Re: Another wrist slapping

[spindrift]

" in a car 30 doesn't feel fast nor does 50. "

Quite right, cars are hermetically sealed bubbles of contentment, the
impression of speed is deadened, quietened, diminished, silenced.
Suspension is better making a smoother ride, airbags and crumple zones
are common so the driver knows they are protected should they crash at
speed. Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation as when
the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.

Advances in the human body to withstand an impact with a ton of metal
travelling at lethal speeds have not matched these advances.
Vulnerable road users are just as vulnerable.

Just what does a killer driver have to do to lose their licence? Get
rid of them, the roads are overcrowded after all, and populated by far
too many people like Ms Hunter who learn nothing from their (two)
previous convictions for speeding.

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> " in a car 30 doesn't feel fast nor does 50. "
>
> Quite right, cars are hermetically sealed bubbles of contentment, the
> impression of speed is deadened, quietened, diminished, silenced.
> Suspension is better making a smoother ride, airbags and crumple zones
> are common so the driver knows they are protected should they crash at
> speed. Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation...

Undoubtedly. And "risk compensation" is a natural human phenomenon, not
a criminal trait.

> ...as when
> the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.

Do you have a source for that? The official UK figures don't seem to
show it.

> Advances in the human body to withstand an impact with a ton of metal
> travelling at lethal speeds have not matched these advances.

Precisely. Now you see why we should be working towards a sustainable
way of ensuring that vulnerable human bodies, and hard metal objects
moving at speed, do not exist in the same space.

> Vulnerable road users are just as vulnerable.

Yes.

> Just what does a killer driver have to do to lose their licence?

Not much these days. Yet even with thousands of disqualified drivers,
the roads are still no safer.

Perhaps it is incorrect to assume that by banning drivers that have
already contravened some law or other, that all other drivers will
suddenly loose their human frailties and gasin super-human powers enough
to be able to concentrate on all laws and on all regulations and on all
road signs and on all road signals and on all other road users - all of
the time. - Funny that doesn't seem to hold true.

> Get
> rid of them, the roads are overcrowded after all, and populated by far
> too many people like Ms Hunter who learn nothing from their (two)
> previous convictions for speeding.

Or, alternatively, recongise the "human condition" as a valid, natural,
phenomenon, and design around it.

Do we want sustainable road safety, or more jails bulging full of normal
human beings?

--
Matt B

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:57:17 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>"risk compensation" is a natural human phenomenon, not a criminal trait.
>
>Or, alternatively, recongise the "human condition" as a valid, natural,
>phenomenon, and design around it.
>
>Do we want sustainable road safety, or more jails bulging full of normal
>human beings?

Jealousy, rage, deviousness, impatience and covetousness are all human
conditions, too. They can all aflict normal human beings. They can
sometimes lead to crimes, and the criminals are, quite rightly, locked
up to safeguard the public.

Why should the car criminals be treated leniently just because they
suffer from "risk compensation"? Lock 'em away; safeguard the public.

You are, after all, constantly droning on about treating car drivers no
differently from the rest of society. So let's do precicely that, and
not give them special favours.

[Richard Bates]

Matt B wrote:

<SNIP>

Matt, I don't think you are a troll.

But I do sometimes wonder if you live in the same world as I do.

The world I live in contains a huge number of road users who manage to
go through their 50 year (say) driving career without so much as killing
or injuring a third party. The road network they use, the transport laws
they abide by, their driving ability, the recognition of their potential
danger to others seems to work perfectly. No modification is needed.

My world also contains a small number of morons. These morons sometimes
drive cars, sometimes ride bikes, sometimes drive HGVs. No matter what
provision is made to try to reduce the danger they pose, they will still
be morons. Any attempt to introduce an element of safety, be it a speed
limit, naked road scheme, signal controlled junction will be ignored by
this minority. They simply don't have the brains to use the roads in a
manner which is safe for all parties once they have passed their driving
test. The only way to remove the danger they pose is to remove them from
the road.

The set of laws we have for using the road network is simply a
continuous, 50 year long driving test. If some moron ****s up and kills
or injures somebody, they should fail this test and be punished.

I do not believe that design can be used to offset the attitude of a moron.

[Matt B]

Richard Bates wrote:
>
> Matt, I don't think you are a troll.

Thank you.

> But I do sometimes wonder if you live in the same world as I do.

:-)

> The world I live in contains a huge number of road users who manage to
> go through their 50 year (say) driving career without so much as killing
> or injuring a third party.

How many of those have had very near misses, or managed to avert
disaster by the skin of their teeth, or because the other road user took
emergency evasive action.

> The road network they use, the transport laws
> they abide by, their driving ability, the recognition of their potential
> danger to others seems to work perfectly. No modification is needed.

No. There are 3000+ road deaths each year in the UK, with 10s of
thousands of injuries.

> My world also contains a small number of morons. These morons sometimes
> drive cars, sometimes ride bikes, sometimes drive HGVs. No matter what
> provision is made to try to reduce the danger they pose, they will still
> be morons.

Yes. They are the ones that we cannot easily deal with. They
deliberately and wantonly break the rules. They drive with no licence,
no insurance, etc.

> Any attempt to introduce an element of safety, be it a speed
> limit, naked road scheme, signal controlled junction will be ignored by
> this minority.

Agreed.

> They simply don't have the brains to use the roads in a
> manner which is safe for all parties once they have passed their driving
> test. The only way to remove the danger they pose is to remove them from
> the road.

Now we are talking about those "without the brains", rather than the
wanton criminals - who may well have the brains - but choose to be
defiant? The problems caused by the wanton criminals we will struggle
with, the rest can be designed out.

> The set of laws we have for using the road network is simply a
> continuous, 50 year long driving test.

?

> If some moron ****s up and kills
> or injures somebody, they should fail this test and be punished.

Only if they do it wilfully. This is the crux of my point. Deliberate
wanton acts cannot be easily tackled, but the "accidental" acts can be.
These "accidental" acts cause more harm than the wanton acts, and can
be eliminated - why not tackle them?

> I do not believe that design can be used to offset the attitude of a moron.

Nor do I - but I do believe we can drastically reduce our road carnage
by designing to be tolerant of the majority "accidental" events.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:57:17 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
>> "risk compensation" is a natural human phenomenon, not a criminal trait.
>>
>> Or, alternatively, recongise the "human condition" as a valid, natural,
>> phenomenon, and design around it.
>>
>> Do we want sustainable road safety, or more jails bulging full of normal
>> human beings?
>
> Jealousy, rage, deviousness, impatience and covetousness are all human
> conditions, too. They can all aflict normal human beings. They can
> sometimes lead to crimes, and the criminals are, quite rightly, locked
> up to safeguard the public.

They are also used in mitigation. "Crimes of passion" are generally
treated more leniently than crimes caused by "wickedness".

> Why should the car criminals be treated leniently just because they
> suffer from "risk compensation"? Lock 'em away; safeguard the public.

Risk compensation is not a deliberate or conscious act. It is an
automatic human instinctive behaviour which is difficult to suppress.

> You are, after all, constantly droning on about treating car drivers no
> differently from the rest of society. So let's do precicely that, and
> not give them special favours.

Yes, my sentiments exactly - I've said the same for years. And equally
to expect no super-human powers to be exhibited by them. The thing is
though, it's a big step to remove all the rules and regulations
dedicated solely to the safe and speedy passage of the motorist - so
don't hold your breath - but I'm glad you see my point.

--
Matt B

[Mike Sales]

"Matt B"wrote > spindrift wrote:
>> " in a car 30 doesn't feel fast nor does 50. "
>>
>> Quite right, cars are hermetically sealed bubbles of contentment, the
>> impression of speed is deadened, quietened, diminished, silenced.
>> Suspension is better making a smoother ride, airbags and crumple zones
>> are common so the driver knows they are protected should they crash at
>> speed. Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation...

Certainly do.


>
> Undoubtedly. And "risk compensation" is a natural human phenomenon, not a
> criminal trait.
>
>> ...as when
>> the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
>
> Do you have a source for that? The official UK figures don't seem to show
> it.

I remember that the death rates for pedestrians and cyclist went up, whilst
drivers deaths stayed the same.

>
>> Advances in the human body to withstand an impact with a ton of metal
>> travelling at lethal speeds have not matched these advances.
>
> Precisely. Now you see why we should be working towards a sustainable way
> of ensuring that vulnerable human bodies, and hard metal objects moving at
> speed, do not exist in the same space.

Indeed, we have to ensure that the all road users have an equal investment
in avoiding accidents. Since the physical results of accidents are so
unequal in that a driver can kill with physical impunity, the legal
penalties must be used to redress the balance. I would prefer that the
physical results were equal. What are called "dangerous" cars are those in
which the occupants are less likely to survive an accident. As far as I am
concerned these are safer.

>> Vulnerable road users are just as vulnerable.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Just what does a killer driver have to do to lose their licence?
>
> Not much these days. Yet even with thousands of disqualified drivers, the
> roads are still no safer.
>
> Perhaps it is incorrect to assume that by banning drivers that have
> already contravened some law or other, that all other drivers will
> suddenly loose their human frailties and gasin super-human powers enough
> to be able to concentrate on all laws and on all regulations and on all
> road signs and on all road signals and on all other road users - all of
> the time. - Funny that doesn't seem to hold true.

Strange suggestion. I think that most drivers know how to do all these
things but for some reason don't. I think they only need sufficient
incentive.
>
>> Get
>> rid of them, the roads are overcrowded after all, and populated by far
>> too many people like Ms Hunter who learn nothing from their (two)
>> previous convictions for speeding.
>
> Or, alternatively, recongise the "human condition" as a valid, natural,
> phenomenon, and design around it.

That is what I suggest. Change the construction of cars regulations.

>
> Do we want sustainable road safety, or more jails bulging full of normal
> human beings?

I think that jail is hardly ever a useful penalty for any criminal. I would
not send this woman to jail. Lifetime bans are completely appropriate. At 57
I am only now learning to drive in order to chauffeur my widowed mother. So
for all this time I have been in the position of a banee. Hasn't been too
bad. If not being able to drive is such a dire punishment, what of the old
(see Jo Brand) or the too disabled, or children? What have they done to
deserve not being able to drive? It would better for all if society was not
arranged mainly to suit the motorised. I might reluctantly allow prison for
driving whilst banned. So this woman might go to prison for driving whilst
banned for speeding.

Mike Sales

[Matt B]

Mike Sales wrote:
> "Matt B" wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
>> Do you have a source for that? The official UK figures don't seem to show
>> it.
>
> I remember that the death rates for pedestrians and cyclist went up, whilst
> drivers deaths stayed the same.

Do /you/ have a reliable source for that, because the official UK
figures do not show that.

>>> Advances in the human body to withstand an impact with a ton of metal
>>> travelling at lethal speeds have not matched these advances.
>> Precisely. Now you see why we should be working towards a sustainable way
>> of ensuring that vulnerable human bodies, and hard metal objects moving at
>> speed, do not exist in the same space.
>
> Indeed, we have to ensure that the all road users have an equal investment
> in avoiding accidents.

And less opportunity to, and less likelihood of, causing them.

> Since the physical results of accidents are so
> unequal in that a driver can kill with physical impunity, the legal
> penalties must be used to redress the balance.

Or better still, the environment designed to reduce the ways accidents
can happen.

> I would prefer that the
> physical results were equal. What are called "dangerous" cars are those in
> which the occupants are less likely to survive an accident. As far as I am
> concerned these are safer.

Agreed.

>>> Just what does a killer driver have to do to lose their licence?
>> Not much these days. Yet even with thousands of disqualified drivers, the
>> roads are still no safer.
>>
>> Perhaps it is incorrect to assume that by banning drivers that have
>> already contravened some law or other, that all other drivers will
>> suddenly loose their human frailties and gasin super-human powers enough
>> to be able to concentrate on all laws and on all regulations and on all
>> road signs and on all road signals and on all other road users - all of
>> the time. - Funny that doesn't seem to hold true.
>
> Strange suggestion. I think that most drivers know how to do all these
> things but for some reason don't. I think they only need sufficient
> incentive.

They know how to, but can't do all of those things all of the time,
because they are human. The majority, by a long way, of collisions on
our roads are down to "human error". Another day with the same inputs,
the result would be /no/ collision. The variable is the human psyche.
We need to take account of it.

>>> Get
>>> rid of them, the roads are overcrowded after all, and populated by far
>>> too many people like Ms Hunter who learn nothing from their (two)
>>> previous convictions for speeding.
>> Or, alternatively, recongise the "human condition" as a valid, natural,
>> phenomenon, and design around it.
>
> That is what I suggest. Change the construction of cars regulations.
>
>> Do we want sustainable road safety, or more jails bulging full of normal
>> human beings?
>
> I think that jail is hardly ever a useful penalty for any criminal. I would
> not send this woman to jail. Lifetime bans are completely appropriate. At 57
> I am only now learning to drive in order to chauffeur my widowed mother. So
> for all this time I have been in the position of a banee. Hasn't been too
> bad. If not being able to drive is such a dire punishment, what of the old
> (see Jo Brand) or the too disabled, or children? What have they done to
> deserve not being able to drive? It would better for all if society was not
> arranged mainly to suit the motorised. I might reluctantly allow prison for
> driving whilst banned. So this woman might go to prison for driving whilst
> banned for speeding.

I agree with what you say, in the main. I disagree with your support
for bans. I think bans should only be considered for those whose
actions are wilful. I think the ideal will be when everyone is entitled
to (and able to) drive without special training, and without tests etc.
Roads and vehicles could be designed to allow children, the old, the
poor, the rich, everyone, to drive safely without injuring each other -
as they all manage it whilst walking. We are, of course, a long way
from being able to deliver that yet.

--
Matt B

[Tim Woodall]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:38:53 +0100,
Mike Sales > wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a source for that? The official UK figures don't seem to show
>> it.
>
> I remember that the death rates for pedestrians and cyclist went up, whilst
> drivers deaths stayed the same.
>
No. Driver deaths went down - but only between the hours of 10pm and 4am
(or something like that).

Obviously absolutely nothing to do with the introduction of evidential
breath testing at the same time. Everybody knows that seatbelts work
best at night.


The time when deaths did go up was when compulsory seatbelts for back
seat children were brought in. IIRC deaths for all groups rose but rear
seat children rose faster than anybody else.

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/

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation as when
> the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.

That is an urban myth, there was no trend reversal.

Check the RCGB road deaths data, you will see no trend change
correlating with the seat-belt legislation - for pedestrians and
cyclists the trend continued to be downwards.

In fact the trend for all road deaths showed a sustained decline from
the year dot until the early 1990s, when it levelled off.

--
Matt B

[[email protected]]

On May 24, 12:37 pm, Matt B > wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>
> > Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation as when
> > the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
>
> That is an urban myth, there was no trend reversal.
>
> Check the RCGB road deaths data, you will see no trend change
> correlating with the seat-belt legislation - for pedestrians and
> cyclists the trend continued to be downwards.
>
> In fact the trend for all road deaths showed a sustained decline from
> the year dot until the early 1990s, when it levelled off.
>
Wrong:

Here's an email I sent to someone several years ago - the links may no
longer work, sorry, but I haven't got time to find where they've gone
to.


1982 there were 5934 deaths
1983 there were 5445 deaths
1984 there were 5559 deaths

1982 there were 1550 deaths attributed to alcohol
1983 there were 1110 deaths attributed to alcohol
1984 there were 1170 deaths attributed to alochol

Therefore:
1982 4384 deaths non alcohol related
1983 4335 deaths non alcohol related
1984 4380 deaths non alcohol related


Drink driving.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_021596.pdf

Crash stats
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_032078.pdf


Pedestrians Cyclists M/Bike
1982 1869 294 1090
1983 1914 323 963
1984 1868 345 967


Motorcyclists will be impacted by the breath testing laws. Making the
(possibly unjustified) assumption that the deaths attributed to
alcohol affect M/Bike the same as population in general we would have
expected to see about 700 deaths in 1983 and 1984 for motorcyclists.


I think you could easily make the case that the 1983 seatbelt law
caused about 200-250 extra deaths as compared to the imediately
preceding years.

ISTR rumours that the Isles report(1981) predicted a 3% increase in
deaths if compulsory seatbelts were introduced. Given the 1982 figures
this would imply about 180 extra deaths.



Tim.

[[email protected]]

On May 24, 12:59 pm, " >
wrote:
> On May 24, 12:37 pm, Matt B > wrote:> spindrift wrote:
>
> > > Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation as when
> > > the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
>
> > That is an urban myth, there was no trend reversal.
>
> > Check the RCGB road deaths data, you will see no trend change
> > correlating with the seat-belt legislation - for pedestrians and
> > cyclists the trend continued to be downwards.
>
> > In fact the trend for all road deaths showed a sustained decline from
> > the year dot until the early 1990s, when it levelled off.
>
> Wrong:
>
> Here's an email I sent to someone several years ago - the links may no
> longer work, sorry, but I haven't got time to find where they've gone
> to.
>
> 1982 there were 5934 deaths
> 1983 there were 5445 deaths
> 1984 there were 5559 deaths
>
> 1982 there were 1550 deaths attributed to alcohol
> 1983 there were 1110 deaths attributed to alcohol
> 1984 there were 1170 deaths attributed to alochol
>
> Therefore:
> 1982 4384 deaths non alcohol related
> 1983 4335 deaths non alcohol related
> 1984 4380 deaths non alcohol related
>

Just shows you know f**k all aboput statistics if you're trying to
prove a trend, or lack, of from 3 points.

MBQ

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:37:26 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
> wrote this:-

>> Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation as when
>> the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
>
>That is an urban myth, there was no trend reversal.

Incorrect.

Messers Durbin and Harvey were both professors of statistics and
thus rather more au fait with the subject than those people who only
think that they understand statistics.

There was a long established trend which, in the absence of
interventions, one may assume would have continued. Their report
measured variations from this trend and that is how the 40% increase
in cyclist fatalities in two years was measured.

Next contestant please.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Matt B]

wrote:
> On May 24, 12:37 pm, Matt B > wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation as when
>>> the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
>> That is an urban myth, there was no trend reversal.
>>
>> Check the RCGB road deaths data, you will see no trend change
>> correlating with the seat-belt legislation - for pedestrians and
>> cyclists the trend continued to be downwards.
>>
>> In fact the trend for all road deaths showed a sustained decline from
>> the year dot until the early 1990s, when it levelled off.
>>
> Wrong:
>
> Here's an email I sent to someone several years ago - the links may no
> longer work, sorry, but I haven't got time to find where they've gone
> to.
>
> 1982 there were 5934 deaths
> 1983 there were 5445 deaths
> 1984 there were 5559 deaths

Seat-belts were compulsory from January 1983? Yet '83 maintains the
downward trend. The upward blip for 1984 doesn't prove a trend change
due to an event that occurred at the beginning of 1983.

Look at the following years, they more than compensate.
1985 5165
1986 5385
1987 5125
1988 5052

> Pedestrians Cyclists M/Bike
> 1982 1869 294 1090
> 1983 1914 323 963
> 1984 1868 345 967

1985 1789 286 796
1986 1841 271 762
1987 1703 280 723
1988 1753 227 670

Blips are not statistically significant. Look at the trend from the
begining of 1983.

> I think you could easily make the case that the 1983 seatbelt law
> caused about 200-250 extra deaths as compared to the imediately
> preceding years.

How? You assume an upward blip, starting 12 months after they were made
compulsory, proves causation? Even though the trend is restored the
following year? Do you work for a camera partnership? ;-)

> ISTR rumours that the Isles report(1981) predicted a 3% increase in
> deaths if compulsory seatbelts were introduced. Given the 1982 figures
> this would imply about 180 extra deaths.

It was obviously wrong then. Deaths plummeted.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:37:26 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
> > wrote this:-
>
>>> Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation as when
>>> the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
>> That is an urban myth, there was no trend reversal.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Messers Durbin and Harvey were both professors of statistics and
> thus rather more au fait with the subject than those people who only
> think that they understand statistics.
>
> There was a long established trend which, in the absence of
> interventions, one may assume would have continued. Their report
> measured variations from this trend and that is how the 40% increase
> in cyclist fatalities in two years was measured.

Yet it is not reflected in the RCGB data? Did they study UK data?

--
Matt B

[raisethe]

I do not agree that the cyclist killer should be sent to prison for a
long time. Society would then be paying twice for her actions, once by
killing one of us and twice by the huge cost it would be to keep her
there in the level of comfort to which prisoners are entitled
nowadays.

A far better set of punishments would be as follows:

(i) Life time ban from driving.
(ii) The confiscation of her property to compensate the next of kin
for the victim's estimated lifetime income stream and the state for
the cost of dealing with the accident and the prosecution.
(iii) A punitive tax linked to all of her future earnings to also pay
for (ii) above.
(iv) If (ii) and (iii) does not raise sufficent cash, she should also
forfeit her right to receive anything from the welfare state.
(v) The requirement to walk through the centre of her town, once a
week for the rest of her life, in chains, carrying a noticeboard
giving details of what she has done.

I think this ticks all the boxes.

[raisethe]

On 24 May, 14:23, Chris Eilbeck > wrote:
> raisethe > writes:
> > (i) Life time ban from driving.
>
> Lifetime bans don't work though, do they? Anyone banned from driving
> can easily buy a car for cash, drive it uninsured, drive with false
> plates, speed past cameras knowing they won't get caught, don't bother
> with MOT etc. They'd only get caught out by being stopped by the
> police and when does that ever happen since they retreated into their
> stations?
>
> Chris

If someone has commited an offence serious enough to warrant such a
ban then they should be closely monitored. If they are caught driving
again then they should suffer amputation.

Not only would life bans work, very few would need to be handed out,
and those who had them could be watched closely.

[Chris Eilbeck]

raisethe > writes:

> (i) Life time ban from driving.

Lifetime bans don't work though, do they? Anyone banned from driving
can easily buy a car for cash, drive it uninsured, drive with false
plates, speed past cameras knowing they won't get caught, don't bother
with MOT etc. They'd only get caught out by being stopped by the
police and when does that ever happen since they retreated into their
stations?

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Chris Eilbeck
') wrote:

> raisethe > writes:
>
>> (i) Life time ban from driving.
>
> Lifetime bans don't work though, do they? Anyone banned from driving
> can easily buy a car for cash, drive it uninsured, drive with false
> plates, speed past cameras knowing they won't get caught, don't bother
> with MOT etc. They'd only get caught out by being stopped by the
> police and when does that ever happen since they retreated into their
> stations?

Yup. Which is why driving without a licence needs to mean automatic
crushing of the car (if it's not theirs, whoevers it is shouldn't have
lent/hired it to someone without a licence) and automatic jail time.

Actually, the simplest thing given the law as it is would be to give anyone
who kills while driving an automatic life sentence, and then (after a
suitable period which could be zero days) let them out on licence, with a
condition of their licence being that they don't ever drive. Then, if
caught driving, they could be back in prison immediately without having to
wait for a court to look at it.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; First they came for the asylum seekers,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not an asylum seeker.
;; Then they came for the gypsies,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy...
;; Pastor Martin Niemuller, translated by Michael Howard.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:34:12 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
> wrote this:-

>> Messers Durbin and Harvey were both professors of statistics and
>> thus rather more au fait with the subject than those people who only
>> think that they understand statistics.
>>
>> There was a long established trend which, in the absence of
>> interventions, one may assume would have continued. Their report
>> measured variations from this trend and that is how the 40% increase
>> in cyclist fatalities in two years was measured.
>
>Yet it is not reflected in the RCGB data? Did they study UK data?

Yes, Messers Durbin and Harvey did study the UK data. Search engines
should pull up references to their report, though I doubt if the
report itself is available on-line.

Next contestant please.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[David Hansen]

On 24 May 2007 05:57:49 -0700 someone who may be raisethe
> wrote this:-

>A far better set of punishments would be as follows:
>
>(i) Life time ban from driving.
>(ii) The confiscation of her property to compensate the next of kin
>for the victim's estimated lifetime income stream and the state for
>the cost of dealing with the accident and the prosecution.
>(iii) A punitive tax linked to all of her future earnings to also pay
>for (ii) above.
>(iv) If (ii) and (iii) does not raise sufficent cash, she should also
>forfeit her right to receive anything from the welfare state.
>(v) The requirement to walk through the centre of her town, once a
>week for the rest of her life, in chains, carrying a noticeboard
>giving details of what she has done.
>
>I think this ticks all the boxes.

Except that the courts would listen to the whinings of the criminal
and let them off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6686959.stm is
one example. The criminal didn't kill cyclists, but the lives of
those in cars are just as valuable as the lives of those on bikes.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Matt B]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:34:12 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
> > wrote this:-
>
>>> Messers Durbin and Harvey were both professors of statistics and
>>> thus rather more au fait with the subject than those people who only
>>> think that they understand statistics.
>>>
>>> There was a long established trend which, in the absence of
>>> interventions, one may assume would have continued. Their report
>>> measured variations from this trend and that is how the 40% increase
>>> in cyclist fatalities in two years was measured.
>> Yet it is not reflected in the RCGB data? Did they study UK data?
>
> Yes, Messers Durbin and Harvey did study the UK data. Search engines
> should pull up references to their report, though I doubt if the
> report itself is available on-line.

I found this reference to a report of theirs in a report from RoSPA on
ISA[1]:

"The predicted savings with Mandatory Dynamic ISA are considerably
greater than was achieved with perhaps the most effective single measure
to date in Britain, the introduction of compulsory seatbelt wearing for
front occupants, which achieved a 20% reduction in fatalities to front
seat occupants, i.e. a 7% reduction in fatalities overall (Harvey and
Durbin, 1986)."

> Next contestant please.

It's not a contest - I'm only looking for the truth. I know the risk
homeostasis stuff, but the RCGB stats do not show a loss of downward
trend from January 1982. Quite the opposite. If you can help to
clarify this please do.


[1]
<http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/conferences/congress2002/proceedings/carsten.pdf>

--
Matt B

[Mike Sales]

"Matt B" wrote
> Mike Sales wrote:
>>
>> I remember that the death rates for pedestrians and cyclist went up,
>> whilst drivers deaths stayed the same.
>
> Do /you/ have a reliable source for that, because the official UK figures
> do not show that.

Sorry, I don't keeps notes of these things. I seem to recall it is mentioned
in Robert Davis's book "Death on the Streets". Do read this. Its an
excellent alterative view you might enjoy.
>
>>>> Advances in the human body to withstand an impact with a ton of metal
>>>> travelling at lethal speeds have not matched these advances.
>>> Precisely. Now you see why we should be working towards a sustainable
>>> way of ensuring that vulnerable human bodies, and hard metal objects
>>> moving at speed, do not exist in the same space.
>>
>> Indeed, we have to ensure that the all road users have an equal
>> investment in avoiding accidents.
>
> And less opportunity to, and less likelihood of, causing them.
>

I am not clear what you are advocating. More traffic segregation, i.e. cycle
facilities?

>> Since the physical results of accidents are so unequal in that a driver
>> can kill with physical impunity, the legal penalties must be used to
>> redress the balance.
>
> Or better still, the environment designed to reduce the ways accidents can
> happen.

Do you mean segregation again, or perhaps widespread "traffic calming."

>>
>> I think that jail is hardly ever a useful penalty for any criminal. I
>> would not send this woman to jail. Lifetime bans are completely
>> appropriate. At 57 I am only now learning to drive in order to chauffeur
>> my widowed mother. So for all this time I have been in the position of a
>> banee. Hasn't been too bad. If not being able to drive is such a dire
>> punishment, what of the old (see Jo Brand) or the too disabled, or
>> children? What have they done to deserve not being able to drive? It
>> would better for all if society was not arranged mainly to suit the
>> motorised. I might reluctantly allow prison for driving whilst banned. So
>> this woman might go to prison for driving whilst banned for speeding.
>
> I agree with what you say, in the main. I disagree with your support for
> bans. I think bans should only be considered for those whose actions are
> wilful. I think the ideal will be when everyone is entitled to (and able
> to) drive without special training, and without tests etc. Roads and
> vehicles could be designed to allow children, the old, the poor, the rich,
> everyone, to drive safely without injuring each other - as they all manage
> it whilst walking. We are, of course, a long way from being able to
> deliver that yet.
>
Vehicles designed to allow their use by children without special training
would be radically different to today's. I would welcome them. I would think
that increasing the physical vulnerability of the occupant would be
necessary. I think you have not grasped my point fully. Vehicles like the
car as we know it are so "safe" and easy to kill with that the only way to
increase the risk to drivers of dangerous behaviour is via the law.

Mike Sales

Mike Sales

[the.Mark[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
> On 24 May 2007 05:57:49 -0700 someone who may be raisethe
> > wrote this:-
>
> >A far better set of punishments would be as follows:
> >
> >(i) Life time ban from driving.
> >(ii) The confiscation of her property to compensate the next of kin
> >for the victim's estimated lifetime income stream and the state for
> >the cost of dealing with the accident and the prosecution.
> >(iii) A punitive tax linked to all of her future earnings to also pay
> >for (ii) above.
> >(iv) If (ii) and (iii) does not raise sufficent cash, she should also
> >forfeit her right to receive anything from the welfare state.
> >(v) The requirement to walk through the centre of her town, once a
> >week for the rest of her life, in chains, carrying a noticeboard
> >giving details of what she has done.
> >
> >I think this ticks all the boxes.
>
> Except that the courts would listen to the whinings of the criminal
> and let them off.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6686959.stm is
> one example. The criminal didn't kill cyclists, but the lives of
> those in cars are just as valuable as the lives of those on bikes.
>
>
I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
--
Cheers
the.Mark

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

the.Mark >typed

> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.

Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.

I can see time could be an issue if on-call for emergencies. There
should be the possibility of staying on-site for this though.

A car-free but retired doctor.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Matt B]

Mike Sales wrote:
> "Matt B" wrote
>> Mike Sales wrote:
>>>>> Advances in the human body to withstand an impact with a ton of metal
>>>>> travelling at lethal speeds have not matched these advances.
>>>> Precisely. Now you see why we should be working towards a sustainable
>>>> way of ensuring that vulnerable human bodies, and hard metal objects
>>>> moving at speed, do not exist in the same space.
>>> Indeed, we have to ensure that the all road users have an equal
>>> investment in avoiding accidents.
>> And less opportunity to, and less likelihood of, causing them.
>
> I am not clear what you are advocating. More traffic segregation, i.e. cycle
> facilities?

No. If a car driver didn't have clear boundaries, like kerbs, and white
lines, for instance, between which he could be fairly sure would remain
pedestrian free, and wasn't given carte blanche to travel at 30 or 40
mph, and didn't have to pay attention at junctions if he had a green
light, and wasn't sure whether he had right-of-way in any given
encounter with another road user, then I think you would agree, he would
have to take more responsibility, and would probably select a slower
speed, and would be paying close attention to what was happening around
him. Picture the activity at a cross-roads with broken traffic lights.

>>> Since the physical results of accidents are so unequal in that a driver
>>> can kill with physical impunity, the legal penalties must be used to
>>> redress the balance.
>> Or better still, the environment designed to reduce the ways accidents can
>> happen.
>
> Do you mean segregation again, or perhaps widespread "traffic calming."

Traffic calming - sort of. Like I describe above.

>>> I think that jail is hardly ever a useful penalty for any criminal. I
>>> would not send this woman to jail. Lifetime bans are completely
>>> appropriate. At 57 I am only now learning to drive in order to chauffeur
>>> my widowed mother. So for all this time I have been in the position of a
>>> banee. Hasn't been too bad. If not being able to drive is such a dire
>>> punishment, what of the old (see Jo Brand) or the too disabled, or
>>> children? What have they done to deserve not being able to drive? It
>>> would better for all if society was not arranged mainly to suit the
>>> motorised. I might reluctantly allow prison for driving whilst banned. So
>>> this woman might go to prison for driving whilst banned for speeding.
>> I agree with what you say, in the main. I disagree with your support for
>> bans. I think bans should only be considered for those whose actions are
>> wilful. I think the ideal will be when everyone is entitled to (and able
>> to) drive without special training, and without tests etc. Roads and
>> vehicles could be designed to allow children, the old, the poor, the rich,
>> everyone, to drive safely without injuring each other - as they all manage
>> it whilst walking. We are, of course, a long way from being able to
>> deliver that yet.
>>
> Vehicles designed to allow their use by children without special training
> would be radically different to today's.

Yes. As indeed today's are from those which needed an engineer and a
mechanic to drive them - just a few decades ago.

> I would welcome them.

They would certainly be empowering. :-)

> I would think
> that increasing the physical vulnerability of the occupant would be
> necessary.

Possibly, or at least the perception of it.

> I think you have not grasped my point fully. Vehicles like the
> car as we know it are so "safe" and easy to kill with that the only way to
> increase the risk to drivers of dangerous behaviour is via the law.

I understand your point exactly, but I disagree with your conclusion.
As I have already said, it doesn't have to be a real risk for you to
perceive it as a potential risk. Didn't Wiltshire find that removing
the centre line of a road caused the traffic to travel significantly
slower? There were no legal penalties involved in causing that speed
reduction.

--
Matt B

[Tim Woodall]

On 24 May 2007 05:05:55 -0700,
> wrote:
> On May 24, 12:59 pm, " >
> wrote:
>
> Just shows you know f**k all aboput statistics if you're trying to
> prove a trend, or lack, of from 3 points.
>
Huh? How can a seatbelt law cause a trend? To a first approximation we
assume the trend is independent of the change in the law and then look
for a step change that doesn't track the trend.

The argument often espoused is that the large change in deaths in 1983
was due to the seatbelt law. However, the facts do not easily support
that. Pedestrian deaths went up despite a pretty much monotonic decline
for years and years. Cyclist deaths went up (although cyclist deaths have
always been a bit more volatile around the long term trend probably
because the numbers are fairly low). Almost all the savings to life
accrued to motorists occurred between the hours of 10pm and 4am.

We anticipate risk compensation moving deaths from drivers to other road
users due to the seatbelt law and we expect the drink driving law change
to have most effect on the deaths that occur at night.

The data supports that hypothesis.

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/

[raisethe]

On 24 May, 20:08, mb > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:17:59 -0700, raisethe wrote:
>
> > If someone has commited an offence serious enough to warrant such a
> > ban then they should be closely monitored. If they are caught driving
> > again then they should suffer amputation.
>
> You're a sick puppy and no mistake. I suppose you'd like to start with the
> head?
>
>

No, not at all. :l) But if it is not possible to keep these
dangerous people out of cars (I'm also thinking of those adolescent
serial joyriders) it would be best to make them physically incapable
of driving. I am sure simply removing the top of a little finger from
the knuckle would be enough in 99.9% of cases to stop people without
licenses from getting into cars. For those few who continue, then try
a finger, hand and so on.

If that sounds barbaric, what about the innocent people they are
maiming and killing at the moment? At least it would be the guilty
individuals who get to suffer. Of course, it would be enough to have
the threat of such a penalty to virtually wipe out this type of crime.

It would also be nowhere near as sick as killing criminals, like the
Americans do.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Tim Woodall wrote on 24/05/2007 22:38 +0100:
>>
> Huh? How can a seatbelt law cause a trend? To a first approximation we
> assume the trend is independent of the change in the law and then look
> for a step change that doesn't track the trend.
>

I think you are looking for the Isles Report, commissioned by the DoT
but suppressed when it showed the opposite of what it was supposed to.
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/isles%20report.pdf

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:47:41 +0100 someone who may be "Mike Sales"
> wrote this:-

>Sorry, I don't keeps notes of these things. I seem to recall it is mentioned
>in Robert Davis's book "Death on the Streets". Do read this. Its an
>excellent alterative view you might enjoy.

I note that you gave this sensible advice and the Troll failed to
respond.

I am fairly certain the Troll has been referred to this before and
also failed to respond.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, the.Mark
') wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6686959.stm is
>> one example. The criminal didn't kill cyclists, but the lives of
>> those in cars are just as valuable as the lives of those on bikes.
>>
> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.

I am not defending this guy, but it's worth pointing out that the distance
between the two hospitals is 68 miles, so a taxi would eat a fair chunk of
even an anaesthetist's wage. I think, frankly, that if he couldn't perform
the work he was contracted to do he should have sought other employment.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.

[[email protected]]

On May 24, 11:23 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Tim Woodall wrote on 24/05/2007 22:38 +0100:
>
>
>
> > Huh? How can a seatbelt law cause a trend? To a first approximation we
> > assume the trend is independent of the change in the law and then look
> > for a step change that doesn't track the trend.
>
> I think you are looking for the Isles Report, commissioned by the DoT
> but suppressed when it showed the opposite of what it was supposed to.http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/isles%20report.pdf
>
Perfect, thankyou.

I did know about that (and mentioned it in my original post) but I
didn't know it was available anywhere. I'd only seen bits quoted in
various sources.

Tim.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Helen Deborah Vecht
') wrote:

> the.Mark >typed
>
>> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
>> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
>
> Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.

I'll say it again: it's 68 miles between those two hospitals. Don't know
how much your local taxis charge per mile...

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

:: Wisdom is better than weapons of war ::
:: Ecclesiastes 9:18 ::

[Marc Brett]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:58:32 +0100, Simon Brooke >
wrote:

>in message >, Helen Deborah Vecht
') wrote:
>
>> the.Mark >typed
>>
>>> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
>>> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
>>
>> Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.
>
>I'll say it again: it's 68 miles between those two hospitals. Don't know
>how much your local taxis charge per mile...

Maybe he shoulda thought about that before risking his primary source of
transport.

[Clive George]

"Marc Brett" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:58:32 +0100, Simon Brooke >
> wrote:
>
>>in message >, Helen Deborah Vecht
') wrote:
>>
>>> the.Mark >typed
>>>
>>>> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
>>>> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
>>>
>>> Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.
>>
>>I'll say it again: it's 68 miles between those two hospitals. Don't know
>>how much your local taxis charge per mile...
>
> Maybe he shoulda thought about that before risking his primary source of
> transport.

His job probably contributed to the crash. Regularly driving 70 miles
between places for work could well have made him blase about driving
quickly.

cheers,
clive

[AndyMorris]

Clive George wrote:
>
> His job probably contributed to the crash. Regularly driving 70 miles
> between places for work could well have made him blase about driving
> quickly.
>

poor didums

--
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/



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

[Clive George]

"AndyMorris" > wrote in message
.. .
> Clive George wrote:
>>
>> His job probably contributed to the crash. Regularly driving 70 miles
>> between places for work could well have made him blase about driving
>> quickly.
>>
>
> poor didums

That's somewhat missing my point, which is that his employers shouldn't be
contributing to road danger by making him do that. Regardless of whether
this guy is jailed, banned, or whatever, there will continue to be others
like him while they're encouraged to do this. And of course not requiring to
travel in such a manner for work would remove the plea he could make in
front of a court.

(yes, I can well imagine why he does work on two such sites - hospitals not
big enough to support his job, etc, and Scotland's a big place. But it
should be something the employers consider - recruiting patients isn't what
they're supposed to do...)

cheers,
clive

[_[_2_]]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:57:22 +0100, Clive George wrote:

> "Marc Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:58:32 +0100, Simon Brooke >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>in message >, Helen Deborah Vecht
') wrote:
>>>
>>>> the.Mark >typed
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
>>>>> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
>>>>
>>>> Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.
>>>
>>>I'll say it again: it's 68 miles between those two hospitals. Don't know
>>>how much your local taxis charge per mile...
>>
>> Maybe he shoulda thought about that before risking his primary source of
>> transport.
>
> His job probably contributed to the crash. Regularly driving 70 miles
> between places for work could well have made him blase about driving
> quickly.
>

Goodness.

I quite agree; driving such a long distance makes it almost inevitable the
person behind the wheel will disobey the law. By far the greatest number
of long-distance drives must be done by omnibus and lorry drivers - we
should require them to do it in relays, say, no more than 50 miles each per
day?

[Clive George]

"_" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
>>>>>> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.
>>>>
>>>>I'll say it again: it's 68 miles between those two hospitals. Don't know
>>>>how much your local taxis charge per mile...
>>>
>>> Maybe he shoulda thought about that before risking his primary source of
>>> transport.
>>
>> His job probably contributed to the crash. Regularly driving 70 miles
>> between places for work could well have made him blase about driving
>> quickly.
>>
>
> Goodness.
>
> I quite agree; driving such a long distance makes it almost inevitable the
> person behind the wheel will disobey the law. By far the greatest number
> of long-distance drives must be done by omnibus and lorry drivers - we
> should require them to do it in relays, say, no more than 50 miles each
> per
> day?

Garn, another one stunningly missing the point. Well done. I'm a bit
surprised at you since I'd have thought you'd broadly agree with what I'm
saying, but never mind.

There's quite a difference between a person driving a vehicle with an extra
licence, extra training, a tachometer, limited hours, extra speed
restrictions and perhaps most importantly a vehicle which isn't fun to drive
fast and no impetus for them to do so, and somebody getting in a car for
work.

There is fun to be had from driving a car quickly - it's irresponsible I
know, but it doesn't alter the fact that it happens. Get used to driving
medium distances at speed, and it's easy to start driving faster. Start
'knowing' the roads, and more problems - "there's never a tractor there",
"this bit's always clear", "I know I can see past this bit". The employer
has put him in that situation. The best way out is to remove the situation -
not require him to do the travel. I'd be extremely surprised if you didn't
believe this was a good thing to do.

(I deliberately said medium distance - if you've got a 8 hr drive ahead of
you, there's not the temptation to mentally knacker oneself by driving at
the limits that there may be for a shorter journey.)

clive

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Simon Brooke >typed


> in message >, Helen Deborah Vecht
> ') wrote:

> > the.Mark >typed
> >
> >> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
> >> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
> >
> > Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.

> I'll say it again: it's 68 miles between those two hospitals. Don't know
> how much your local taxis charge per mile...

OK. I've only just logged on today. You can't reasonably travel 68 miles
for an emergency, and travelling that far in the lunch hour is
unrealistic IMO as well.

I'm not sure what working arrangements were but this distances sound
fairly impractical by any mode of transport.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Clive
George ') wrote:

> "_" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
>>>>>>> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll say it again: it's 68 miles between those two hospitals. Don't
>>>>>know how much your local taxis charge per mile...
>>>>
>>>> Maybe he shoulda thought about that before risking his primary source
>>>> of transport.
>>>
>>> His job probably contributed to the crash. Regularly driving 70 miles
>>> between places for work could well have made him blase about driving
>>> quickly.
>>>
>>
>> Goodness.
>>
>> I quite agree; driving such a long distance makes it almost inevitable
>> the
>> person behind the wheel will disobey the law. By far the greatest
>> number of long-distance drives must be done by omnibus and lorry drivers
>> - we should require them to do it in relays, say, no more than 50 miles
>> each per
>> day?
>
> Garn, another one stunningly missing the point. Well done. I'm a bit
> surprised at you since I'd have thought you'd broadly agree with what I'm
> saying, but never mind.
>
> There's quite a difference between a person driving a vehicle with an
> extra licence, extra training, a tachometer, limited hours, extra speed
> restrictions and perhaps most importantly a vehicle which isn't fun to
> drive fast and no impetus for them to do so, and somebody getting in a
> car for work.
>
> There is fun to be had from driving a car quickly - it's irresponsible I
> know, but it doesn't alter the fact that it happens. Get used to driving
> medium distances at speed, and it's easy to start driving faster. Start
> 'knowing' the roads, and more problems - "there's never a tractor there",
> "this bit's always clear", "I know I can see past this bit". The employer
> has put him in that situation. The best way out is to remove the
> situation - not require him to do the travel. I'd be extremely surprised
> if you didn't believe this was a good thing to do.

I think this is kind of the point. Stranraer is at one end of the A75,
Dumfries is practically at the other. I used to work in Stranraer, and
commute a round trip distance of 120 miles a day to do so. It's a single
carriageway, two lane road, with lots of corners and generally poor sight
lines. It's periodically busy - when ferries come in at Loch Ryan there's
a heavy pulse of traffic eastbound, and it suffers from HGVs racing to
catch the ferry westbound. Most of the traffic on the road - including
HGVs - normally travels above the speed limit.

The Stranraer hospital operates in effect as an outstation of DGRI in
Dumfries, because there isn't sufficient population to justify a permanent
surgical team in Stranraer but if you closed it, for some of the
population in the Rhinns, the nearest hospital would be 100 miles away.

All this means that I understand and to a considerable degree sympathise
with Mr Neil's case. To some extent, there but for the grace of God go I.
And if we are to provide quality health services to people in remote rural
areas, then we do demand ridiculous travel schedules of the people who
deliver that service.

It would be impossible for Mr Neil to use the train. There is a train
connection; there are two trains outbound per day, one at 06:50 taking
four hours and twenty-one minutes and one at 14:59 taking two hours and
fifty six minutes.

Thus if an anaesthetist is to work in both Dumfries and Stranraer, and I do
believe there are good clinical reasons why this should be so, then in
practice a car is the only practical way of getting about.

However: if Mr Neil kills people, you have to evaluate what the overall
benefit to the public good is of his work. It doesn't seem to me
acceptable, no matter how important his work, for a driver who kills
people by driving dangerously to be allowed to drive again (ever). If the
local health board can't find another anaesthetist to do his job, then
they should hire him a chauffeur who can be trusted to drive safely; or Mr
Neil should get himself a job somewhere where he's not obliged to travel
regularly. We are never going to improve road safety while the perception
in the public mind is that if you kill a stranger with a car, that is a
socially acceptable thing to do and there is no meaningful sanction.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
;; languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their
;; pockets for new vocabulary -- James D. Nicoll

[Mike Sales]

"Matt B" wrote
>> Mike Sales wrote:
>>
>> I am not clear what you are advocating. More traffic segregation, i.e.
>> cycle facilities?
>
> No. If a car driver didn't have clear boundaries, like kerbs, and white
> lines, for instance, between which he could be fairly sure would remain
> pedestrian free, and wasn't given carte blanche to travel at 30 or 40 mph,
> and didn't have to pay attention at junctions if he had a green light, and
> wasn't sure whether he had right-of-way in any given encounter with
> another road user, then I think you would agree,
No I don't.

he would
> have to take more responsibility, and would probably select a slower
> speed, and would be paying close attention to what was happening around
> him. Picture the activity at a cross-roads with broken traffic lights.

Are you advocating turning the whole road environment into a Woonerf? How
should we make it clear motorists don't have carte blanche to travel.....
Without law enforcement I think that motorists would establish a way of
behaving which suited the concensus ,.of motorists. They would, as they do
now, claim as much road as they could, using their speed and weight to deter
any challenge. The behaviour whch can be made normal in a small residential
area with your methods would not gain motorist consent on most roads.

>>>> Since the physical results of accidents are so unequal in that a driver
>>>> can kill with physical impunity, the legal penalties must be used to
>>>> redress the balance.
>>> Or better still, the environment designed to reduce the ways accidents
>>> can happen.
>>
>> Do you mean segregation again, or perhaps widespread "traffic calming."
>
> Traffic calming - sort of. Like I describe above.

Well, nothing if not ambitious. Are there any roads (besides motorways
perhaps) which you would not traffic calm?

>>>
>> Vehicles designed to allow their use by children without special training
>> would be radically different to today's.
>
> Yes. As indeed today's are from those which needed an engineer and a
> mechanic to drive them - just a few decades ago.
>
>> I would welcome them.
>
> They would certainly be empowering. :-)
>
>> I would think that increasing the physical vulnerability of the occupant
>> would be necessary.
>
> Possibly, or at least the perception of it.
>
>> I think you have not grasped my point fully. Vehicles like the car as we
>> know it are so "safe" and easy to kill with that the only way to increase
>> the risk to drivers of dangerous behaviour is via the law.
>
> I understand your point exactly, but I disagree with your conclusion. As I
> have already said, it doesn't have to be a real risk for you to perceive
> it as a potential risk.

If an illusory risk proves to be just that, as it inevitably will, people
will notice. I don't think that your con trick will work for very long.

Didn't Wiltshire find that removing
> the centre line of a road caused the traffic to travel significantly
> slower? There were no legal penalties involved in causing that speed
> reduction.
>
I don't know, you tell me. Did they give cyclists more room?

Mike Sales

[Pyromancer]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> It would be impossible for Mr Neil to use the train. There is a train
> connection; there are two trains outbound per day, one at 06:50 taking
> four hours and twenty-one minutes and one at 14:59 taking two hours and
> fifty six minutes.

Given the use of Class 156 or 158 units (or 185s come to that), I
wonder how long the trip would have been via the long-gone Port Road?

[the.Mark[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
> in message >, the.Mark
> ') wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6686959.stm is
> >> one example. The criminal didn't kill cyclists, but the lives of
> >> those in cars are just as valuable as the lives of those on bikes.
> >>
> > I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
> > get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
>
> I am not defending this guy, but it's worth pointing out that the distance
> between the two hospitals is 68 miles, so a taxi would eat a fair chunk of
> even an anaesthetist's wage.
Then it would make him think twice when/if he got his license
back.

I think, frankly, that if he couldn't perform
> the work he was contracted to do he should have sought other employment.

Yup.


--
Cheers
the.Mark

[Marc Brett]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:19:55 +0100, Simon Brooke >
wrote:


>The Stranraer hospital operates in effect as an outstation of DGRI in
>Dumfries, because there isn't sufficient population to justify a permanent
>surgical team in Stranraer but if you closed it, for some of the
>population in the Rhinns, the nearest hospital would be 100 miles away.
>
>All this means that I understand and to a considerable degree sympathise
>with Mr Neil's case. To some extent, there but for the grace of God go I.
>And if we are to provide quality health services to people in remote rural
>areas, then we do demand ridiculous travel schedules of the people who
>deliver that service.

I don't know what the policies at the hospitals is, but if they should
take the safety of their staff (and those they might kill) very
seriously. Just as staff may not run in the halls, they shouldn't be
racing between tow widely separated sites. Extra safety training, and
perhaps sanctions, should be mandatory for those who have to split their
time between the two hospitals.

[Rob Morley]

In article >, mb
says...
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:19:14 +0100, AndyMorris wrote:
>
> > Clive George wrote:
> >>
> >> His job probably contributed to the crash. Regularly driving 70 miles
> >> between places for work could well have made him blase about driving
> >> quickly.
> >>
> >
> > poor didums
> >
> > --
> > 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/
>
>
> If you can fix your quotes, why can't you fix your sig separator?
>
>
Why do you think there's something wrong with his sig sep?

[Rob Morley]

In article >, mb
says...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 04:10:40 +0100, Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > In article >, mb
> > says...
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can fix your quotes, why can't you fix your sig separator?
> >>
> >>
> > Why do you think there's something wrong with his sig sep?
>
> Well, it seems to be OK (dash, dash, space, return) but Pan isn't
> recognising it. The second one is accepted but maybe that's the problem.
>
Works fine in Gravity.
>
> ps. Go to bed earlier or get up later. No good will become of this, you
> know ;)
>
These days I'm not sure whether sunrise is the start or the end. I'm
also considering having two 12 hour days instead of one 24 hour one.

[Matt B]

Mike Sales wrote:
> "Matt B" wrote
>>> Mike Sales wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not clear what you are advocating. More traffic segregation, i.e.
>>> cycle facilities?
>> No. If a car driver didn't have clear boundaries, like kerbs, and white
>> lines, for instance, between which he could be fairly sure would remain
>> pedestrian free, and wasn't given carte blanche to travel at 30 or 40 mph,
>> and didn't have to pay attention at junctions if he had a green light, and
>> wasn't sure whether he had right-of-way in any given encounter with
>> another road user, then I think you would agree,
> No I don't.

We haven't yet established with what. :-~

>> he would have to take more responsibility,

You don't agree with that?

>> and would probably select a slower speed,

Or that?

>> and would be paying close attention to what was happening around
>> him.

Or that?

>> Picture the activity at a cross-roads with broken traffic lights.

Have you ever witnessed the caution drivers take crossing junctions, or
the miraculous improvement in traffic flow when lights fail?

> Are you advocating turning the whole road environment into a Woonerf?

No. They were a good idea in their day (1970s), primarily designed to
meet the needs of pedestrians rather than motorists. Car drivers became
unwelcome in their own residential streets. Forward looking authorities
are replacing them now with schemes designed to make all road users welcome.

> How
> should we make it clear motorists don't have carte blanche to travel.....
> Without law enforcement I think that motorists would establish a way of
> behaving which suited the concensus ,.of motorists.

To have to resort to "law enforcement" means having to create a law,
which is an admission of a society failure. We don't have laws
enforcing the common practice of holding a shop door open for someone
coming the other way. Why do we need a law to make the same people
give-way to other road users? Are there speed cameras in shopping malls
to stop pedestrians colliding with each other?

> They would, as they do
> now, claim as much road as they could, using their speed and weight to deter
> any challenge.

They haven't "claimed" the road, they have been handed it - on a plate.

> The behaviour whch can be made normal in a small residential
> area with your methods would not gain motorist consent on most roads.

"My methods" (not actually mine) - are for /all/ communal and social
street space - town and village centres and residential areas alike.
Part of the price though, to keep through traffic out of the social
spaces, would be a dedicated /network/ of high-speed highways for
inter-urban travel.

>>>>> Since the physical results of accidents are so unequal in that a driver
>>>>> can kill with physical impunity, the legal penalties must be used to
>>>>> redress the balance.
>>>> Or better still, the environment designed to reduce the ways accidents
>>>> can happen.
>>> Do you mean segregation again, or perhaps widespread "traffic calming."
>> Traffic calming - sort of. Like I describe above.
>
> Well, nothing if not ambitious. Are there any roads (besides motorways
> perhaps) which you would not traffic calm?

No. As described above, roads which have a social use, should be
designed to allow pedestrians and car drivers to co-exist - and have
equal priority. Inter-urban travel should be possible on a dedicated
high-speed highway (motorway) network. Motorists attempting to complete
a journey in the shortest time possible don't use roads which aren't
really suitable because they want to, they use them only if they have no
other practical alternative.

>>> I think you have not grasped my point fully. Vehicles like the car as we
>>> know it are so "safe" and easy to kill with that the only way to increase
>>> the risk to drivers of dangerous behaviour is via the law.
>> I understand your point exactly, but I disagree with your conclusion. As I
>> have already said, it doesn't have to be a real risk for you to perceive
>> it as a potential risk.
>
> If an illusory risk proves to be just that, as it inevitably will, people
> will notice. I don't think that your con trick will work for very long.

Most reasonable people obey the social norms. The norm when you aren't
given a priority over a space is to say "after you". :-) Kerbs, lines,
signs, etc. /give/ motorists de facto priority over the road space.
Zebra crossings give pedestrians a legal priority over motorists, so
many pedestrians would rather be killed "because they have the right to
cross" than concede passage to a car - because they have been /given/
priority in that instance.

>> Didn't Wiltshire find that removing
>> the centre line of a road caused the traffic to travel significantly
>> slower? There were no legal penalties involved in causing that speed
>> reduction.
>>
> I don't know, you tell me.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2459847.stm>

> Did they give cyclists more room?

More room that who/what?

--
Matt B

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Simon Brooke >typed
>
>
>> in message >, Helen Deborah Vecht
>> ') wrote:
>
>>> the.Mark >typed
>>>
>>>> I don't know why the judge didn't suggest he got a taxi, he must
>>>> get paid enough as an anaesthetist.
>>> Getting taxis often works out cheaper than owning a car anyway.
>
>> I'll say it again: it's 68 miles between those two hospitals. Don't know
>> how much your local taxis charge per mile...
>
> OK. I've only just logged on today. You can't reasonably travel 68 miles
> for an emergency, and travelling that far in the lunch hour is
> unrealistic IMO as well.
>
> I'm not sure what working arrangements were but this distances sound
> fairly impractical by any mode of transport.

To be honest, I don't see it as an effective use of the anaesthetist's
concentration to have to drive 70 miles for themselves. Much better to
have a couple of shuttle minibuses that can take people from site to
site in comfort, and aggregate non-urgent journeys.
--
A

[Matt B]

Mike Sales wrote:
>
> ...Robert Davis's book "Death on the Streets". Do read this. Its an
> excellent alterative view you might enjoy.

Thanks for the recommendation. Sorry I missed it in my earlier reply.

The book is indeed an interesting reference. There is little between it
and the views I have expressed over the years. It condemns the orthodox
"road safety" measures of the last 50 years as I have done on many
occasions. It supports my stance that the roads have been virtually
handed over to the motorists, and are thus not safe for other users, let
alone for motorists. One difference I detect is that, where I think
that the motorists are victims too, it tends to see them as
collaborators in the sorry system that has been created, essentially to
speed and ease their passage. I think that motorists should be included
in the solution, not excluded from it.

--
Matt B

"Cycle is a poor man’s transport, hobby of rich man and medical activity
for the old."
- Cycling Federation of India

[Matt B]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:47:41 +0100 someone who may be "Mike Sales"
> > wrote this:-
>
>> Sorry, I don't keeps notes of these things. I seem to recall it is mentioned
>> in Robert Davis's book "Death on the Streets". Do read this. Its an
>> excellent alterative view you might enjoy.
>
> I note that you gave this sensible advice and the Troll failed to
> respond.
>
> I am fairly certain the Troll has been referred to this before and
> also failed to respond.

Certainly not intentionally, I have now (belatedly) replied to that point.

--
Matt B

"Cycle is a poor man’s transport, hobby of rich man and medical activity
for the old."
- Cycling Federation of India

[spindrift]

On 24 May, 13:08, David Hansen >
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:37:26 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
> > wrote this:-
>
> >> Maybe these advances contribute to risk compensation as when
> >> the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
>
> >That is an urban myth, there was no trend reversal.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Messers Durbin and Harvey were both professors of statistics and
> thus rather more au fait with the subject than those people who only
> think that they understand statistics.
>
> There was a long established trend which, in the absence of
> interventions, one may assume would have continued. Their report
> measured variations from this trend and that is how the 40% increase
> in cyclist fatalities in two years was measured.
>
> Next contestant please.
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Just read an interesting article, in a journal ("Significance" by the
Royal Statistical Society), by John Adams (Emeritus Professor of
Geography at UCL) on the effect of the introduction of car seat belts
worldwide. One conclusion of interest to me, as a cyclist, was that in
Britain in the year that the wearing of seat belts became compulsory
the number of pedestrianns and cyclists killed increased by 8% and 15%
(also borne out by statistics of persons killed after the introduction
of seat belt laws in Australia where the fatality rate for car
occupants decreased but for other road users increased). It seems seat
belts "redistributed the burden of risk from those who were already
the best protected inside vehicles to those who were the most
vulnerable outside vehicles". The article is also here:

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/failure%20of%20seatbelt%20legislation.pdf

I love the opening letter from 1908:

Letter to The Times, 13 July 1908

from Colonel Willoughby Verner

Dear Sir,

Before any of your readers may be induced to cut their hedges as
suggested by the secretary of the Motor Union they may like to know my
experience of having done so.
Four years ago I cut down the hedges and shrubs to a height of 4ft for
30 yards back from the dangerous crossing in this hamlet. The results
were twofold: the following summer my garden was smothered with dust
caused by fast-driven cars, and the average pace of the passing cars
was considerably increased. This was bad enough, but when the culprits
secured by the police pleaded that "it was perfectly safe to go fast"
because "they could see well at the corner", I realised that I had
made a mistake. Since then I have let my hedges and shrubs grow, and
by planting roses and hops have raised a screen 8ft to 10ft high, by
which means the garden is sheltered to some degree from the dust and
the speed of many passing cars sensibly diminished. For it is
perfectly plain that there are a large number of motorists who can
only be induced to go at a reasonable speed at cross-roads by
consideration for their own personal safety.
Hence the advantage to the public of automatically fostering this
spirit as I am now doing. To cut hedges is a direct encouragement to
reckless driving.

Your obedient servant,
Willoughby Verne

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Just read an interesting article...
>
> I love the opening letter from 1908:
>
> ...
> Dear Sir,
>
> Before any of your readers may be induced to cut their hedges as
> suggested by the secretary of the Motor Union they may like to know my
> experience of having done so.
> Four years ago I cut down the hedges and shrubs to a height of 4ft for
> 30 yards back from the dangerous crossing in this hamlet. The results
> were twofold: the following summer my garden was smothered with dust
> caused by fast-driven cars, and the average pace of the passing cars
> was considerably increased. This was bad enough, but when the culprits
> secured by the police pleaded that "it was perfectly safe to go fast"
> because "they could see well at the corner", I realised that I had
> made a mistake. Since then I have let my hedges and shrubs grow, and
> by planting roses and hops have raised a screen 8ft to 10ft high, by
> which means the garden is sheltered to some degree from the dust and
> the speed of many passing cars sensibly diminished. For it is
> perfectly plain that there are a large number of motorists who can
> only be induced to go at a reasonable speed at cross-roads by
> consideration for their own personal safety.
> Hence the advantage to the public of automatically fostering this
> spirit as I am now doing. To cut hedges is a direct encouragement to
> reckless driving.

This is, perversely, /exactly/ why many (most?) of the measures that
have been introduced (in good faith one assumes) to improve road safety,
have, in fact, had exactly the opposite effect. Anything which reduces
ones perception of risk will give rise to an automatic (subconscious)
increase in risk taking, to compensate (risk homeostasis)). Examples
are kerbs, which give drivers the /perception/ (rightly or wrongly) that
the space between them is reserved for their use, and that obstructions
such as pedestrians will keep away from it (supported by teaching from
an early age to keep off the road), and so their natural instincts lead
them to take a bit less care, and to go a bit quicker, to make up for
the small amount of risk that the kerbs have removed.

This is an explanation of why "shared space" type schemes are so
successful (despite your scepticism) in virtually eliminating serious
road casualties.

Now you see why measures based on "common sense" or "intuition", or
installed due to public demand for them, are not necessarily the
measures which will lead to the safest roads. Often it is the removal
of traditional measures, or even the introduction of measures designed
to create an increased perception of risk, that give the best results.

Do some more reading - you'll realise that what I post on the subject of
road safety is /not/ motivated by a desire to allow motorists to kill
and maim at will - but by the belief that increasing their perception of
risk will lead them to actually drive /less/ dangerously - to
compensate. ;-)

--
Matt B

[Marc Brett]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:27:08 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>Do some more reading - you'll realise that what I post on the subject of
>road safety is /not/ motivated by a desire to allow motorists to kill
>and maim at will - but by the belief that increasing their perception of
>risk will lead them to actually drive /less/ dangerously - to
>compensate. ;-)

So you should also be in favour of regulations, and their strict
enforcement, which increase the risks for poor driving. Lets leave
speed enforcement alone, as it only generates flames. But my greatest
wish would be to see continental-style laws which automatically assume
the driver liable if they hit a pedestrian or cyclist. In your view,
would this increase safety?

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:27:08 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
>> Do some more reading - you'll realise that what I post on the subject of
>> road safety is /not/ motivated by a desire to allow motorists to kill
>> and maim at will - but by the belief that increasing their perception of
>> risk will lead them to actually drive /less/ dangerously - to
>> compensate. ;-)
>
> So you should also be in favour of regulations, and their strict
> enforcement, which increase the risks for poor driving.

No, because they are not sustainable. Any lapse in enforcement, or the
perception that "I won't get caught" results in the risk level
associated with such measures disappearing. They are OK as temporary
short-term stop-gaps in emergency situations, but for sustainable
long-term road safety we need something that doesn't rely on enforcement
and penalties to make it work.

> Lets leave
> speed enforcement alone, as it only generates flames. But my greatest
> wish would be to see continental-style laws which automatically assume
> the driver liable if they hit a pedestrian or cyclist. In your view,
> would this increase safety?

I'm not sure those laws actually exist. AFAIK, in the Netherlands at
least, the laws are similar to those here. Criminal liability has to be
proven. There is a legal precedent which dictates that the insurer of a
motorist, will pay 50% of a vulnerable road user's damages if the
vulnerable road user was to blame for a collision, based on the
assumption that the motor vehicle must have presented the greater risk
in the encounter.

Having said all that, I can still see that many may believe that if a
motorist thinks he will automatically be blamed for an incident, then it
will increase his perception of risk, and he will therefore drive more
carefully. Sustainability, again, is the problem - it relies on the
motorist assuming that he will be caught and held to account. It also
creates an "us and them" divide - never a good thing for the promotion
of harmony. Better that the inequalities that already exist are
removed, and all road users become true peers - with equal rights, equal
responsibilities, equal priorities and being treated equally by the law.

--
Matt B

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

spindrift wrote on 15/06/2007 13:13 +0100:
>
> Just read an interesting article, in a journal ("Significance" by the
> Royal Statistical Society), by John Adams (Emeritus Professor of
> Geography at UCL) on the effect of the introduction of car seat belts
> worldwide. One conclusion of interest to me, as a cyclist, was that
> in Britain in the year that the wearing of seat belts became
> compulsory the number of pedestrianns and cyclists killed increased
> by 8% and 15% (also borne out by statistics of persons killed after
> the introduction of seat belt laws in Australia where the fatality
> rate for car occupants decreased but for other road users increased).
> It seems seat belts "redistributed the burden of risk from those who
> were already the best protected inside vehicles to those who were the
> most vulnerable outside vehicles". The article is also here:
>

Yep, that's the Isle's Report commissioned by the Government to
demonstrate the success of the seat belt laws but suppressed when it
found the opposite only to emerge many years later on the internet.



--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Matt B]

Tony Raven wrote:
> spindrift wrote on 15/06/2007 13:13 +0100:
>>
>> Just read an interesting article, in a journal ("Significance" by the
>> Royal Statistical Society), by John Adams (Emeritus Professor of
>> Geography at UCL) on the effect of the introduction of car seat belts
>> worldwide. One conclusion of interest to me, as a cyclist, was that
>> in Britain in the year that the wearing of seat belts became
>> compulsory the number of pedestrianns and cyclists killed increased
>> by 8% and 15% (also borne out by statistics of persons killed after
>> the introduction of seat belt laws in Australia where the fatality
>> rate for car occupants decreased but for other road users increased).
>> It seems seat belts "redistributed the burden of risk from those who
>> were already the best protected inside vehicles to those who were the
>> most vulnerable outside vehicles". The article is also here:
>>
>
> Yep, that's the Isle's Report commissioned by the Government to
> demonstrate the success of the seat belt laws but suppressed when it
> found the opposite only to emerge many years later on the internet.

Except, Isles wrote his report /before/ the front seat belt law was even
passed by parliament. His conclusion, after comparing countries with
compulsory seat belts and those without, was that compulsion would have
no effect of casualty numbers.

--
Matt B

[Mike Sales]

"Matt B" wrote
> > Having said all that, I can still see that many may believe that if a
> motorist thinks he will automatically be blamed for an incident, then it
> will increase his perception of risk, and he will therefore drive more
> carefully. Sustainability, again, is the problem - it relies on the
> motorist assuming that he will be caught and held to account.

If the penalty follows an "accident" the motorist will usually be caught.
Certainly we need to increase traffic law policing. It's almost non existent
at the moment. Fines should make it self financing.
It also
> creates an "us and them" divide - never a good thing for the promotion of
> harmony. Better that the inequalities that already exist are removed, and
> all road users become true peers - with equal rights, equal
> responsibilities, equal priorities

and equal vulnerability. I fear that with vehicles as they are, your sort of
amiable negotiation of use of road space will not work. Anarchy cannot
function with such inequalities of power.

and being treated equally by the law.
>
Of course, but the law has to recognise that someone controlling an item
with more much more destructive power than a bullet has as much
responsibility for their carelessness as someone who negligently discharges
a gun in a public place.

Mike Sales

[Daniel Barlow]

Mike Sales wrote:
> and equal vulnerability. I fear that with vehicles as they are, your sort of
> amiable negotiation of use of road space will not work. Anarchy cannot
> function with such inequalities of power.

This has always seemed to me the trouble with applying the "shared
streets" concept more widely: unless there's a sufficient number of
pedestrians/VRUs (a critical mass, you might say) why are the motorists
going to slow down and behave in the "we're all mutually respectful"
style it requires?

The average London cabbie is usually perfectly willing to bully other
road users out of the way even when the conditions don't permit driving
more than about 15mph. Look at, for example, the side roads that join
Oxford St (the one in London): there is /already/ a legal requirement
that road users give way to pedestrians crossing the side road, but do
they hell? No, they beep their horns and expect scurrying, and mostly
they get it.



-dan

[Matt B]

Mike Sales wrote:
> "Matt B" wrote
>> Having said all that, I can still see that many may believe that if a
>> motorist thinks he will automatically be blamed for an incident, then it
>> will increase his perception of risk, and he will therefore drive more
>> carefully. Sustainability, again, is the problem - it relies on the
>> motorist assuming that he will be caught and held to account.
>
> If the penalty follows an "accident" the motorist will usually be caught.

Eh? You are making the mistake of assuming that nothing else will
change if such a law comes to pass. We have seen how the police now
claim that they cannot trust vehicle number plates - the result of
automated "offence" recording against vehicle registrations. We know
that unlicensed and uninsured drivers don't stop now after incidents.
The inevitable higher insurance costs will deter more from having it.
The roads will be even more dangerous, with untraceable vehicles and
more uninsured drivers.

> Certainly we need to increase traffic law policing. It's almost non existent
> at the moment. Fines should make it self financing.

Or, reduce the opportunities to break traffic law. :-) One good way is
to have less law.

>> It also
>> creates an "us and them" divide - never a good thing for the promotion of
>> harmony. Better that the inequalities that already exist are removed, and
>> all road users become true peers - with equal rights, equal
>> responsibilities, equal priorities
>
> and equal vulnerability.

Not necessary. Explain why you think it is significant in a vehicle
when it isn't outside of one. For instance why do you think that a
strong healthy young man would happily concede right-of-way to a frail
elderly lady on foot when he could cast her aside without breaking his
stride.

> I fear that with vehicles as they are, your sort of
> amiable negotiation of use of road space will not work. Anarchy cannot
> function with such inequalities of power.

Any "power" that motorists exercise has been given to them, on a plate,
by the current system. Compare the actions of pedestrians on zebra
crossings, where they have been given "power" - many would walk out even
if it meant getting killed, rather than concede their legal priority.
The same pedestrian would hold the door open for the same driver - in a
shop entrance where no "powers" have been given.

> and being treated equally by the law.
> Of course, but the law has to recognise that someone controlling an item
> with more much more destructive power than a bullet has as much
> responsibility for their carelessness as someone who negligently discharges
> a gun in a public place.

Why? Would you murder everyone you could if it wasn't actually illegal
to do so???

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Mike Sales wrote:
>> and equal vulnerability. I fear that with vehicles as they are, your
>> sort of amiable negotiation of use of road space will not work.
>> Anarchy cannot function with such inequalities of power.
>
> This has always seemed to me the trouble with applying the "shared
> streets" concept more widely: unless there's a sufficient number of
> pedestrians/VRUs (a critical mass, you might say) why are the motorists
> going to slow down and behave in the "we're all mutually respectful"
> style it requires?

Because they will have the "power" to assert dominance removed. They
will not have right-of-way on the streets. The roads today are treated
like zebra crossings in reverse - motorists assume, and are assumed by
pedestrians to have, the right-of-way - so they assert it.

Take that assumption of "power" away, and the drivers (who are the same
people who would give up their seat on a bus to a pregnant lady), will
become human whilst at the wheel too.

> The average London cabbie is usually perfectly willing to bully other
> road users out of the way even when the conditions don't permit driving
> more than about 15mph.

For the reasons described above. When they go shopping they join the
back of the queue for the check-out - like most other people do.

> Look at, for example, the side roads that join
> Oxford St (the one in London): there is /already/ a legal requirement
> that road users give way to pedestrians crossing the side road, but do
> they hell?

They probably don't know they should. They assume "ownership" of the
road between the kerbs. Were you taught to wander across the road at
will, or to respect the traffic - and wait for a gap? Do you appreciate
pedestrians wandering about on the bike side of a shared path?

> No, they beep their horns and expect scurrying, and mostly
> they get it.

It's social conditioning. They have been awarded the right to dominate
on the road - pedestrians are conditioned to be submissive.

Take away the rules and everything changes. Are you familiar with the
Seven Dials junction in Covent Garden? It a junction where seven roads
come together. There is a small "island" in the middle, which resembles
a small roundabout. The traffic flow there is a sight to behold.
Pedestrians wander about on the road, sit on the steps of the "island"
with their feet outstretched into the "road", stand in groups in the
middle of the roadway talking. Bikes, and even the occasional car go
direct from one road to another, passing either way around the "island".
What leads to this apparent anarchy? The difference is that there
are no lines and no signs around the central feature, and the surface
doesn't look like traditional "road". Horns are not tooted, taxis wait
for cyclists, cyclists (except spindrift apparently) wait for vans. It
shows that what results in motorists' dominance elsewhere is the
assumption, by all road users, that they have it.

--
Matt B

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:21:22 +0100, the clot wrote:
>
> Take that assumption of "power" away, and the drivers (who are the
> same people who would give up their seat on a bus to a pregnant
> lady), will become human whilst at the wheel too.

They don't in the high street of my home town, which allows traffic
but has no defined kerb lines or road markings and is not a through
route to anywhere.

What happens is that cars park on both sides, so close to the
buildings that my daughter's puschair does not fit between building
and car, then the cars driving down the middle get shirty when
pedestrians don't dive out of the way. I have been aggressively hooted
at for not leaping out of the way immediately a car wanted to pass.

When I'm on my own, I continue to walk at whatever pace I was, and the
car waits. It will be interesting to see how my reaction changes now
a motorist has deliberately tried to kill me in a similar situation
while I was cycling.

When I am accompanied by either of my small daughters, I normally
reluctantly give way, because while I'm confident my responses and
reactions will deal with a car appropriately, I don't know that my
daughter's will. The road used to be entirely pedestrianised. I used
to be able to let my daughter run ahead, so long as she stayed within
sight. She used to have freedom to wander around and investigate what
interested her. No longer can I risk that - my younger daughter has
never experienced it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B wrote:
> Take away the rules and everything changes. Are you familiar with the
> Seven Dials junction in Covent Garden? It a junction where seven roads
> come together.

Yes. It's a junction, not a road, and it's a "safety in numbers" thing.
If there were one pedestrian every few minutes on that junction, you
can bet that the drivers would not be behaving the same way - they only
slow because they have to, then speed up down whichever exit.

As a junction it works simply due to force of numbers, but how would you
extend that spirit of tolerance to an actual route from A-B?


-dan

[AndyMorris]

Ian Smith wrote:
>
> They don't in the high street of my home town, which allows traffic
> but has no defined kerb lines or road markings and is not a through
> route to anywhere.
>
> What happens is that cars park on both sides, so close to the
> buildings that my daughter's puschair does not fit between building
> and car, then the cars driving down the middle get shirty when
> pedestrians don't dive out of the way. I have been aggressively
> hooted at for not leaping out of the way immediately a car wanted to
> pass.
>

Falmouths like that, and the cars do exactly the same.


--
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/



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

[Rob Morley]

In article >, AndyMorris
says...
> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > They don't in the high street of my home town, which allows traffic
> > but has no defined kerb lines or road markings and is not a through
> > route to anywhere.
> >
> > What happens is that cars park on both sides, so close to the
> > buildings that my daughter's puschair does not fit between building
> > and car, then the cars driving down the middle get shirty when
> > pedestrians don't dive out of the way. I have been aggressively
> > hooted at for not leaping out of the way immediately a car wanted to
> > pass.
> >
>
> Falmouths like that, and the cars do exactly the same.
>
Did they take out the pavements? It's been a long time since I was
there, but many's the time I staggered home from Custom House Quay.

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Take away the rules and everything changes. Are you familiar with the
>> Seven Dials junction in Covent Garden? It a junction where seven
>> roads come together.
>
> Yes. It's a junction, not a road,

OTPIAW, it's a road with seven others joining it.

> and it's a "safety in numbers" thing.

Not at all. It's a "no lines, no signs, no clear priority" thing.

> If there were one pedestrian every few minutes on that junction, you
> can bet that the drivers would not be behaving the same way

They /do/ though. Go there when it's quiet - you can still walk halfway
across, stop, take a photo, and hear no tooting horns, while taxis and
white vans wait for you to finish.

> - they only
> slow because they have to, then speed up down whichever exit.

No. They slow because they do not perceive that they have any priority.

> As a junction it works simply due to force of numbers, but how would you
> extend that spirit of tolerance to an actual route from A-B?

"Routes" are different. Schemes like that at Seven Dials are suited to
community spaces, town squares, shopping and market streets etc. Routes
between towns are a different kettle of fish entirely. It's not
realistic to expect motor vehicles to travel at little more than walking
pace on journeys between towns. That's where "motorways" (roads for
fastish motor vehicles only) are needed. With a decent "motorway"
network the "old roads" would be freed from the duty of handling fast
traffic, and could be returned to local and leisure use. There'd be no
excuse to leave them as dangerous race tracks.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:21:22 +0100, the clot wrote:
>> Take that assumption of "power" away, and the drivers (who are the
>> same people who would give up their seat on a bus to a pregnant
>> lady), will become human whilst at the wheel too.
>
> They don't in the high street of my home town, which allows traffic
> but has no defined kerb lines or road markings and is not a through
> route to anywhere.

What do you mean "which allows traffic" - is it a public highway? If it
is it /should/ allow traffic.

> What happens is that cars park on both sides, so close to the
> buildings that my daughter's puschair does not fit between building
> and car, then the cars driving down the middle get shirty when
> pedestrians don't dive out of the way.

Which car drivers - all of them? Is it obviously /not/ just a road?
Are the people in your town a different species from those elsewhere?

> I have been aggressively hooted
> at for not leaping out of the way immediately a car wanted to pass.

So that driver still believed he had priority. What would give him that
impression?

> When I'm on my own, I continue to walk at whatever pace I was, and the
> car waits.

Is that how you would behave on a conventional pavement if a faster
pedestrian was behind you obviously hoping to pass???

> It will be interesting to see how my reaction changes now
> a motorist has deliberately tried to kill me in a similar situation
> while I was cycling.

Why have you got such a bad "attitude" to other road users?
*Deliberately* tried to kill you - are you sure???

> When I am accompanied by either of my small daughters, I normally
> reluctantly give way, because while I'm confident my responses and
> reactions will deal with a car appropriately, I don't know that my
> daughter's will.

It doesn't sound like your road is properly set-up for mixed traffic to me.

> The road used to be entirely pedestrianised.

Ah, so at least someone has seen sense and reverted /that/ bad decision.

> I used
> to be able to let my daughter run ahead, so long as she stayed within
> sight.

That's how it happens now in properly designed "shared space" schemes.
Get on to your council to sort it out. Do they still intimidate
motorists with signs, traffic lights, yellow lines, speed limits etc. ?

> She used to have freedom to wander around and investigate what
> interested her. No longer can I risk that - my younger daughter has
> never experienced it.

Something else needs to be done then - the motorists are obviously
getting the wrong message.

--
Matt B

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B wrote:
> They /do/ though. Go there when it's quiet - you can still walk halfway
> across, stop, take a photo, and hear no tooting horns, while taxis and
> white vans wait for you to finish.

I have been there when it's quiet. I have been driven at by taxis.
(Not with actual intent to hit me, I might add, just in the usual
intimidatory fashion)

>> - they only slow because they have to, then speed up down whichever exit.
>
> No. They slow because they do not perceive that they have any priority.

Because they have to if they wish to avoid hitting other road users.
But the reason they slow is incidental to my point, which is that they
speed up again as soon as they've turned off.

>> As a junction it works simply due to force of numbers, but how would
>> you extend that spirit of tolerance to an actual route from A-B?
>
> "Routes" are different. Schemes like that at Seven Dials are suited to
> community spaces, town squares, shopping and market streets etc. Routes
> between towns are a different kettle of fish entirely. It's not
> realistic to expect motor vehicles to travel at little more than walking

I'm not talking about routes between towns, I'm talking about routes
/in/ towns - such as, for example, all the roads which feed out of Seven
Dials. Even if you were to turn all the multilane roads in London into
"roads for fastish motor vehicles only" - which would be pretty damn
silly, as a competent cyclist can cope even on the likes of Park Lane or
Piccadilly - the average speed on the rest of the road network, which is
still used by all kinds of road user to get from one place to another,
still needs to exceed "little more than walking pace" if anyone's going
to get anywhere.


-dan

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B wrote:
>> When I'm on my own, I continue to walk at whatever pace I was, and the
>> car waits.
>
> Is that how you would behave on a conventional pavement if a faster
> pedestrian was behind you obviously hoping to pass???

95% of pedestrians on conventional pavements are utterly unaware of it
when faster pedestrians are behind them, unless the environment is quiet
enough that they can hear the footsteps.

Why do you think joggers run in the gutter?


-dan

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Daniel Barlow wrote on 16/06/2007 19:10 +0100:
> Matt B wrote:
>

Dan, you are picking up the bad habit of troll wrestling. Please try to
resist the temptation.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell