A surprising result

[DavidR[_3_]]

Found in the local paper
www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/pavement/bikesonpavement.jpg

A block vote by an organised group of pavement cyclists? Doesn't seem likely
to me.

Mathematicians - what is the lowest number of votes needed to get a split
to give those figures?

(I have also sent the link to tosspot though not as a crosspost).

[Tim Woodall]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:24:56 -0000,
DavidR > wrote:
> Found in the local paper
> www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/pavement/bikesonpavement.jpg
>
> A block vote by an organised group of pavement cyclists? Doesn't seem likely
> to me.
>
> Mathematicians - what is the lowest number of votes needed to get a split
> to give those figures?
>
16:7

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/

[Brendan Halpin]

"DavidR" > writes:

> Found in the local paper
> www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/pavement/bikesonpavement.jpg
>
> A block vote by an organised group of pavement cyclists? Doesn't seem likely
> to me.
>
> Mathematicians - what is the lowest number of votes needed to get a split
> to give those figures?

16 yes, 7 no.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

[Martin Dann]

DavidR wrote:
> Found in the local paper
> www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/pavement/bikesonpavement.jpg
>
> A block vote by an organised group of pavement cyclists? Doesn't seem likely
> to me.
>
> Mathematicians - what is the lowest number of votes needed to get a split
> to give those figures?

23, [1]
16 for pavement cycling, nine against.
All it would take is one person to hit the speed dial a few times to
skew these results. Even statistic error is meaningless here.

For surveys this small, they should really post the total number of
responses.

> (I have also sent the link to tosspot though not as a crosspost).

Martin.



30.43*23/100=7 69.57*23/100=16

[bugbear]

DavidR wrote:
> Found in the local paper
> www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/pavement/bikesonpavement.jpg
>
> A block vote by an organised group of pavement cyclists? Doesn't seem likely
> to me.
>
> Mathematicians - what is the lowest number of votes needed to get a split
> to give those figures?
>
> (I have also sent the link to tosspot though not as a crosspost).

Of course, most car drivers are quite happy for
cyclists to be ABSOLUTELY anywhere, so long
as the cars can drive as fast as possible.

BugBear

[Brian G]

bugbear wrote:

> Of course, most car drivers are quite happy for
> cyclists to be ABSOLUTELY anywhere, so long
> as the cars can drive as fast as possible.

Got it in one. Of course they'll allow cyclists on the pavement, or
practically anywhere else that isn't the road. And the more cyclists
who fall for it, the greater the likelihood of fuelling moves for
clearing all cyclists off the roads.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

[Matt B]

Brian G wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>
>> Of course, most car drivers are quite happy for
>> cyclists to be ABSOLUTELY anywhere, so long
>> as the cars can drive as fast as possible.
>
> Got it in one. Of course they'll allow cyclists on the pavement, or
> practically anywhere else that isn't the road. And the more cyclists
> who fall for it, the greater the likelihood of fuelling moves for
> clearing all cyclists off the roads.

Absolutely, and as more money is spent on cycle facilities, and less on
new roads and motorways, that day gets closer.

What do we want:

1. Current roads dedicated entirely to motor vehicles, and cyclists
largely banished to new segregated "facilities"?

2. Current roads shared on an equal basis by /all/ users, with motor
vehicle de-facto priority removed, and motor vehicles largely banished
to new segregated facilities (motorways)?

--
Matt B

[Brian G]

Matt B wrote:
> Brian G wrote:
>> bugbear wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, most car drivers are quite happy for
>>> cyclists to be ABSOLUTELY anywhere, so long
>>> as the cars can drive as fast as possible.
>>
>> Got it in one. Of course they'll allow cyclists on the pavement, or
>> practically anywhere else that isn't the road. And the more cyclists
>> who fall for it, the greater the likelihood of fuelling moves for
>> clearing all cyclists off the roads.
>
> Absolutely, and as more money is spent on cycle facilities, and less on
> new roads and motorways, that day gets closer.

Kindly don't agree with me. It feels too much like Margaret Thatcher
giving me the nod.

We don't need more money spent on new roads or motorways. The present
network is generally adequate. What we do need are sensible links to
join up the roads into fully rideable routes, hence my support for
Connect 2. We also need much more rigorously enforced speed limits and
the re-opening of a national rail freight network. I won't hold my
breath on those.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

[JNugent[_2_]]

Brian G wrote:

> We don't need more money spent on new roads or motorways. The present network is generally adequate.

Whilst bearing in mind that the writer could potentially provide a
number of different post-hoc definitions of "we", that has to be in
the running for most tongue-in-cheek post of the year on uk usenet.

[Matt B]

Brian G wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Brian G wrote:
>>> bugbear wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course, most car drivers are quite happy for
>>>> cyclists to be ABSOLUTELY anywhere, so long
>>>> as the cars can drive as fast as possible.
>>>
>>> Got it in one. Of course they'll allow cyclists on the pavement, or
>>> practically anywhere else that isn't the road. And the more cyclists
>>> who fall for it, the greater the likelihood of fuelling moves for
>>> clearing all cyclists off the roads.
>>
>> Absolutely, and as more money is spent on cycle facilities, and less
>> on new roads and motorways, that day gets closer.
>
> Kindly don't agree with me.

Sorry, I thought you were against the segregation of cyclists.

> It feels too much like Margaret Thatcher
> giving me the nod.

And what greater accolade could you wish for ;-)

> We don't need more money spent on new roads or motorways. The present
> network is generally adequate.

Ah, you accept unnecessary congestion, road casualties, and inefficient
travel.

> What we do need are sensible links to
> join up the roads into fully rideable routes, hence my support for
> Connect 2.

Another reason for motorists to resent cyclists sharing the roads, and
to insist that they keep out of the way on their expensive, dedicated,
"facilities".

> We also need much more rigorously enforced speed limits

Do you /really/ mean that, or is what you actually mean that we need
less driving at inappropriate speeds? The latter definitely delivers
safer roads, the former probably delivers more dangerous roads.

> and
> the re-opening of a national rail freight network.

Elaborate please.

> I won't hold my
> breath on those.

--
Matt B

[Brian G]

JNugent wrote:
> Brian G wrote:
>
>> We don't need more money spent on new roads or motorways. The present
>> network is generally adequate.
>
> Whilst bearing in mind that the writer could potentially provide a
> number of different post-hoc definitions of "we", that has to be in the
> running for most tongue-in-cheek post of the year on uk usenet.

Certainly I'm not familiar with every metre of road in the UK. However
in those parts that I do know well there is an excellent network of
roads I can use to cycle to just about anywhere I might want to.
Glancing over maps of those areas I don't know, the position seems to be
largely the same.

Spending money on new roads, in my now rather lengthy experience,
invariably leads to an increase in motor traffic. It's just possible
it's at this point that you and I take a different view of what is
desirable or sustainable.

For the avoidance of doubt, my tongue is centred as I write.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

[Brian G]

Matt B wrote:
> Brian G wrote:

>> We also need much more rigorously enforced speed limits
>
> Do you /really/ mean that, or is what you actually mean that we need
> less driving at inappropriate speeds? The latter definitely delivers
> safer roads, the former probably delivers more dangerous roads.

You're right, in that ideally I do mean less driving at inappropriate
speeds. However I see no evidence of any desire on the part of many
motorists to reach that goal on their own so enforced speed reduction
remains the best bet.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

[Matt B]

Brian G wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Brian G wrote:
>
>>> We also need much more rigorously enforced speed limits
>>
>> Do you /really/ mean that, or is what you actually mean that we need
>> less driving at inappropriate speeds? The latter definitely delivers
>> safer roads, the former probably delivers more dangerous roads.
>
> You're right, in that ideally I do mean less driving at inappropriate
> speeds.

I had to ask, because there are some here who argue that it is the
sticking to the limit, and not the appropriateness of the actual speed,
that determines safeness. They seem to have blind faith in the
arbitrarily chosen limit, and cannot see that 30 mph (even 20 mph) is
rarely an appropriately low speed in our community shared spaces.

> However I see no evidence of any desire on the part of many
> motorists to reach that goal on their own so enforced speed reduction
> remains the best bet.

Not so much "enforced" as "allowed" or "inevitable", I think, by
removing the upward pressure on speeds that hard limits alone, provide.

The use of speed limits, along with whatever enforcement measure, if
any, is chosen, assumes that the maximum appropriate speed, at any given
spot in the specified zone, will be the same as for every other spot in
the same zone, for all circumstances and for all conditions, and will be
from the government approved set of half-a-dozen possible speed limits.

Better to remove the target speed, and the de-facto priority given to
motor vehicles in most community road spaces, and to remove every cue
which implies any right-of-way. That way each interaction with each
other road user will be on a 50/50 basis, and generally (we will never
eliminate the psychopath) appropriate speeds will ensue. Notice what
happens at traffic-light junctions when the traffic-lights are out-of-order.

--
Matt B

[Tom Cumming]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:48:23 +0000, Matt B wrote:

> I had to ask, because there are some here who argue that it is the
> sticking to the limit, and not the appropriateness of the actual speed,
> that determines safeness. They seem to have blind faith in the
> arbitrarily chosen limit, and cannot see that 30 mph (even 20 mph) is
> rarely an appropriately low speed in our community shared spaces.

Guess it depends on the skill with which we wish to train our drivers in
the UK. I remember travelling in Spain a number of years ago and being
amazed how many speed limits signs there were on what we would classify
as national-speed-limit type roads - ie, a certain distance from a
junction, bend, roundabout etc there would a slight reduction in speed
limit, then a bit later, another, then another, so as to gradually slow
drivers down on approach to the hazard. Here on the other hand, we seem
to just put a sign up warning of the hazard, and expect drivers to work
out how fast is appropriate. I cannot help thinking that providing our
driver training is adequate, our approach is more sensible as it doesn't
mean an insanely large number of signs to keep track of.

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 13 Dec, Matt B > wrote:
>
> I had to ask, because there are some here who argue that it is the
> sticking to the limit, and not the appropriateness of the actual speed,
> that determines safeness.

Who? Provide a quote and reference.

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

[DavidR[_3_]]

"Tim Woodall" > wrote
> DavidR > wrote:
>> Found in the local paper
>> www.david.eazyrider.co.uk/pavement/bikesonpavement.jpg
>>
>> A block vote by an organised group of pavement cyclists? Doesn't seem
>> likely
>> to me.
>>
>> Mathematicians - what is the lowest number of votes needed to get a split
>> to give those figures?
>>
> 16:7
>
I was looking in slightly the in wrong direction though I guessed less than
30.

[DavidR[_3_]]

"JNugent" > wrote
> Brian G wrote:
>
>> We don't need more money spent on new roads or motorways. The present
>> network is generally adequate.
>
> Whilst bearing in mind that the writer could potentially provide a number
> of different post-hoc definitions of "we", that has to be in the running
> for most tongue-in-cheek post of the year on uk usenet.

My company is relocation our office 3 miles from where I live to 18 miles
away and is inconvenient to most of the workforce.

Whether roads are adequate or not is largely irrelevant. If this is a cost
saving measure for the company (and rumour has it that the new premises are
more expensive per unit area), they are effectively relying on publicly
funded facilities. I suggest that if the road network was not as good as it
is, companies would be less inclined to mess about like this. Or more
likely, they do it anyway and then wonder why the roads have filled up.

[JNugent[_2_]]

DavidR wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote
>>Brian G wrote:

>>>We don't need more money spent on new roads or motorways. The present
>>>network is generally adequate.

>>Whilst bearing in mind that the writer could potentially provide a number
>>of different post-hoc definitions of "we", that has to be in the running
>>for most tongue-in-cheek post of the year on uk usenet.

> My company is relocation our office 3 miles from where I live to 18 miles
> away and is inconvenient to most of the workforce.

OK.

> Whether roads are adequate or not is largely irrelevant.

"Irrelevant" to what?

Certainly not irrelevant to the question of whether the... er... roads
are adequate.

> If this is a cost
> saving measure for the company (and rumour has it that the new premises are
> more expensive per unit area), they are effectively relying on publicly
> funded facilities. I suggest that if the road network was not as good as it
> is, companies would be less inclined to mess about like this. Or more
> likely, they do it anyway and then wonder why the roads have filled up.

You'll be resigning, I assume?

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec, Matt B > wrote:
>> I had to ask, because there are some here who argue that it is the
>> sticking to the limit, and not the appropriateness of the actual speed,
>> that determines safeness.
>
> Who?

Weren't you one of them? Or do you too agree that speed limits are less
useful than a broken watch, which is, at least, precisely right twice a day.

--
Matt B

[Alistair Gunn]

Ian Smith twisted the electrons to say:
> On Thu, 13 Dec, Matt B > wrote:
> > I had to ask, because there are some here who argue that it is the
> > sticking to the limit, and not the appropriateness of the actual speed,
> > that determines safeness.
> Who? Provide a quote and reference.

Surely the person who posts here who most believes in choosing their own
"safe speed", regardless of what the speed limit might be, is in fact
TrollB? IIRC, he also believes that trying to keep to the lesser of that
self-chosen "safe speed" is far much mental effort?"
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Matt B]

Alistair Gunn wrote:
> Ian Smith twisted the electrons to say:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec, Matt B > wrote:
>>> I had to ask, because there are some here who argue that it is the
>>> sticking to the limit, and not the appropriateness of the actual speed,
>>> that determines safeness.
>> Who? Provide a quote and reference.
>
> Surely the person who posts here who most believes in choosing their own
> "safe speed", regardless of what the speed limit might be, is in fact
> TrollB?

"Choosing", yes, in the same way that you "choose" the speed you drive
within a traffic jam. If you read my posts you'll see that the choice I
promote is the one of a virtual "Hobson's choice". I believe that,
within community shared spaces, the de-facto priority given to motor
traffic should be removed, and that all cues which imply a right-of-way,
such as kerbs, signs, and signals should be removed. I believe the
result will be a dramatic /decrease/ (yes a *decrease*) in traffic
speeds, with a consequential reduction in road casualties.

Speed limits advertise a speed (+10% +2), which is actually unsafe in
many situations within its zone, as acceptable, and suggest a target to
drivers who are anyway given de-facto priority on the roads, and who are
further encouraged to go too fast, by being lulled into believing that
they don't have to beware of other traffic if their lights are green, or
if their route is protected by give-way lines, kerbs, etc.

> IIRC, he also believes that trying to keep to the lesser of that
> self-chosen "safe speed" is far much mental effort?"

Presumably you meant "to keep to the lesser of that self-chosen 'safe
speed' and the posted limit".

When (if ever) you understand where I'm coming from, you'll realise that
the self-chosen speed will rarely, if ever, come near to the arbitrary
limits currently used in community spaces, then you'll realise how
unlikely it is that you could possibly have recalled or remembered that
correctly.

--
Matt B

[DavidR[_3_]]

"JNugent" > wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>Brian G wrote:
>
>>>>We don't need more money spent on new roads or motorways. The present
>>>>network is generally adequate.
>
>>>Whilst bearing in mind that the writer could potentially provide a number
>>>of different post-hoc definitions of "we", that has to be in the running
>>>for most tongue-in-cheek post of the year on uk usenet.
>
>> My company is relocation our office 3 miles from where I live to 18 miles
>> away and is inconvenient to most of the workforce.
>
> OK.
>
>> Whether roads are adequate or not is largely irrelevant.
>
> "Irrelevant" to what?

The paragraph was badly constructed.

An additional 15 mile each way commute is an issue no matter how good or bad
the roads. Even on the most perfectly executed road system it would be
another 40 minutes a day, minimum. A road system is usually considered
adequate if it can support 20mph average in busy periods - an hour and a
half. On top of that, my fuel usage will rise 20 fold. Those are the
relevant points, not the road.

If (as some argue) that the road network is poor, it is important
to consider the reasons for the demand, rather than concentrating on the
supply side. Having given a corporate ego trip as one example of a cause of
change in demand, I doubt it is a particularly isolated one.

> Certainly not irrelevant to the question of whether the... er... roads are
> adequate.
>
>> If this is a cost
>> saving measure for the company (and rumour has it that the new premises
>> are
>> more expensive per unit area), they are effectively relying on publicly
>> funded facilities. I suggest that if the road network was not as good as
>> it
>> is, companies would be less inclined to mess about like this. Or more
>> likely, they do it anyway and then wonder why the roads have filled up.
>
> You'll be resigning, I assume?

Let's stick with discussing the state of the roads?

[Colin McKenzie]

Matt B wrote:
> Notice what happens at traffic-light junctions when the
> traffic-lights are out-of-order.

I did. Pedestrians pile up on all sides, unable to cross.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Ekul Namsob]

Colin McKenzie > wrote:

> Matt B wrote:
> > Notice what happens at traffic-light junctions when the
> > traffic-lights are out-of-order.
>
> I did. Pedestrians pile up on all sides, unable to cross.

In fairness, I believe that the situation Matt would like to see would
have plenty of zebra crossings or some similar means of allowing
pedestrians to cross easily.

I'm not sure how this would work in areas where there is a constant
stream of pedestrians.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[JNugent[_2_]]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Colin McKenzie > wrote:
>
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>> > Notice what happens at traffic-light junctions when the
>> > traffic-lights are out-of-order.
>>
>>I did. Pedestrians pile up on all sides, unable to cross.
>
>
> In fairness, I believe that the situation Matt would like to see would
> have plenty of zebra crossings or some similar means of allowing
> pedestrians to cross easily.

Pelicons that give a reasonable share to traffic (with a minimum of
say, 30s of green) would work well.

> I'm not sure how this would work in areas where there is a constant
> stream of pedestrians.

The one outside the old Bank of England in Castle Street, Liverpool,
was always something to behold. At lunchtimes and office-close time,
there was a never-ending stream of pedestrian traffic. I don't expect
it's there now (are there many zebras left anywhere?).

[Pete Biggs]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec, Matt B > wrote:
>>
>> I had to ask, because there are some here who argue that it is the
>> sticking to the limit, and not the appropriateness of the actual
>> speed, that determines safeness.
>
> Who? Provide a quote and reference.

If ever you need clear evidence that Matt B is a troll then that above is
it. He would go away if everyone ignored him.

~PB

[Ekul Namsob]

JNugent > wrote:

> The one outside the old Bank of England in Castle Street, Liverpool,
> was always something to behold. At lunchtimes and office-close time,
> there was a never-ending stream of pedestrian traffic. I don't expect
> it's there now (are there many zebras left anywhere?).

There are quite a number here in Preston. It's not nearly enough,
however.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[JNugent[_2_]]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>
>
>>The one outside the old Bank of England in Castle Street, Liverpool,
>>was always something to behold. At lunchtimes and office-close time,
>>there was a never-ending stream of pedestrian traffic. I don't expect
>>it's there now (are there many zebras left anywhere?).
>
>
> There are quite a number here in Preston. It's not nearly enough,
> however.

I prefer them to pelicons, certainly.