environment and traffic speed
doesn't encourage that.
roger

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

[Simon Dean]

Roger Thorpe wrote:

> The argument that speed limit enforcement is ineffective as a road
> safety measure goes against 'common sense'

Bull crap... common sense should be about driving safely... "Limit
Enforcement" isn't common sense when dangerous driving isn't addressed.

Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel? Does it
stop mobile phone use?

All these speed limits and control have just eroded our responsibility,
we have forgotten what it means to drive/cycle responsibily and safely.
We as a nation are unable to think for ourselves and understand what is
"safe".

Therefore, we see speed is the route of all evil.

I don't think anybody is arguing though that the speed plays a part in
how serious the accident is, speed and speed limits is not the cause of
accidents. Of course you go slower, and if you do have an accident, then
it's less severe than a high speed collision.

Im sure you've all heard the old story... Travelling at 25mph past a
school at 8.40am would probably be too dangerous. But driving past the
same school at 2am when you have excellent visibility could be safe at
50 mph!

Cya
Simon

[Tony Raven]

Simon Dean wrote on 02/02/2007 23:32 +0100:
>
> Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
> traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel? Does it
> stop mobile phone use?
>

No but it dramatically reduces the consequences if someone does.

Does a gun law stop someone strangling you or stabbing you with a
kitchen knife? Is enforcing a gun law a good idea?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Simon Dean]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Dean wrote on 02/02/2007 23:32 +0100:
>>
>> Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
>> traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel? Does
>> it stop mobile phone use?
>>
>
> No but it dramatically reduces the consequences if someone does.

Hence the bit of my argument that you conveniently snipped.

Of course, one might argue that if someone does get into an accident,
maybe they were travelling too fast for the conditions and therefore
irresponsibly in the first place - if people take on that personal
responsibly and think outside "limits" (ie "Im within limit, so I must
be OK, and anything over is clearly unsafe") I think roads would be safer...

> Does a gun law stop someone strangling you or stabbing you with a
> kitchen knife? Is enforcing a gun law a good idea?

In the long run, it probably is a good idea. Though have you noticed,
how the criminals that actually want to use guns, still use guns? All it
seems to have done is to have prevented a perfectly law abiding
responsible person from owning/using guns...

Cya
Simon

[Tony Raven]

Simon Dean wrote on 03/02/2007 10:58 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Simon Dean wrote on 02/02/2007 23:32 +0100:
>>>
>>> Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
>>> traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel? Does
>>> it stop mobile phone use?
>>>
>>
>> No but it dramatically reduces the consequences if someone does.
>
> Hence the bit of my argument that you conveniently snipped.
>
> Of course, one might argue that if someone does get into an accident,
> maybe they were travelling too fast for the conditions and therefore
> irresponsibly in the first place - if people take on that personal
> responsibly and think outside "limits" (ie "Im within limit, so I must
> be OK, and anything over is clearly unsafe") I think roads would be
> safer...

Which has nothing to do with the effect of speed on the consequences of
accidents.

>
>> Does a gun law stop someone strangling you or stabbing you with a
>> kitchen knife? Is enforcing a gun law a good idea?
>
> In the long run, it probably is a good idea. Though have you noticed,
> how the criminals that actually want to use guns, still use guns? All it
> seems to have done is to have prevented a perfectly law abiding
> responsible person from owning/using guns...
>

UR the NRA and ICMFP.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Matt B]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Dean wrote on 02/02/2007 23:32 +0100:
>>
>> Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
>> traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel? Does
>> it stop mobile phone use?
>
> No but it dramatically reduces the consequences if someone does.
>
> Does a gun law stop someone strangling you or stabbing you with a
> kitchen knife? Is enforcing a gun law a good idea?

Has gun crime ceased, or even dropped, since the more stringent measures
were introduced?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Dean wrote on 03/02/2007 10:58 +0100:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Simon Dean wrote on 02/02/2007 23:32 +0100:
>>>>
>>>> Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
>>>> traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel?
>>>> Does it stop mobile phone use?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No but it dramatically reduces the consequences if someone does.
>>
>> Hence the bit of my argument that you conveniently snipped.
>>
>> Of course, one might argue that if someone does get into an accident,
>> maybe they were travelling too fast for the conditions and therefore
>> irresponsibly in the first place - if people take on that personal
>> responsibly and think outside "limits" (ie "Im within limit, so I must
>> be OK, and anything over is clearly unsafe") I think roads would be
>> safer...
>
> Which has nothing to do with the effect of speed on the consequences of
> accidents.

Speed at impact /does/ affect the outcome of accidents. That is why
many believe that speed limits and their enforcement are not effective
at reducing accidents. Speed limits don't encourage appropriate speed,
they condone /any/ speed within the arbitrary limit. We want a measure
that reduces speed to an appropriate level, rather than to a level just
below a cap. Most accidents already occur within the limit, so what
good can they do? Limits, despite what the HC says on the subject,
provide a target and an acceptable level for inappropriate speed.
Limits are not flexible of dynamic - road conditions are.

--
Matt B

[Simon Dean]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Dean wrote on 03/02/2007 10:58 +0100:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Simon Dean wrote on 02/02/2007 23:32 +0100:
>>>>
>>>> Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
>>>> traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel?
>>>> Does it stop mobile phone use?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No but it dramatically reduces the consequences if someone does.
>>
>> Hence the bit of my argument that you conveniently snipped.
>>
>> Of course, one might argue that if someone does get into an accident,
>> maybe they were travelling too fast for the conditions and therefore
>> irresponsibly in the first place - if people take on that personal
>> responsibly and think outside "limits" (ie "Im within limit, so I must
>> be OK, and anything over is clearly unsafe") I think roads would be
>> safer...
>
> Which has nothing to do with the effect of speed on the consequences of
> accidents.

And why would I need to repeat myself? You already snipped that bit out.
Google it!

Cheers
Simon

[Simon Dean]

Matt B wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Simon Dean wrote on 03/02/2007 10:58 +0100:
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>> Simon Dean wrote on 02/02/2007 23:32 +0100:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
>>>>> traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel?
>>>>> Does it stop mobile phone use?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No but it dramatically reduces the consequences if someone does.
>>>
>>> Hence the bit of my argument that you conveniently snipped.
>>>
>>> Of course, one might argue that if someone does get into an accident,
>>> maybe they were travelling too fast for the conditions and therefore
>>> irresponsibly in the first place - if people take on that personal
>>> responsibly and think outside "limits" (ie "Im within limit, so I
>>> must be OK, and anything over is clearly unsafe") I think roads would
>>> be safer...
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with the effect of speed on the consequences
>> of accidents.
>
> Speed at impact /does/ affect the outcome of accidents. That is why
> many believe that speed limits and their enforcement are not effective
> at reducing accidents. Speed limits don't encourage appropriate speed,
> they condone /any/ speed within the arbitrary limit. We want a measure
> that reduces speed to an appropriate level, rather than to a level just
> below a cap. Most accidents already occur within the limit, so what
> good can they do?

Yes. I nearly had a head on collision with someone. It was in a 30mph
limit zone. I was travelling at 20, he was travelling even slower, yet
we still nearly had a head on collision.

How did this happen?

He was travelling on the wrong side of a dual carriageway!

It's not that I necessarily object to limits, but it's people
perceptions that anything outside of the limit means death, famine,
destruction, all these "speed kills" nonsense.

Cya
Simon

[Matt B]

Simon Dean wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Simon Dean wrote on 03/02/2007 10:58 +0100:
>>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>>> Simon Dean wrote on 02/02/2007 23:32 +0100:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does speed limit enforcement stop a driver pulling out on me on a
>>>>>> traffic island? Does it stop somebody falling asleep at a wheel?
>>>>>> Does it stop mobile phone use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No but it dramatically reduces the consequences if someone does.
>>>>
>>>> Hence the bit of my argument that you conveniently snipped.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, one might argue that if someone does get into an
>>>> accident, maybe they were travelling too fast for the conditions and
>>>> therefore irresponsibly in the first place - if people take on that
>>>> personal responsibly and think outside "limits" (ie "Im within
>>>> limit, so I must be OK, and anything over is clearly unsafe") I
>>>> think roads would be safer...
>>>
>>> Which has nothing to do with the effect of speed on the consequences
>>> of accidents.
>>
>> Speed at impact /does/ affect the outcome of accidents. That is why
>> many believe that speed limits and their enforcement are not effective
>> at reducing accidents. Speed limits don't encourage appropriate
>> speed, they condone /any/ speed within the arbitrary limit. We want a
>> measure that reduces speed to an appropriate level, rather than to a
>> level just below a cap. Most accidents already occur within the
>> limit, so what good can they do?
>
> Yes. I nearly had a head on collision with someone. It was in a 30mph
> limit zone. I was travelling at 20, he was travelling even slower, yet
> we still nearly had a head on collision.
>
> How did this happen?
>
> He was travelling on the wrong side of a dual carriageway!
>
> It's not that I necessarily object to limits, but it's people
> perceptions that anything outside of the limit means death, famine,
> destruction, all these "speed kills" nonsense.

The problem with limits, even if the speed they allow is appropriate for
all the conditions in the zone they apply to, is that they aren't
sustainable. They rely on every inch of every road being continually
enforced. If the enforcement is absent the limits are not effective.

Better to have "self explaining roads", where inappropriate speed is
never contemplated. Where the facility is not available, or the
temptation offered, or the environment such that inappropriate speeds
are likely.

If you provide a clear, demarked runway, a green light, and teach
pedestrians to keep clear at their own peril, even if you do also erect
a speed limit sign, what do you expect? It's like putting up a "do not
touch" sign in a shop with all the toys displayed out of their boxes.

Human nature will always prevail - use it to best advantage, don't
artificially suppress it.

--
Matt B