[OT] Speeding motorist - "It's unfair"

[Tim Woodall]

The original "anger"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/3052856.stm

"He [the speeder] said the case had nothing to do with road safety as
he had completed the manoeuvre in total safety ... raise money through
fines ..."



What is interesting about this one is that the police have it on camera.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3105751.stm

But the police have now hit back. "Video of the moment when he was caught
in his BMW was shown at the news conference, and reporters were handed
31 photographs of the sequence"

I can't find the video or photos on the BBC site.


Two other quotes. "... he [the speeder] said the chief constable must be
desperate to make such a fuss over such a trivial case."

"Mr Shaw [the speeder] was upset that the chief constable suggested he
was driving dangerously, when he said he obviously was not."

Clearly, not only do cameras have no discretion, which is obviously
unfair to speeders, but even the police can't tell the difference between
good and bad drivers.


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/

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:14:20 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Tim
Woodall > wrote this:-

>The original "anger"
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/3052856.stm

>[speeder] "An honest, law-abiding pensioner

Someone who drives at 39mph in a 30mph zone is patently not
law-abiding. He may have convinced himself that he is law-abiding,
but in reality he is a minor criminal.

>"In doing so, he unwittingly may have strayed over the speed limit

That is not an excuse AFAIK.

>by a few mph

The definition of "a few" might stretch to five, but not nine.

He was driving at 30% over the speed limit.

We also know from TRL the difference between 40mph and 30mph in
terms of the likely outcome for those hit by motorists.

>for a very brief period.

That we don't know.

>"The police answer is to threaten him with court proceedings,

Glad to hear it.

>a maximum fine of £1,000 and penalty points

That is about the size of it. Note the disparity between the maximum
fine and the one the Magistrate imposed.

>unless he pays them £60

Which goes into a fund for paying for speed camera maintenance and
more speed cameras. An excellent use of the money. It does not go
into something like the Chief Constable's Christmas Party Fund,
despite implications that this is what happens.

>and then prosecute him in court,

That is the CPS.

>take away a chunk of his pension

I'm fascinated to know how the police or the CPS did this.

I doubt if £90 will make much impact on the pension of a retired
bank manager.

>and make him out for all to see as a bad and dangerous driver,

That appears to be the opinion of the police.

>and a convicted offender.

That is a fact. There is no making this out.


>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3105751.stm
>
>But the police have now hit back.

I am glad they have done so. It is good to see the police behaving
sensibly for once.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...

> >[speeder] "An honest, law-abiding pensioner
> Someone who drives at 39mph in a 30mph zone is patently not
> law-abiding.

Absolutely. The U-shaped curve puts him in a zone of significantly
increased risk of crashing - that is not safe driving. There is, after all,
no law which says that if a vehicle is going slower than you want to, you
must overtake.

> >"In doing so, he unwittingly may have strayed over the speed limit
> That is not an excuse AFAIK.

You don't "stray over the speed limit" by a third.

> I doubt if £90 will make much impact on the pension of a retired
> bank manager.

Especially one who can afford a rather nice-looking car...

Bad News: link to bugger-safe-lets-speed.org.uk on the report. I suggest a
campaign of feedback to the BBC drawing attention to the "who's vulnerable"
thread and the 12mph page (mirrored with comments at my site if you want to
see it now it's been laughed off the web). I think there is no room for
doubt: our friend in the North is not a road safety campaigner, just a
garden-variety speeding apologist.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

[Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]]

Tim Woodall wrote:

[snip]

> Clearly, not only do cameras have no discretion, which is obviously
> unfair to speeders, but even the police can't tell the difference between
> good and bad drivers.

I disagree with Tim's implied irony. Although I am a keen cyclist,
I am also a motorist ("cager"), motor-cyclist (don't know what the perjorative
term for one of those is), horse-rider, walker, and have even roller-
bladed on the public carriageway on quiet lanes in Germany, so I have
no particular axe to grind. But from my own observations, travelling
typically 120 miles every day (mainly motorway but including country
lanes, residential streets and so on), the police are perfectly happy
to tolerate speeding when it is (a) not excessive, and (b) not accompanied
by dangerous driving. Motorway users who signal, practice lane discipline,
use their mirrors and so on, are almost never pulled over unless their
speed becomes truly excessive (in excess of, say, 90 miles per hour).
But motorists who hog the outside lane, flash everyone who dares to
impede their progress, and carve up more law-abiding motorists who
are trying to stick to the speed limit, can be and are pulled up when
they are spotted. And to my mind, this is just as it should be :
speed is not of itself dangerous, but when it is /accompanied/ by
dangerous driving, can and should be stopped and punished.

And (a slight digression), I would like to commend 99.9% of the motorists in
the New Forest, where my wife and I were cycling two weekends ago :
almost without exception, they would wait for a cyclist who was
ahead of them to wave them through, rather than just blindly barging
past as happens only too often around outer London.

Philip Taylor

[Adrian Boliston]

"Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
...

> How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more than at
> 30mph.

I would have guessed it as 1.3 times more (ie 30%), but it's about 30 years since
I did physics!

[Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> "Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" > wrote in message
> news:a3399d5dbefc13c4e781ed5cddad7b22@TeraNews...
>
>
>>speed is not of itself dangerous
>
>
> Speeding, however, is. There is a large and growing body of evidence saying
> that (a) driving at significantly above the median speed for a road is
> associated with greater risk of crashing (significant being 15-20% or more);

I would completely agree with this; it is the /median/ speed which is
important, not an arbitrary figure set by a local authority and/or the
police. If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is not excessively
heavy, the median speeds for the three lanes will be close to 75, 85 and 95
respectively. By selecting the appropriate lane, and by matching your own
speed to that of the prevailing traffic, you will do far more for road
safety that by blindly following a "<= 70 : good ; > 70 bad" rule.

> (b) those who have several speeding convictions are also more likely to have
> been involved in crashes;

Yes, I don't dispute that for one instant, but not does it conflict with
my earlier assertion that (using your terminology) those who have several
speeding convictions probably tend to drive dangerously as well as speed.

(c) probability of fatality rises roughly with the
> fourth power of impact speed - and so on.

Certain as /a/ power of impact speed : not certain I would agree with
the fourth powet without doing a little more research.

> Speeding is dangerous, and suggesting it isn't is one of the more dangerous
> pieces of self-delusion we practice when we drive.

The problem is, "speeding" is open to interpretation. If you mean
"exceeding the statutory limit", then I disagree (for reasons which
I will return to below); if you mean "driving significantly faster than
the median speed for the road/lane which you are using", then I would agree.

There are two reasons why I disagree with the first interpretation :

1) speed limits are arbitrary : German autobahns are little different
to our own motorways, yet unless posted to the contrary, there is no
speed limit on them. Thus speeds which are legal in Germany are illegal
in this country : that is illogical.

2) speed limits should be seen as guidance, not rule : if I drive down
even a four-lane road near my home, with cars parked both sides,
I try to keep my speed down to 20 mph or so -- reason : it is a residential
area, with all the accompanying risks of children, pets, etc, suddenly
appearing between the parked cars. Where that same road narrows to
two lanes, yet ceases to run through a residential area, I frequently
increase my speed to 30 or more : even 40 if the road is completely
clear and visibility excellent. Yet the limit for this road is
30 mph throughout : the local authority make no distinction between
residential and semi-rural stretches.

** Phil.

[Adrian Boliston]

"Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" > wrote in message
news:d72cdaeffc44552811057a57de964856@TeraNews...

> I would completely agree with this; it is the /median/ speed which is
> important, not an arbitrary figure set by a local authority and/or the
> police. If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is not excessively
> heavy, the median speeds for the three lanes will be close to 75, 85 and 95
> respectively.

That seems a lot more than most m-ways! I'd say more like 60/70/80

[Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]]

Adrian Boliston wrote:

> "Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" > wrote in message

[snip]

>>If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is not excessively
>>heavy, the median speeds for the three lanes will be close to 75, 85 and 95
>>respectively.
>
>
> That seems a lot more than most m-ways! I'd say more like 60/70/80

I agree, which is why I specifically cited the M3; it does seems to
support a very high average speed southbound from the M25.

** Phil.

[Paul Rudin]

>>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Boliston > writes:

> "Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
> ...

>> How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69%
>> more than at 30mph.

> I would have guessed it as 1.3 times more (ie 30%), but it's
> about 30 years since I did physics!

It's a long time since I did it too... but 0.5mv^2 is floating around
somewhere in my brain so the ratio of energies is 39^2/30^2 or
1521/900 or 1.69.

So 69% extra seems correct to me.

[Paul Kelly]

In ,
Helen Deborah Vecht > typed:
> How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more than
> at 30mph.


And cycling through a red light is infinitely more dangerous to pedestrians
and other cyclists than stopping at a red light.

Form a post of mine a short while ago:


>>I'm a cyclist (and driver) I was alomost knocked off my bike on wednesday
evening. I was turning right out of a traffic light protected T_junction
when i was almost hit by a cyclist going striaght across the T ignoring the
red light - I had to take evasive action to avoid the errant cyclist and the
car following me out of the junction, the f**kwit cyclist ignored me and
carried on<<

If cyclists want to make a song and dance about motorists breaking the law
then more cyclists need to obey the law themselves and many that I observe,
while cycling myself, need to pay more heed to the safety of other road
users of all types.

pk

[John Wallace]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> "Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" > wrote in message
> news:a3399d5dbefc13c4e781ed5cddad7b22@TeraNews...
>
> > speed is not of itself dangerous
>
> Speeding, however, is.

No, it is not.

Driving at 70mph on a motorway is neither speeding nor
dangerous. If I now stick up a 30mph sign there, clearly driving at 70mph
would be speeding, but how would it suddenly have become more dangerous? If
the only answer is due to the relative speed differential to the other cars
then the speed limit itself has caused the danger, nothing to do with the
road, the car or the driver.

If I then drive in Germany at the same speed I am causing danger by going to
slowly on their autobahn. If I drive in the US, I cause havoc by massively
speeding, despite the much wider roaders and clearance room. Clearly
"speeding = dangerous" is far from the truth.

I have no doubt that increased speed is a factor in making many accidents
worse, but it would seem to be the main factor in the cause of only a
handful of accidents. A quick survey of any road I see in the morning
suggests that the vast majority of people are "speeding" (following the
speed of the surrounding traffic). Speeding will then automatically be a
factor in every accident. To equate that with speed being the cause of the
accident is just misrepresentation of the data to justify yet more speed
cameras and reduce the number of traffic police. The speed cameras further
promote dangerour driving (slow down to pass them, speed up more to recover
the time afterwards - like it or not, we all see it happen), whereas the
police can at least judge what truly is dangerous or not and punish
(financially educate) more appropriately.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Michael Kent]

Adrian Boliston wrote:
> "Helen Deborah Vecht" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more
>> than at 30mph.
>
> I would have guessed it as 1.3 times more (ie 30%), but it's about 30
> years since I did physics!


Afraid Not K.E = 1/2 m v^2 , which means car twice as heavy, double the K.E.
car twice as fast four times the K.E

Not a nice equation for Pedestrians or Cyclists

--
Michael Kent

There are only 10 types of people in this world.
Those who understand binary,... and those that don't
Remove Shaggy's best friend to reply

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:35:39 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Kelly"
> wrote:

>If cyclists want to make a song and dance about motorists breaking the law
>then more cyclists need to obey the law themselves

But here we're making a song and dance about a motorist making a song
and dance about being caught breaking the law - and by quite a eide
margin. And then lying about it to the point that the Police took the
unprecedented step of showing the video footage proving that his sob
story is Complete ********.

He also makes a big deal out of being a poor pensioner, but we see him
driving a rather agreeable-looking car. I work hard and am a
high-rate taxpayer, I can afford to run an ageing Volvo. I don't
think he's going to miss the ninety quid quite as much as he makes
out.

I don't condone dangerous or illegal cycling, but it is a fact that
negligent car drivers kill more people than negligent pedestrians or
cyclists, and negligent pedestrians and cyclists are more likely to
cause their own death than someone else's, all of which are
conveniently forgotten when drivers launch of into a "why should I
stop speeding[1] when cyclists run red lights" rant.

[1] speeding is implicated in 1/3 of fatal accidentsm, i.e. around
1,000 deaths per year.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
New! Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

[Velvet]

Paul Kelly wrote:

> In ,
> Velvet > typed:
>
>>RobinT wrote:
>>. Whilst it might be dangerous to themselves if
>>they're
>>doing it down a road with side junctions (given the ability of other
>>road users to fail to see cyclists sometimes, or expect them to be
>>going
>>that fast) it still doesn't make it illegal, even if somewhat unwise,
>>perhaps.
>
>
>
> Surely equally dangerous for any pedestrian or other cyclist who happens to
> come out of said side junctions?
>
> pk
>
>
Where did I say it wasn't equally as dangerous to other road users? I
merely said it wasn't illegal. And before you counter that I'm
condoning it, I'm not, merely pointing out that the original poster who
seemed to assume the cyclists attempting to reach earth-escape velocity
down their hills are not necessarily breaking speedlimits...

Velvet

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:13:28 GMT, "Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]"
> wrote:

>> Speeding, however, is. There is a large and growing body of evidence saying
>> that (a) driving at significantly above the median speed for a road is
>> associated with greater risk of crashing (significant being 15-20% or more);

>I would completely agree with this; it is the /median/ speed which is
>important, not an arbitrary figure set by a local authority

Median speed on a 30mph road is about 30mph, on a motorway it's a
shade under 60. Speed limits are there for a reason, and the motor
lobby fought tooth and nail against their introduction. The reason is
that left to their own devices motorists rouutinely drive too fast for
the conditions, partly because they overestimate their own skill and
partly because while the benefit of driving fast accrues entirely to
the driver the risk is distributed among other road users, so the cost
/ benefit from the motorist's standpoint comes out strongly in favourt
of driving fast.

>police. If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is not excessively
>heavy,

About 3am from my experience, and the median speed in my lane was 135
back then. I don't do that any more.

>By selecting the appropriate lane, and by matching your own
>speed to that of the prevailing traffic, you will do far more for road
>safety that by blindly following a "<= 70 : good ; > 70 bad" rule.

And by obeying the speed limit so all the lanes are under 70 the total
level of danger is reduced, for the simple and obvious reason that KE
= 1/2 mv^2. You also increase the effective capacity of the road;
optimum capacity is around the 60 mark from memory.

>> (b) those who have several speeding convictions are also more likely to have
>> been involved in crashes;

>Yes, I don't dispute that for one instant, but not does it conflict with
>my earlier assertion that (using your terminology) those who have several
>speeding convictions probably tend to drive dangerously as well as speed.

But it does undermine the assertion that speed cameras are not
targeting dangerous drivers - they may not detect dangerous /driving/
(that would require my new patent ****so[TM] camera) but they plainly
do detect dangerous /drivers/.

>(c) probability of fatality rises roughly with the
>> fourth power of impact speed - and so on.

>Certain as /a/ power of impact speed : not certain I would agree with
>the fourth powet without doing a little more research.

Luckily Joksch has already done it for us and revealed that the power
is 4 ;-)

>> Speeding is dangerous, and suggesting it isn't is one of the more dangerous
>> pieces of self-delusion we practice when we drive.

>The problem is, "speeding" is open to interpretation.

Not according to the Road Traffic Act...

> If you mean
>"exceeding the statutory limit", then I disagree

Evidently, but the evidence is against you.

>There are two reasons why I disagree with the first interpretation :

>1) speed limits are arbitrary : German autobahns are little different
>to our own motorways, yet unless posted to the contrary, there is no
>speed limit on them.

They also have higher fatal accident rates. Across a wide range of
countries and sites, reduction of average vehicle speeds results in a
reduction in fatal serious injury crashes.

>2) speed limits should be seen as guidance, not rule

Absolutely not. I am entirely in favour of less arbitrary mechanisms
for setting limits, but I can't imagine anything more dangerous than
allowing drivers to decide to drive faster than the limit - remember,
most drivers overstimate their own skill, and while all the benefit of
going fast accrues to the driver much of the danger accrues to others.
This flaw was recognised when mandatory speed limits were introduced,
and it hasn't changed.

>the local authority make no distinction between
>residential and semi-rural stretches.

I could name areas where speed limits are equally arbitrary, but I
still observe them.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
New! Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:41:15 +0100, "John Wallace" >
wrote:

>> > speed is not of itself dangerous
>> Speeding, however, is.
>No, it is not.

Unless you define danger in terms of "increases risk of crashing" of
course...

>Driving at 70mph on a motorway is neither speeding nor
>dangerous. If I now stick up a 30mph sign there, clearly driving at 70mph
>would be speeding, but how would it suddenly have become more dangerous?

Straw man. Never seen a 30 limit on a motorway. I've seen a 50
limit, and I've seen people drive at 90 through it, and I've seen the
wreckage of one such tosser being dragged off...

>"speeding = dangerous" is far from the truth.

Only if nobody obeys the limit. As soon as a proportion start obeying
the limit your argument is shot down in flames. That proportion is
close to 50% on even an uncongested motorway (when did you last see
one of those?) Now add the physical properties of matter - KE = 1/2
mv^2. A car travelling at 90 takes twice as far to stop as a car
travelling at 70. Human reaction times do not increase with speed in
quite the same way.

>The speed cameras further promote dangerour driving

Amazing how this is the camers'a fault and not ythat of the motorist
who is more concerned with his licence than driving safely, isn't it?

Amazing how people with more speeding convictions tend to have more
crashes - must be a conicidence.

Amazing how reducing speed limits on a range of roads around the world
resulted in almost every case in substantial reductions in KSI rates.
Another coincidence.

Amazing how unlimited autobahns have a higher KSI rate than Speed
limited equivalents. Yet another coincidence.

Amazing how the probability of fatality in a crash is roughly
proportional to the fourth power of impact speed. Another
coincidence.

Amazing how average speeds are increasing and the rate of decrease in
KSI is decreasing, but the danger is entirely due to cameras. Another
coincidence.

That's the trouble with "the speed doesn't kill" mantra - it leaves
one with rather a lot of coincidences to explain away.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
New! Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 29 Jul 2003 10:33:13 -0700, (RobinT) wrote:

>Take a look at the 'Record speed' thread. A lot of cyclists (not
>including you, I accept) bragging about speed.

KE = 1/2 mv^2

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
New! Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 29 Jul, Tim Woodall > wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3105751.stm
>
> But the police have now hit back. "Video of the moment when he was caught
> in his BMW was shown at the news conference, and reporters were handed
> 31 photographs of the sequence"
>
> I can't find the video or photos on the BBC site.

No, I can't find it anywhere either. If anyone comes across them,
please do post a link.

However, I did find
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3015262.stm
which is heartening. Not only is this a motorist caught by speed
camera saying 'it's a fair cop', that it taught him a lesson, and that
he hopes it catches lots of others and does the same to them, but it
seems to be that even rarer thing - a honest politician.

Almost restores my faith in humanity.

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

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:09:54 +0100 someone who may be "Adrian
Boliston" > wrote this:-

>> How *dreadfully* unfair! Kinetic energy @ 39mph is only 69% more than at
>> 30mph.
>
>I would have guessed it as 1.3 times more (ie 30%), but it's about 30 years since
>I did physics!

Others have shown that 69% is correct. Some of this energy is
transferred to the bodywork of a pedestrian when hit. It is absorbed
in things like breaking bones. The more energy there is the more
breaking of bones there will be.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:48:37 +0100,
Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003 10:33:13 -0700, (RobinT) wrote:
>
>>Take a look at the 'Record speed' thread. A lot of cyclists (not
>>including you, I accept) bragging about speed.
>
> KE = 1/2 mv^2

Just to put some numbers in there for the hard of maths out there -

A cyclist + bike (weight 90Kg) travelling at 60kph - seems reasonable
according to the "Record Speed" thread gives a kinetic energy of 162000
(we will ignore the units).

If we have a light car (including occupants) weighing 900Kg (this is very
light - probably a small sports car) this KE would equate to travelling at
19kph. If you are in say a Range Rover weighing in unladen at 2000Kg the
KE would equate to just over 12kph.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[The Oracle]

I got six points on my license. It had been clean for eighteen years and I
got the six points in the space of two months !!! I say I deserved it. I
got caught doing 80 in a 70 and 52 in a 40.

People may say, 80 is not that much more than 70 - you unlucky thing !! I
say, if you offered 80 for an house and it is worth only 70 would you apply
the same principle? Poor thing!!

We all know how fast 30mph can be on a bike. Imagine 80mph. Now imagine
80mph and cocooned in a one ton steel box. Now imagine hitting a brick wall
or a stationary car/tractor at that speed in that box. Not nice.

No excuses. Speed kills.


"Tim Woodall" > wrote in message
.. .
> The original "anger"
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/3052856.stm
>
> "He [the speeder] said the case had nothing to do with road safety as
> he had completed the manoeuvre in total safety ... raise money through
> fines ..."
>
>
>
> What is interesting about this one is that the police have it on camera.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3105751.stm
>
> But the police have now hit back. "Video of the moment when he was caught
> in his BMW was shown at the news conference, and reporters were handed
> 31 photographs of the sequence"
>
> I can't find the video or photos on the BBC site.
>
>
> Two other quotes. "... he [the speeder] said the chief constable must be
> desperate to make such a fuss over such a trivial case."
>
> "Mr Shaw [the speeder] was upset that the chief constable suggested he
> was driving dangerously, when he said he obviously was not."
>
> Clearly, not only do cameras have no discretion, which is obviously
> unfair to speeders, but even the police can't tell the difference between
> good and bad drivers.
>
>
> 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/

[Trevor Barton]

Andy Leighton > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:48:37 +0100,
> Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2003 10:33:13 -0700, (RobinT) wrote:
>>
>>>Take a look at the 'Record speed' thread. A lot of cyclists (not
>>>including you, I accept) bragging about speed.
>>
>> KE = 1/2 mv^2
>
> Just to put some numbers in there for the hard of maths out there -
>
> A cyclist + bike (weight 90Kg) travelling at 60kph - seems reasonable
> according to the "Record Speed" thread gives a kinetic energy of 162000
> (we will ignore the units).
>
> If we have a light car (including occupants) weighing 900Kg (this is very
> light - probably a small sports car) this KE would equate to travelling at
> 19kph. If you are in say a Range Rover weighing in unladen at 2000Kg the
> KE would equate to just over 12kph.

Which would be plenty enough to kill you were it to impact apon you.
If you don't think the energy in a landrover travelling at 12kpg is enough
to kill you, try standing between one and a brick wall. You will not
be a happy bunny.

The difference is that someone in a landrover travelling at 12kph would
be able to stop in something like one metre. That means that of they
saw you with only one meter to spare, they might not even get you.
On the other hand, a bike travelling at 60kph takes many many meters to
stop. If they saw you with the same one meter warning, they'd still have
most of that energy by the time they got you.

It's disingenuous to use energy in this kind of discussion. In most
"accidents" the energy expended on the other vehicle, or the person,
or whatever, is only a small proportion of the initial kinetic energy
involved. It doesn't take a lot of energy to kill someone, think of
shooting someone in the head. Compared to any car impact, the KE of
the bullet is small...

Bullet = 5g about 300m/s, KE=0.5 * 5 * 300^2 = 225,000 joules.
LandRover = 2000000g at 0.5m/s, KE = 0.5 * 2,000,000 * 0.5^2 = 250,000 joules

So, which is more likely to kill you, a bullet or a landrover travelling
at 0.5m/s (1.8kph)? I think you'd have to be asleep to be killed by the
landrover. Even if it hit you at that speed, the energy would be spread
over enough of your body area to only bruise you. Can't say the same for
the bullet, though, so it just goes to show, energy isn't everything.

I can't believe I bothered to write all that!!

Trev

[Michael MacClancy]

In message <d72cdaeffc44552811057a57de964856@TeraNews>, "Philip TAYLOR
[PC87S/O-XP]" > writes
>
>
>
>I would completely agree with this; it is the /median/ speed which is
>important, not an arbitrary figure set by a local authority and/or the
>police. If you travel south on the M3 when traffic is not excessively
>heavy, the median speeds for the three lanes will be close to 75, 85 and 95
>respectively.

I regularly drive on the M3 and I don't believe that the median speeds
are ever anywhere near as high as the speeds that you claim.

>
>There are two reasons why I disagree with the first interpretation :
>
>1) speed limits are arbitrary : German autobahns are little different
>to our own motorways, yet unless posted to the contrary, there is no
>speed limit on them. Thus speeds which are legal in Germany are illegal
>in this country : that is illogical.

The picture in Germany is not quite this simple. Autobahns are
significantly more dangerous than UK motorways. There are more fatal
accidents because of the high speeds. There is a recommended speed
limit of 130 kph and drivers involved in crashes at speeds above this
limit are partially liable for the incident. Insurance companies will
often not make the full payout if the vehicle was travelling above 130
kph. There are also many stretches of Autobahn with enforced speed
limits, particularly on steep hills or close to housing.


>
>** Phil.
>

--
Michael MacClancy

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace >
writes
>If I then drive in Germany at the same speed I am causing danger by
>going to slowly on their autobahn.


This isn't true. There are large speed differentials on Autobahns
because many vehicles (trucks and caravans as examples) are limited to
maximum speeds of 80 or 100 kph. Even though I have written elsewhere
in this thread that Autobahns are dangerous it also needs to be said
that German drivers are probably better than British because the
training regime is more rigorous and they tend to be more considerate.
--
Michael MacClancy

[John Wallace]

"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, John Wallace >
> writes
> >If I then drive in Germany at the same speed I am causing danger by
> >going to slowly on their autobahn.
>
> This isn't true. There are large speed differentials on Autobahns
> because many vehicles (trucks and caravans as examples) are limited to
> maximum speeds of 80 or 100 kph.

The point is still valid though - one of the more dangerous things I have
seen is an old couple driving on one of our motorways at <30mph. It caused
chaos, as people didn't recognise the closing speed and swerved to avoid
them. A contributing factor was undoubtedly lack of attention failing to
spot the closure rate, but when you haven't seen something like that in 20
years of driving it's forgivable that you're not always attentive to the
possibility.

> Even though I have written elsewhere
> in this thread that Autobahns are dangerous it also needs to be said
> that German drivers are probably better than British because the
> training regime is more rigorous and they tend to be more considerate.

I've never found autobahns to be any more dangerous than motorways,
interstates or any other such road in Japan, Europe, Australia or whatever.
Even the Northern Territories in Australia with no speed limit and
stupefyingly boring roads is okay - with attention. Many years ago, saving
every penny possible for my first house, I drove to work every day at 55pmh,
eking out petrol, following lorries to cut wind resistance (!), you name it.
It was not only the most boring driving I ever did, but some of the most
"dangerous" (in my opinion). Fully my own fault, but at that speed I
somewhat tuned-out from driving - still watching, but paying only the
attention I needed to. My fault I know, but I'm only human. What worries me
is I see that all the time, and it scared me when I recognised it. When
driving quickly I was _fully_ aware who was behind me, at the side, if they
had seen me in their mirror, who was joining, who was likely to move into my
lane to allow that, etc etc. The driving was keeping me occupied, hence my
attention level was higher. Every day on my commute I see people eating
breakfast, putting make-up, talking on phones, putting a tie on(!), chatting
etc. Then you get to the city and the racing to jump queues, not let people
in etc.

That, for me, is a far greater problem than someone doing 75 or 80 on a
motorway, in a car that is perfectly safe to do so.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...

> But it does undermine the assertion that speed cameras are not
> targeting dangerous drivers - they may not detect dangerous /driving/
> (that would require my new patent ****so[TM] camera) but they plainly
> do detect dangerous /drivers/.

The most "dangerous" drivers (by your definition) will have speeding
convictions already, hence are more likely to be payign attention for
cameras. Thus cameras are more likely to detect inattentive drivers. They
don't detect dangerous drivers - traffic police do that.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message

> > >> > speed is not of itself dangerous
> > >> Speeding, however, is.
> > >No, it is not.
> > Unless you define danger in terms of "increases risk of crashing"

> It makes no difference - if increased speed created an increased risk of
> crashing we would see the majority of Britain's accidents on the fastest
> roads

Wrong. Motorways have lower crash rates for the simple and obvious reason
that they are designed for speed: few junctions, good sight-lines,
restricted access, multiple lanes, hard shoulders, no sharp bends. And
still people manage to crash and die on them, because the faster you go on a
given road the greater the danger of crashing, so some (but not all) of the
safety benefit is consumed as a performance benefit.

>>> If I now stick up a 30mph sign [on a m-way] clearly driving at 70mph
>>> would be speeding, but how would it suddenly have become more dangerous?

>> Never seen a 30 limit on a motorway.

> Argument avoidance. Okay - call it an A-class road - the principle is
> unchanged. Arbitrary stipulation of a speed limit does not make a road
more
> or less dangerous.

Only rarely seen a 30 limit on a dual carriageway A-road, and the 30 limits
on single-carriageway A roads are usually around houses. Not that the
criteria are objective -anything but - but once a limit is applied,
exceeding it automatically increases danger because others may be obeying
the limit and making judgements based on an assumption of others obeying it.

> >"speeding = dangerous" is far from the truth.

> > Only if nobody obeys the limit. As soon as a proportion start obeying
> > the limit your argument is shot down in flames.

> Okay, you change your point

No, it's in support of the point. It's one of the reasons why /speeding/ as
well as speed is dangerous.

> - now you say not that speed in itself is
> dangerous, but that speed relative to other road users is dangerous.

No, I don't say that. The faster you go, the more danger there is. The
laws of physics say so. Plain old-fashioned Newtonian mechanics, no magic
involved.

> you raise the speed limit to "tosser level", and everybody drove at 90,
> no-one would speed relative to each other and danger would be reduced
> (actually sounds like a slower version of Germany, where it seems to work
> fine).

Apart from the fact that their crash rate is worse than ours, obviously...

Around the world numerous studies have shown that if people drive 10mph
slower on a given stretch of road, all other factors remaining equal, the
accident rate drops.

>> Now add the physical properties of matter - KE = 1/2
>> mv^2. A car travelling at 90 takes twice as far to stop as a car
>> travelling at 70.

> What's your point?

That a car travelling at 90 takes about twice as far to stop as one
travelling at 70. If I'm driving at 70 when the truck in front loses a
chunk of tyre I am more likely to be able to stop than if I'm travelling at
90. Simple physics.

> We set the 70mph speed limit in the 60's, therefore it
> was considered that the stopping distance and relative safety of a car
with
> drum brakes, no ABS, no crumple zones, no airbags, old 1960s tires was
safe
> at that speed. Would you like to bet that a modern car can stop more
quickly
> from 90mph than a car of that time could from 70mph? So speed limits
should
> therefore be increased.

As far as I'm aware there has been no significant improvement in human
reaction times since the 1950s, but I could be wrong. Strange, though -
when you consider all the safety improvements in cars since then, the fatal
accident rate should be vanishingly small by now - but it isn't. Do you
know why that is? I have a view: much of the safety benefit has been
consumed as performance benefit. Tyres are better, so people corner faster.
Net benefit: zero. Seat belts protect you, so people drive less carefully.
Net benefit: zero. Oh, but compulsory seat belts resulted in the largest
recorded increase in cyclist and pedestrian fatalities, so maybe we should
be considering the safety of all road users rather than just the ones with
the safety cages and ABS.

So, to the point: I would imagine that an increase of motorway limits to
80mph would be perfectly supportable, though unless it was accompanied by
significant enforcement to prevent people continuing to drive at limit +
20mph and migrating from 90 to 100 we would undoubtedly see a substantial
increase in crashes. An enforced 80 limit would probably be better than an
unenforced 70 limit. On motorways. On all other roads the risk to
non-motorised road users is a strong factor against any change.

> > Amazing how this is the camers'a fault and not ythat of the motorist
> > who is more concerned with his licence than driving safely, isn't it?

> It's not "the motorist" it's human nature. People decide to put the
cameras
> there and people decide how they will deal with these cameras.

No, it's the motorist. If the motorist decides that arriving at the next
traffic jam thirty seconds earlier is important enough to drive dangerously,
that doesn't suggest to me that they are a safe driver.

> The cameras _should_ be there to promote safety

Why? Why shouldn't they be there to promote compliance? It's not as if
speed limits are a recent invention, after all.

> > Amazing how people with more speeding convictions tend to have more
> > crashes - must be a conicidence.

> Amazing how you correlate people with speeding convictions as
representative
> of all people who speed

The more you speed the more likely you are to get caught. Especially when
there are cameras. The "I'm a safe driver, I've been unlucky and got nine
points on my licence" argument is completely blown away by the statistical
correlation mentioned.

> I have speeding convictions, have never crashed, never caused a
> crash, drive at 30mph through _every_ 30mph zone, yet according to your
> reasoning I am a law-breaking, speeding, crashing driver.

No, according to my definition you are a law-breaking driver (else no
convictions). Statistics are about whole populations. In a whole
population the people who have multiple speeding convictions are most likely
to be the people who have accident history. Not all poeple who crash will
be speeders, not all people who speed will crash, but there is a
correlation.

> > Amazing how reducing speed limits on a range of roads around the world
> > resulted in almost every case in substantial reductions in KSI rates.
> > Another coincidence.

> I would suspect that seeing a speed limit sign woke people up from their
> driving stupour, or caused them to put down the mobile phone, the make-up
> bag or the Big Mac.

Or perhaps the laws of physics are right after all.

> > Amazing how unlimited autobahns have a higher KSI rate than Speed
> > limited equivalents. Yet another coincidence.

> There equally compelling evidence which states the opposite - statistics
are
> twisted by both sides of the debate.

The compelling evidence to the contrary woud exclude the KSI stats,
obviously...

> > Amazing how the probability of fatality in a crash is roughly
> > proportional to the fourth power of impact speed. Another
> > coincidence.

> That is simple physics - it says nothing about the probability of actually
> having a crash.

It is relevant. Until people can drive 100% safely 100% of the time the
results of the crash can't be ignored. And of course there's the obvious
point that at a lower speed the crash may well have been avoidable anyway,
as stopping distances vary roughly with speed squared.

> > That's the trouble with "the speed doesn't kill" mantra - it leaves
> > one with rather a lot of coincidences to explain away.

> All of which are done remarkably simply, at least once all the
diversionary
> statements are stripped away.

You are Paul Smith & ICMFP.

> Speed = danger is a dangerously over-simplistic argument.

But increased speed = increased danger is a simple fact borne out by both
the laws of physics and time-series and whole population analysis of crash
statistics.


> Britain's
> motorways have the lowest number of accidents despite the highest speeds,

See above. You have to compare like with like - comparing the crash rate on
a motorway with that of an urban street with parked cars, shops and
driveways is both pointless and misleading.

> to assume that the mass installation of
> cameras is trying to do anything other than tax drivers is equally
> short-sighted.

It's the sort of tax which can be avoided simply by obeying the law and
driving both safely and within the limit, a behaviour we are all required to
demonstrate before we are allowed a full driving licence.

When I drive I observe the speed limit. It's no hardship, and I manage to
get to my destination and average journey times versus the days when I used
to speed are virtually unchanged. Why are those extra few mph between
traffic jams so vital to people? What is it about modern life that we would
rather bitch about the cameras than slow down a bit and forget about them?
Why are some people so obsessed by speed that they would rather brake
dangerously for the camera than drive at a steady and legal speed? Beats
me. The next traffic jam isn't going anywhere, it will wait for them no
problem.

Or maybe the whole speed camera thing is just sublimated anger, people
stressed and frustrated that the car which was advertised swooping round
mountain passes on empty roads turns out to be stuck in the same traffic jam
as the old car but with the cost increased due to Added Extra Depreciation.
My best suggestion here is to opt out and commute another way. I enjoy my
commute - as long as I'm not stuck in a car.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

[Dave Larrington]

RobinT wrote:

> Take a look at the 'Record speed' thread. A lot of cyclists (not
> including you, I accept) bragging about speed. Not one post querying
> the safety aspect of the claims, especially with regard to the dangers
> to other road users. Mind you, as cyclists can't be charged with
> speeding, perhaps it doesn't matter? I won't defend speeding
> motorists, but I dislike the hypocrisy of some of my fellow cyclists.

I'm not Guy, nor have I pretended to be Guy for the purposes of defrauding
Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, but I imagine a major difference between
going Silly Fast on a bicycle and Silly Fast in a car is that the
possibility of another party being damaged is considerably higher in the
latter case. All the times I've reached Silly Fast on a bicycle have been
on open country roads with good sight lines, no junctions, pedestrians,
other cyclists or sheep and only the occasionally car (it is astonishing to
witness the bewilderment of a dawdling motorist when a bicycle overtakes
them with a speed differential of thirty of the BRITONS' miles per hour).

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Philip TAYLOR [PC87S-O/XP]]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

[snip]

> I regularly drive on the M3 and I don't believe that the median speeds
> are ever anywhere near as high as the speeds that you claim.

I was referring to the stretch south of the M25, Michael;
I should have made this explicit.

[snip]

> There are also many stretches of Autobahn with enforced speed
> limits, particularly on steep hills or close to housing.

Ye, I agree; I hope I did make that clear in my earlier posting.

** Phil.

[Dave Kahn]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:56:01 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>I'm not Guy, nor have I pretended to be Guy for the purposes of defrauding
>Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, but I imagine a major difference between
>going Silly Fast on a bicycle and Silly Fast in a car is that the
>possibility of another party being damaged is considerably higher in the
>latter case. All the times I've reached Silly Fast on a bicycle have been
>on open country roads with good sight lines, no junctions, pedestrians,
>other cyclists or sheep and only the occasionally car

Last time I reached Ludicrous Speed on a bike there was the occasional
motor bike struggling to keep up, no cars, plenty of other cyclists
but all going in the same direction at a similar rate, and every
junction was guarded by gendarmes to prevent ingress of cagers.

--
Dave...

[Tim Woodall]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:15:32 +0100,
Dave Kahn > wrote:
>
> Last time I reached Ludicrous Speed on a bike there was the occasional
> motor bike struggling to keep up, no cars, plenty of other cyclists
> but all going in the same direction at a similar rate, and every
> junction was guarded by gendarmes to prevent ingress of cagers.
>
For my best speed - 49.9mph, I was easily passed by a couple of motorcycles
with pillion passengers. So easily, in fact, that I stood no chance of
picking up the extra 0.1mph by getting into their slipstream.

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/

[John Wallace]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...

> > It makes no difference - if increased speed created an increased risk of
> > crashing we would see the majority of Britain's accidents on the fastest
> > roads
>
> Wrong. Motorways.....blah blah

You stated "Speed kills". Motorways are the fastest roads in the UK, yet
they kill the least. The logic is about as straightforward as it gets. If
the argument gets into more convoluted explanations of sight lines, sharp
bends etc then what kills is not speed. What kills is lack of ability or
training, poor awareness etc. But for the "Speed = danger = death"
proposition to hav any chance of holding true the statistics would need to
show the fastest UK roads claim the largest number of deaths. They claim the
fewest.

> Only rarely seen a 30 limit on a dual carriageway A-road, and the 30
limits
> on single-carriageway A roads are usually around houses. Not that the
> criteria are objective -anything but - but once a limit is applied,
> exceeding it automatically increases danger because others may be obeying
> the limit and making judgements based on an assumption of others obeying
it.

Argument avoidance.Arbitrary stipulation of a speed limit does not make a
road more or less dangerous. Waht you are saying above is no longer "Speed
kills", it is only speed relative to other road users, and that can be too
slow as well as too fast.

> No, I don't say that. The faster you go, the more danger there is. The
> laws of physics say so. Plain old-fashioned Newtonian mechanics, no magic
> involved.

Only if you consider speed in isolation, which it only ever is in a physics
equation. If we both drive around Silverstone during Grand Prix weekend, me
doing 200mph and you doing 20mph, you are in far more danger than me.

> > you raise the speed limit to "tosser level", and everybody drove at 90,
> > no-one would speed relative to each other and danger would be reduced
> > (actually sounds like a slower version of Germany, where it seems to
work
> > fine).
>
> Apart from the fact that their crash rate is worse than ours, obviously...

Well, that in itself is questionable. If we look at statistics, speeds on UK
roads have been rising year on year, as have instances of speeding, yet
statistics show UK roads to be continually safer, now reaching the safest in
Europe. That would be impossible if speed truly did kill.

> Around the world numerous studies have shown that if people drive 10mph
> slower on a given stretch of road, all other factors remaining equal, the
> accident rate drops.

This is why approaches like speed cameras miss the point - the world is NOT
an academic study, and all other factors do not remain equal. Any measures
to improve safety that focus on how the world should be will fail. If the
true intent is to improve safety then the measures must also anticipate what
changes will be brought about by the introduction of the measures
themselves.

> That a car travelling at 90 takes about twice as far to stop as one
> travelling at 70. If I'm driving at 70 when the truck in front loses a
> chunk of tyre I am more likely to be able to stop than if I'm travelling
at
> 90. Simple physics.

That was not the point. The point was that speed kills, and that exceeding
70mph is considered reckless and illegal, as defined by our government. In
the 60s our government defined that driving at 70mph in a poorly assembled,
poorly equipped vehicle with no safety features and no seat belt requirement
was legally acceptable, and safe for the populace. We now have ABS, airbags,
disc brakes, crumple zones, EuroNCAP, stability control, better tires etc
etc etc, yet still the over-zealous would lock someone up for driving
"unsafely" at 71mph.

According to the UK government statistics the vast majority of drivers break
the laws on speeding - that must say as much about the validity or
suitability of the laws as it does about the drivers.

> As far as I'm aware there has been no significant improvement in human
> reaction times since the 1950s, but I could be wrong.

Better diet, more practice, pre-setting brakes, auto-emergency stop - I'd
say it's better. Then too the reaction time is only a small proportion of
the overall stopping distance, and an even smaller proportion at those
naughty higher speeds.

> Strange, though -
> when you consider all the safety improvements in cars since then, the
fatal
> accident rate should be vanishingly small by now - but it isn't.

It has been reducing every year to the point where the UK is the safest in
Europe - clear evidence it is working.

> So, to the point: I would imagine that an increase of motorway limits to
> 80mph would be perfectly supportable, though unless it was accompanied by
> significant enforcement to prevent people continuing to drive at limit +
> 20mph and migrating from 90 to 100 we would undoubtedly see a substantial
> increase in crashes. An enforced 80 limit would probably be better than
an
> unenforced 70 limit. On motorways. On all other roads the risk to
> non-motorised road users is a strong factor against any change.

I would agree with that. What I have a problem with is people failing to
focus on the main objective - the point is to reduce the overall fatality
rate, NOT to slow people down. Slowing people down may be one part of the
equation, but it alone cannot be considered to be a solution, and should not
be the focus, especially if applying laws will only result in more people
breaking them - I don't advocate that it's right, but to ignore the fact
that it would probably happen is short-sighted.

Personally I would have no problem with a heavily enforced 30mph and 40mph
limit in appropriate areas, even to the point of zero-tolerance (although
constantly glancing at the speedo to check you are not doing 31mph is far
more dangerous to other road users than actually driving at 31mph but with
100% attention on the road - such is the difficulty of zero-tolerance). But
balance that up by allowing variable limits on motorways, up to 80 or 85mph,
but reduced depending upon road conditions etc.

> > It's not "the motorist" it's human nature. People decide to put the
> cameras
> > there and people decide how they will deal with these cameras.
>
> No, it's the motorist. If the motorist decides that arriving at the next
> traffic jam thirty seconds earlier is important enough to drive
dangerously,
> that doesn't suggest to me that they are a safe driver.

Ahhhhh, listen to yourself. You again focus on how you would like the world
to be - yes it would be great, but people are NOT going to do that. Stand at
and speed camera and watch the brake lights come on then people accelerate
again to make up time afterwards. It's wrong, and we can stand on Mount
Moral High Ground and shout that until a few hundred more pedestrians are
killed by it, but that will not change the fact that it happens. Unless you
can find some means to punish each and every "motorist" for it, and predict
the likely counter-reaction of whatever further measure you introduce, it's
better to focus in the first place on what will work.

> > The cameras _should_ be there to promote safety
>
> Why? Why shouldn't they be there to promote compliance? It's not as if
> speed limits are a recent invention, after all.

You again focus on the wrong thing - the cameras are there to promote
compliance, the compliance exists to promote safety, therefore the cameras
must promote safety. Sticking a camera outside every school promotes safety.
Sticking a camera on the exit of a blind corner, at the bottom of a dip, on
a road where drivers will go fast does NOT promote safety, because seeing it
at the last minute is likely to throw a driver into a skid, possibly into
oncoming traffic, entering another couple of drivers into the accident
statistics log. Yes, we can think "got the stupid speeding *******", but the
laws exist to keep the population safe, not to place them in greater danger.

> > Amazing how you correlate people with speeding convictions as
> representative of all people who speed
>
> The more you speed the more likely you are to get caught.

Agreed, but that does not mean that someone with speeding convictions is
necessarily representative of all people who speed. UK govt stats show that
2/3 of drivers speed, yet 2/3 of drivers are not convicted. One cannot be
representative of the other.

> Especially when
> there are cameras. The "I'm a safe driver, I've been unlucky and got nine
> points on my licence" argument is completely blown away by the statistical
> correlation mentioned.

You can pick up 9 points on one dash to the hospital with your pregnant
wife.


>
> > I have speeding convictions, have never crashed, never caused a
> > crash, drive at 30mph through _every_ 30mph zone, yet according to your
> > reasoning I am a law-breaking, speeding, crashing driver.
>
> No, according to my definition you are a law-breaking driver (else no
> convictions).

You're too kind :-) However elsewhere in the thread anyone who has a
speeding conviction is considered extremely harshly. It's far from the whole
story. It is correlated with speed=danger=illegal. Yet my conviction was for
7mph over the limit on a motorway - in the UK that is danger. In Germany
that is not. If the whole road were a couple of hundred miles East it would
not be dangerous, yet in the UK it is. I don't see that geography plays any
part in whether something is empirically dangerous or not.

> Statistics are about whole populations. In a whole
> population the people who have multiple speeding convictions are most
likely
> to be the people who have accident history.

That is a bold statement, and not one I think could be backed up. You can
equally say that the people with most speeding convictions have the most
experience of driving quickly, therefore should have the lowest accident
history. My mother has had several accidents in her life, and no speeding
convictions. I have a speeding conviction yet no accidents - small sample
size, but thinking of as many people as I know, I don't see a clear
correlation as you outline.

> > I would suspect that seeing a speed limit sign woke people up from their
> > driving stupour, or caused them to put down the mobile phone, the
make-up
> > bag or the Big Mac.
>
> Or perhaps the laws of physics are right after all.

They're certainly not wrong, but that doesn't prove the theory.

> > > Amazing how unlimited autobahns have a higher KSI rate than Speed
> > > limited equivalents. Yet another coincidence.
>
> > There equally compelling evidence which states the opposite - statistics
> are twisted by both sides of the debate.
>
> The compelling evidence to the contrary woud exclude the KSI stats,
> obviously...

They would be different stats, from different people, looking at the same
thing. Look at our own government stats on anything you care to mention -
the stats "spin" to support whatever the government wants us to believe.

> > That is simple physics - it says nothing about the probability of
actually
> > having a crash.
>
> It is relevant. Until people can drive 100% safely 100% of the time the
> results of the crash can't be ignored. And of course there's the obvious
> point that at a lower speed the crash may well have been avoidable anyway,
> as stopping distances vary roughly with speed squared.

Very, very roughly. Any sportscar will stop in a massively shorter distance
than an SUV, so presumably we'll be banning SUVs on the grounds of safety
(actually that seems not a bad idea, given bull-bars htting pedestrians,
tire blowouts, rollovers, stopping distances etc).

> > Speed = danger is a dangerously over-simplistic argument.
>
> But increased speed = increased danger is a simple fact borne out by both
> the laws of physics and time-series and whole population analysis of crash
> statistics.

It's not a simple fact. Where all cars on a motorway are driving at 70mph it
is more likely than not safer for you to drive at that speed than at 30mph.
These things only hold true when considering the circumstance. Repetition of
a sound-bite devalues what is a reasonably valid premise.

> > Britain's
> > motorways have the lowest number of accidents despite the highest
speeds,
>
> See above. You have to compare like with like - comparing the crash rate
on
> a motorway with that of an urban street with parked cars, shops and
> driveways is both pointless and misleading.

Although less misleading than "speed kills", which it obviously doesn't.

> It's the sort of tax which can be avoided simply by obeying the law and
> driving both safely and within the limit, a behaviour we are all required
to
> demonstrate before we are allowed a full driving licence.

2/3 of the population seem both capable of, and intent on, demonstrating
that behaviour and then ignoring it. 2/3 of the population is vastly more
than voted at the last election. As we are a democracy, that suggests the
majority do not agree with the speeding laws as currently applied.

> When I drive I observe the speed limit. It's no hardship, and I manage to
> get to my destination and average journey times versus the days when I
used
> to speed are virtually unchanged. Why are those extra few mph between
> traffic jams so vital to people? What is it about modern life that we
would
> rather bitch about the cameras than slow down a bit and forget about them?
> Why are some people so obsessed by speed that they would rather brake
> dangerously for the camera than drive at a steady and legal speed? Beats
> me. The next traffic jam isn't going anywhere, it will wait for them no
> problem.

It will, but in the meantime they'll still be dodging the cameras and
causing mayhem until we stop the fixation with speed limit compliance and
actually address the problem. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but
equally I don't think continuation of the current policy will achieve the
desired result either.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jack Howard]

In message >, John Wallace > writes

>To simply focus on speed would be
>short-sighted in the extreme, and to assume that the mass installation of
>cameras is trying to do anything other than tax drivers is equally
>short-sighted. The current approach risks turning public opinion heavily
>against this hidden taxation approach.

I'll never understand this argument. There's a very simple solution to
the speed camera "problem", just drive within the speed limit!

Since cameras started appearing, I've found myself being a lot more
careful to travel at or below the speed limit on any given stretch of
road. I should, of course, have done this anyway, but I didn't. Now I
have an incentive to do so. Roll on the repeal of the "must be
visible" rules and the introduction of more mobile units, I say - the
roads will be safer for everyone as a result. Granted, it would be nice
to see motorway limits raised - some open stretches could be 100 or even
more - but it would be best to stop people speeding in built up areas
first.

--
- Jack Howard, Systems Development Engineer, Firstnet Services Limited
===[ http://www.firstnet.net.uk <--- Total Internet Solutions ]===

===[ This message subject to http://www.firstnet.net.uk/disclaimer.html ]===

[RJ Webb]

>If cyclists want to make a song and dance about motorists breaking the law
>then more cyclists need to obey the law themselves and many that I observe,
>while cycling myself, need to pay more heed to the safety of other road
>users of all types.


I thought it was motorists making a song and dance about not being
able to break the law themselves.


All those who dont like speed cameras going off, raise their right
foot.

Richard Webb

[Simon Proven]

marc wrote:

> How many people did you kill at 80, and to prove your theory ,was it
> more than when you were travelling at 52 or the same?

With that level of reasoning, you should be applying to
run the space shuttle programme. They made that mistake
as well. Twice.

Simon

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace > writes
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
>
>> > It makes no difference - if increased speed created an increased risk of
>> > crashing we would see the majority of Britain's accidents on the fastest
>> > roads
>>
>> Wrong. Motorways.....blah blah
>
>You stated "Speed kills". Motorways are the fastest roads in the UK, yet
>they kill the least. The logic is about as straightforward as it gets.

Yes, if people drove more slowly on motorways there would be fewer
deaths. That's the straightforward logic.

>If
>the argument gets into more convoluted explanations of sight lines, sharp
>bends etc then what kills is not speed. What kills is lack of ability or
>training, poor awareness etc. But for the "Speed = danger = death"
>proposition to hav any chance of holding true the statistics would need to
>show the fastest UK roads claim the largest number of deaths. They claim the
>fewest.

No, see above, you have to compare like with like. Faster driving on A
roads means more deaths on A roads, faster driving on side roads means
more deaths on side roads. Give me an instance where driving faster on
a particular type of road results in lower death rates.

>
>> Only rarely seen a 30 limit on a dual carriageway A-road, and the 30
>limits
>> on single-carriageway A roads are usually around houses. Not that the
>> criteria are objective -anything but - but once a limit is applied,
>> exceeding it automatically increases danger because others may be obeying
>> the limit and making judgements based on an assumption of others obeying
>it.
>
>Argument avoidance.Arbitrary stipulation of a speed limit does not make a
>road more or less dangerous. Waht you are saying above is no longer "Speed
>kills", it is only speed relative to other road users, and that can be too
>slow as well as too fast.

Any driver should allow for the fact that there are slower moving things
on the road - pedestrians, cyclists, HGVs etc. Your argument is
spurious.

>
>> No, I don't say that. The faster you go, the more danger there is. The
>> laws of physics say so. Plain old-fashioned Newtonian mechanics, no magic
>> involved.
>
>Only if you consider speed in isolation, which it only ever is in a physics
>equation. If we both drive around Silverstone during Grand Prix weekend, me
>doing 200mph and you doing 20mph, you are in far more danger than me.

How do you work that out?

>
>> > you raise the speed limit to "tosser level", and everybody drove at 90,
>> > no-one would speed relative to each other and danger would be reduced
>> > (actually sounds like a slower version of Germany, where it seems to
>work
>> > fine).
>>
>> Apart from the fact that their crash rate is worse than ours, obviously...
>
>Well, that in itself is questionable. If we look at statistics, speeds on UK
>roads have been rising year on year, as have instances of speeding, yet
>statistics show UK roads to be continually safer, now reaching the safest in
>Europe. That would be impossible if speed truly did kill.

Al that this shows is that vehicles are getting safer. If you removed
design improvements from the experiment death rates would be increasing.

>
>> Around the world numerous studies have shown that if people drive 10mph
>> slower on a given stretch of road, all other factors remaining equal, the
>> accident rate drops.
>
>This is why approaches like speed cameras miss the point - the world is NOT
>an academic study, and all other factors do not remain equal. Any measures
>to improve safety that focus on how the world should be will fail. If the
>true intent is to improve safety then the measures must also anticipate what
>changes will be brought about by the introduction of the measures
>themselves.
>
>> That a car travelling at 90 takes about twice as far to stop as one
>> travelling at 70. If I'm driving at 70 when the truck in front loses a
>> chunk of tyre I am more likely to be able to stop than if I'm travelling
>at
>> 90. Simple physics.
>
>That was not the point.

So you accept the point that you are less likely to be able to stop when
driving at 90 mph and thereby avoid a potentially life-threatening
crash. Good.


>The point was that speed kills, and that exceeding
>70mph is considered reckless and illegal, as defined by our government. In
>the 60s our government defined that driving at 70mph in a poorly assembled,
>poorly equipped vehicle with no safety features and no seat belt requirement
>was legally acceptable, and safe for the populace. We now have ABS, airbags,
>disc brakes, crumple zones, EuroNCAP, stability control, better tires etc
>etc etc, yet still the over-zealous would lock someone up for driving
>"unsafely" at 71mph.

There is now considerably more traffic on the roads.
>
>According to the UK government statistics the vast majority of drivers break
>the laws on speeding - that must say as much about the validity or
>suitability of the laws as it does about the drivers.
>
>> As far as I'm aware there has been no significant improvement in human
>> reaction times since the 1950s, but I could be wrong.
>
>Better diet, more practice, pre-setting brakes, auto-emergency stop - I'd
>say it's better. Then too the reaction time is only a small proportion of
>the overall stopping distance, and an even smaller proportion at those
>naughty higher speeds.
>
>> Strange, though -
>> when you consider all the safety improvements in cars since then, the
>fatal
>> accident rate should be vanishingly small by now - but it isn't.
>
>It has been reducing every year to the point where the UK is the safest in
>Europe - clear evidence it is working.

It could be working even better. That is something you can't deny.

>
>> So, to the point: I would imagine that an increase of motorway limits to
>> 80mph would be perfectly supportable, though unless it was accompanied by
>> significant enforcement to prevent people continuing to drive at limit +
>> 20mph and migrating from 90 to 100 we would undoubtedly see a substantial
>> increase in crashes. An enforced 80 limit would probably be better than
>an
>> unenforced 70 limit. On motorways. On all other roads the risk to
>> non-motorised road users is a strong factor against any change.
>
>I would agree with that. What I have a problem with is people failing to
>focus on the main objective - the point is to reduce the overall fatality
>rate, NOT to slow people down. Slowing people down may be one part of the
>equation, but it alone cannot be considered to be a solution, and should not
>be the focus, especially if applying laws will only result in more people
>breaking them -

What's the matter with that? If it's possible to demonstrate that
driving more slowly would save lives it seems right to force people to
drive more slowly. It seems a relatively low cost way of saving life -
compared with what's being spent on the extremely safe railways.

>I don't advocate that it's right, but to ignore the fact
>that it would probably happen is short-sighted.
>
>Personally I would have no problem with a heavily enforced 30mph and 40mph
>limit in appropriate areas, even to the point of zero-tolerance (although
>constantly glancing at the speedo to check you are not doing 31mph is far
>more dangerous to other road users than actually driving at 31mph but with
>100% attention on the road - such is the difficulty of zero-tolerance). But
>balance that up by allowing variable limits on motorways, up to 80 or 85mph,
>but reduced depending upon road conditions etc.
>
>> > It's not "the motorist" it's human nature. People decide to put the
>> cameras
>> > there and people decide how they will deal with these cameras.
>>
>> No, it's the motorist. If the motorist decides that arriving at the next
>> traffic jam thirty seconds earlier is important enough to drive
>dangerously,
>> that doesn't suggest to me that they are a safe driver.
>
>Ahhhhh, listen to yourself. You again focus on how you would like the world
>to be - yes it would be great, but people are NOT going to do that. Stand at
>and speed camera and watch the brake lights come on then people accelerate
>again to make up time afterwards.

Yes, and there are now more sophisticated systems that counteract this
practice.

>It's wrong, and we can stand on Mount
>Moral High Ground and shout that until a few hundred more pedestrians are
>killed by it, but that will not change the fact that it happens. Unless you
>can find some means to punish each and every "motorist" for it, and predict
>the likely counter-reaction of whatever further measure you introduce, it's
>better to focus in the first place on what will work.
>
>> > The cameras _should_ be there to promote safety
>>
>> Why? Why shouldn't they be there to promote compliance? It's not as if
>> speed limits are a recent invention, after all.
>
>You again focus on the wrong thing - the cameras are there to promote
>compliance, the compliance exists to promote safety, therefore the cameras
>must promote safety. Sticking a camera outside every school promotes safety.
>Sticking a camera on the exit of a blind corner, at the bottom of a dip, on
>a road where drivers will go fast does NOT promote safety, because seeing it
>at the last minute is likely to throw a driver into a skid, possibly into
>oncoming traffic, entering another couple of drivers into the accident
>statistics log. Yes, we can think "got the stupid speeding *******", but the
>laws exist to keep the population safe, not to place them in greater danger.

IME this isn't the way they are used. There are usually warnings about
cameras being present and they are visible from a long way off.

>
>> > Amazing how you correlate people with speeding convictions as
>> representative of all people who speed
>>
>> The more you speed the more likely you are to get caught.
>
>Agreed, but that does not mean that someone with speeding convictions is
>necessarily representative of all people who speed. UK govt stats show that
>2/3 of drivers speed, yet 2/3 of drivers are not convicted. One cannot be
>representative of the other.

Given the prevalence of cameras I suspect that more people are going to
get caught sometime in their driving careers. Approaching the 2/3 who
speed.
>
>> Especially when
>> there are cameras. The "I'm a safe driver, I've been unlucky and got nine
>> points on my licence" argument is completely blown away by the statistical
>> correlation mentioned.
>
>You can pick up 9 points on one dash to the hospital with your pregnant
>wife.

And you point is? That it's OK to break the law when your wife is
pregnant?

>
>
>>
>> > I have speeding convictions, have never crashed, never caused a
>> > crash, drive at 30mph through _every_ 30mph zone, yet according to your
>> > reasoning I am a law-breaking, speeding, crashing driver.
>>
>> No, according to my definition you are a law-breaking driver (else no
>> convictions).
>
>You're too kind :-) However elsewhere in the thread anyone who has a
>speeding conviction is considered extremely harshly. It's far from the whole
>story. It is correlated with speed=danger=illegal. Yet my conviction was for
>7mph over the limit on a motorway - in the UK that is danger. In Germany
>that is not. If the whole road were a couple of hundred miles East it would
>not be dangerous, yet in the UK it is. I don't see that geography plays any
>part in whether something is empirically dangerous or not.

No, you're wrong. I wrote in this thread about 130 kph being the
recommended speed limit in Germany and drivers involved in crashes above
this speed are at least partially liable, merely because of their speed.
The difference between the UK and Germany is that in the UK driving
faster than 70mph is illegal, in Germany it is not. A similarity
between the UK and Germany is that in both countries most people
recognise that high speed driving is dangerous.
>
>>
>> But increased speed = increased danger is a simple fact borne out by both
>> the laws of physics and time-series and whole population analysis of crash
>> statistics.
>
>It's not a simple fact. Where all cars on a motorway are driving at 70mph it
>is more likely than not safer for you to drive at that speed than at 30mph.

But this does not reflect real life.


>These things only hold true when considering the circumstance. Repetition of
>a sound-bite devalues what is a reasonably valid premise.
>
>> > Britain's
>> > motorways have the lowest number of accidents despite the highest
>speeds,
>>
>> See above. You have to compare like with like - comparing the crash rate
>on
>> a motorway with that of an urban street with parked cars, shops and
>> driveways is both pointless and misleading.
>
>Although less misleading than "speed kills", which it obviously doesn't.

It does, in all similar situations.


>
>> It's the sort of tax which can be avoided simply by obeying the law and
>> driving both safely and within the limit, a behaviour we are all required
>to
>> demonstrate before we are allowed a full driving licence.
>
>2/3 of the population seem both capable of, and intent on, demonstrating
>that behaviour and then ignoring it. 2/3 of the population is vastly more
>than voted at the last election. As we are a democracy, that suggests the
>majority do not agree with the speeding laws as currently applied.
>
>> When I drive I observe the speed limit. It's no hardship, and I manage to
>> get to my destination and average journey times versus the days when I
>used
>> to speed are virtually unchanged. Why are those extra few mph between
>> traffic jams so vital to people? What is it about modern life that we
>would
>> rather bitch about the cameras than slow down a bit and forget about them?
>> Why are some people so obsessed by speed that they would rather brake
>> dangerously for the camera than drive at a steady and legal speed? Beats
>> me. The next traffic jam isn't going anywhere, it will wait for them no
>> problem.
>
>It will, but in the meantime they'll still be dodging the cameras and
>causing mayhem until we stop the fixation with speed limit compliance and
>actually address the problem. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but
>equally I don't think continuation of the current policy will achieve the
>desired result either.

Murder kills, so we have laws against murder. Speed kills so why not
have laws (enforced) against speeding?
>
>
>

--
Michael MacClancy

[Tim Woodall]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:37:19 +0100,
Michael MacClancy > wrote:
>
> Al that this shows is that vehicles are getting safer. If you removed
> design improvements from the experiment death rates would be increasing.
>
Erm... They are for the people (drivers) who, in theory, should have
the most to gain from the safety improvements. It is pedestrians (and to
a much smaller extent cyclists) who have made the UK roads safer year
on year.

1950 5000 deaths, 2000 motorists, 3000 non motorists
1965 8000 deaths, 4000 motorists, 4000 non motorists
now 3500 deaths, 2500 motorists, 1000 non motorists.

With the exception of the seatbelt "decade" from 1983-1990 ish,
pedestrian deaths have been decreasing by about 100 per year
each year from 1970ish. Unsurprisingly, that improvement has
flagged a bit this century and is now only about 50/year, barely
enough to mask the extra deaths in cars, motorbikes and lorries.
(IIRC pedestrian deaths are below 800 in 2002 and cyclists deaths
are below 150 - clearly pedestrian deaths can't drop by 100/year
for more than another 7 years in any scenario)

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/

[John Wallace]

"Jack Howard" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, John Wallace > writes
>
> >To simply focus on speed would be
> >short-sighted in the extreme, and to assume that the mass installation of
> >cameras is trying to do anything other than tax drivers is equally
> >short-sighted. The current approach risks turning public opinion heavily
> >against this hidden taxation approach.
>
> I'll never understand this argument. There's a very simple solution to
> the speed camera "problem", just drive within the speed limit!

I'll never understand how people can describe this as a "solution".

I'm sure you have equal difficulty understanding the drugs "problem" - just
don't take them. Perhaps crime? Just stop breaking into people's houses. I
don't disagree with your statement, and that would really be a nice
situation - the only difference is that I recognise that is neither
hapenning, nor going to happen, with the present approach.

> Since cameras started appearing, I've found myself being a lot more
> careful to travel at or below the speed limit on any given stretch of
> road.

Any statistic you care to look at will demonstrate you are in a minority -
2/3 of the UK population speed, a figure which has been rising year-on-year.
As modern life gets more hectic, people working longer hours, and roads get
more congested, people will tend to drive more quickly and more aggressively
on the uncongested roads to save time in their lives. This is not something
I'm saying is a good thing or in any way laudable, but to solve the problem
you at first must acknowledge it and recognise the root cause. Adding more
cameras will cost the taxpayer a fortune, in paying for the cameras, the
processing of the fines, and the cleaning up the mess as drivers slow in
those areas, risking accidents, and drive faster in camera-free areas,
risking accidents.

You may not, but to say that no-one will is to focus on the wrong problem,
and ultimately continue failing to solve it.

> I should, of course, have done this anyway, but I didn't. Now I
> have an incentive to do so. Roll on the repeal of the "must be
> visible" rules and the introduction of more mobile units, I say - the
> roads will be safer for everyone as a result.

You should have, and you didn't - nor will anyone else. The pace of life
gets faster, rising house prices force longer commutes, and congested roads
make progress slow - people will tend to drive faster when they can. Cameras
will force people to slow down around them, but will speed up elsewhere when
the regular commuters know where they are, and where the police sit.

This approach is another short-term, short-sighted quick fix, and will
continue not to work.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace >
writes
>Adding more cameras will cost the taxpayer a fortune, in paying for the
>cameras, the processing of the fines, and the cleaning up the mess

Quite the opposite is true. The cameras reduce costs, that's why
they're used.
--
Michael MacClancy

[marc]

Simon Proven > wrote:

>
> > How many people did you kill at 80, and to prove your theory ,was it
> > more than when you were travelling at 52 or the same?
>
> With that level of reasoning, you should be applying to
> run the space shuttle programme. They made that mistake
> as well. Twice.

Surely you're not trying to argue that his theory ("No excuses. Speed
kills.") is wrong?


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[John Wallace]

"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...

> >> Wrong. Motorways.....blah blah
> >
> >You stated "Speed kills". Motorways are the fastest roads in the UK, yet
> >they kill the least. The logic is about as straightforward as it gets.
>
> Yes, if people drove more slowly on motorways there would be fewer
> deaths. That's the straightforward logic.

Except that on the roads where people do exactly that, there are more
deaths. That's the straightforward fact.

> No, see above, you have to compare like with like. Faster driving on A
> roads means more deaths on A roads, faster driving on side roads means
> more deaths on side roads. Give me an instance where driving faster on
> a particular type of road results in lower death rates.

You are now committing the most heinous crime that a full paid up "speed
kills" zealot can make - you are mixing reasoning with the preaching. Your
postulation means that if I drive to work at 51mph rather than 50mph I am
more likely to have an accident - plainly ridiculous. If I drive along a
windy country road at 25mph, where the speed limit is 60mph, I am more
likely to cause an accident - even the police acknowledge this fact.

Still congratulations on recognising that speed itself doesn't kill, it is
only inappropriate speed, and I would estimate that to be a primary factor
in only a small number of traffic deaths.

> >Argument avoidance.Arbitrary stipulation of a speed limit does not make a
> >road more or less dangerous. Waht you are saying above is no longer
"Speed
> >kills", it is only speed relative to other road users, and that can be
too
> >slow as well as too fast.
>
> Any driver should allow for the fact that there are slower moving things
> on the road - pedestrians, cyclists, HGVs etc. Your argument is
> spurious.

They should, but they don't. Your logic may be academically valid, but it
doesn't apply to what's actually happening on the roads.

> >Only if you consider speed in isolation, which it only ever is in a
physics
> >equation. If we both drive around Silverstone during Grand Prix weekend,
me
> >doing 200mph and you doing 20mph, you are in far more danger than me.
>
> How do you work that out?

Cars coming through, say, Beckets at 160mph have no closure rate with me,
yet relative to you they will meet you at an enormous closure rate. So too
on a country road - round about where you live (Utopia?) all drivers travel
safely, able to stop their vehicles in the distance they can see, and
expecting that around every corner could be a tractor, child on bike etc,
travelling much more slowly than them. Manwhile, in the real world, that's
not happening.

I love your world, but designing rules in it and implementing them here is
destined to line the coffers of the police and treasury, and the A&E wards
of hospitals.

> >Well, that in itself is questionable. If we look at statistics, speeds on
UK
> >roads have been rising year on year, as have instances of speeding, yet
> >statistics show UK roads to be continually safer, now reaching the safest
in
> >Europe. That would be impossible if speed truly did kill.
>
> Al that this shows is that vehicles are getting safer. If you removed
> design improvements from the experiment death rates would be increasing.

Given that the statistics were quoting accident rates rather than death
rates, that cannot be the case.

> So you accept the point...

I accept that you seem determined to avoid the question.

> that you are less likely to be able to stop when
> driving at 90 mph and thereby avoid a potentially life-threatening
> crash. Good.

I _know_ that today I can stop far more quickly and safely from 90mph than a
car designed in the 60's could from the (then considered safe) 70mph.

> It could be working even better. That is something you can't deny.

I think that has never been the arguent = as fas as the level is >0, clearly
no, it could be better. The difference of opinion lies only in how to
address the problem to make that happen. Some people see speed as the
problem, and try to address it. The problem is not speed - it is doubtless a
contributing factor to the problem of road deaths or road safety, but if
addressing all efforts toward reducing speed, there should be no surprise
when the roads don't get safer (even if the public comply, while they seem
to be doing the opposite at present).

> >I would agree with that. What I have a problem with is people failing to
> >focus on the main objective - the point is to reduce the overall fatality
> >rate, NOT to slow people down. Slowing people down may be one part of the
> >equation, but it alone cannot be considered to be a solution, and should
not
> >be the focus, especially if applying laws will only result in more people
> >breaking them -
>
> What's the matter with that? If it's possible to demonstrate that
> driving more slowly would save lives it seems right to force people to
> drive more slowly. It seems a relatively low cost way of saving life -
> compared with what's being spent on the extremely safe railways.

It is, but ONLY if people will actually do it. Otherwise it's a huge waste
of time and effort. Like I say, society and economics are driving people to
work harder, for longer, be more stressed at work, have longer commutes,
spend less time with their family or relaxing, contributing to more stress -
these factors will all contribute to making that ideal less likely to
happen. I can't disagree with you, it would be safer, but I can't see it
being likely to happen, therefore it's difficult to justify sinking the
majority of road safety efforts into something which is unlikely to bear
fruit.

> >Ahhhhh, listen to yourself. You again focus on how you would like the
world
> >to be - yes it would be great, but people are NOT going to do that. Stand
at
> >and speed camera and watch the brake lights come on then people
accelerate
> >again to make up time afterwards.
>
> Yes, and there are now more sophisticated systems that counteract this
> practice.

Which will in turn be circumvented - there's too many people who want to do
that creating too big a potential market.

> >You again focus on the wrong thing - the cameras are there to promote
> >compliance, the compliance exists to promote safety, therefore the
cameras
> >must promote safety. Sticking a camera outside every school promotes
safety.
> >Sticking a camera on the exit of a blind corner, at the bottom of a dip,
on
> >a road where drivers will go fast does NOT promote safety, because seeing
it
> >at the last minute is likely to throw a driver into a skid, possibly into
> >oncoming traffic, entering another couple of drivers into the accident
> >statistics log. Yes, we can think "got the stupid speeding *******", but
the
> >laws exist to keep the population safe, not to place them in greater
danger.
>
> IME this isn't the way they are used. There are usually warnings about
> cameras being present and they are visible from a long way off.

This is a more recent phenomenon, but up here in Scotland the drive south
will find you plenty like that, and the drive north still sees them tucked
away behind road signs unnannounced. Not only impossible to reduce speeds
(except after the fact as the fine comes through), but downright dangerous
given where they are positioned as two lane dual merges into one lane again.

> >You can pick up 9 points on one dash to the hospital with your pregnant
> >wife.
>
> And you point is? That it's OK to break the law when your wife is
> pregnant?

Are you seriously suggesting it's not?!? If one of your family members
urgently needed to get to hospital, rather than drive at the fastest safe
conditions for the road, you would toddle along at 30mph while they suffered
alongside you?

> >It's not a simple fact. Where all cars on a motorway are driving at 70mph
it
> >is more likely than not safer for you to drive at that speed than at
30mph.
>
> But this does not reflect real life.

I have seen this many times, but clearly I must have imagined them all.

> >Although less misleading than "speed kills", which it obviously doesn't.
>
> It does, in all similar situations.

Good - at last a qualifier.

> Murder kills, so we have laws against murder. Speed kills so why not
> have laws (enforced) against speeding?

And you say *I* do not compare like with like?! Sheesh...





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace > writes
>"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> No, see above, you have to compare like with like. Faster driving on A
>> roads means more deaths on A roads, faster driving on side roads means
>> more deaths on side roads. Give me an instance where driving faster on
>> a particular type of road results in lower death rates.
>
>You are now committing the most heinous crime that a full paid up "speed
>kills" zealot can make - you are mixing reasoning with the preaching. Your
>postulation means that if I drive to work at 51mph rather than 50mph I am
>more likely to have an accident - plainly ridiculous.

Not at all ridiculous and your comment only shows that you have no
appreciation of the effects of such changes when applied to large
numbers of people. It is indeed unlikely that you will have an accident
as a result of driving at 51mph instead of 50mph but it _is_ more
likely. Applied to all drivers in the country it is a certainty that
the accident/fatality rate would increase.

>If I drive along a
>windy country road at 25mph, where the speed limit is 60mph, I am more
>likely to cause an accident - even the police acknowledge this fact.
>
>Still congratulations on recognising that speed itself doesn't kill, it is
>only inappropriate speed

I never said/recognised that. Anyway, I think that the existing speed
limits are appropriate.

>>
>> Any driver should allow for the fact that there are slower moving things
>> on the road - pedestrians, cyclists, HGVs etc. Your argument is
>> spurious.
>
>They should, but they don't. Your logic may be academically valid, but it
>doesn't apply to what's actually happening on the roads.

Most do allow for pedestrians, cyclists, HGVs etc. Only an
inconsiderate minority doesn't.

>
>> >Only if you consider speed in isolation, which it only ever is in a
>physics
>> >equation. If we both drive around Silverstone during Grand Prix weekend,
>me
>> >doing 200mph and you doing 20mph, you are in far more danger than me.
>>
>> How do you work that out?
>
>Cars coming through, say, Beckets at 160mph have no closure rate with me,
>yet relative to you they will meet you at an enormous closure rate. So too
>on a country road - round about where you live (Utopia?) all drivers travel
>safely, able to stop their vehicles in the distance they can see, and
>expecting that around every corner could be a tractor, child on bike etc,
>travelling much more slowly than them. Manwhile, in the real world, that's
>not happening.

That's why there are speed limits.

>
>> So you accept the point...
>
>I accept that you seem determined to avoid the question.
>
>> that you are less likely to be able to stop when
>> driving at 90 mph and thereby avoid a potentially life-threatening
>> crash. Good.
>
>I _know_ that today I can stop far more quickly and safely from 90mph than a
>car designed in the 60's could from the (then considered safe) 70mph.

Who mentioned the 60's? You are less likely to stop when driving at
90mph than driving at 70mph. This was true in the 60s and is true now.

>
>> It could be working even better. That is something you can't deny.
>
>I think that has never been the arguent = as fas as the level is >0, clearly
>no, it could be better. The difference of opinion lies only in how to
>address the problem to make that happen. Some people see speed as the
>problem, and try to address it. The problem is not speed - it is doubtless a
>contributing factor to the problem of road deaths or road safety, but if
>addressing all efforts toward reducing speed, there should be no surprise
>when the roads don't get safer (even if the public comply, while they seem
>to be doing the opposite at present).

You are being much too categorical in your argument. I haven't said
that speed is the only problem but I do believe that it is an important
contributing factor. Roads do get safer when speed is reduced.

>
>
>It is, but ONLY if people will actually do it. Otherwise it's a huge waste
>of time and effort.

It will happen once the cameras start catching them often enough. It
_is_ possible to change behaviours.

>> And you point is? That it's OK to break the law when your wife is
>> pregnant?
>
>Are you seriously suggesting it's not?!? If one of your family members
>urgently needed to get to hospital, rather than drive at the fastest safe
>conditions for the road, you would toddle along at 30mph while they suffered
>alongside you?

If it was that urgent I'd call for an ambulance.

>
>> >It's not a simple fact. Where all cars on a motorway are driving at 70mph
>it
>> >is more likely than not safer for you to drive at that speed than at
>30mph.
>>
>> But this does not reflect real life.
>
>I have seen this many times, but clearly I must have imagined them all.

I have never been on a UK motorway where everyone is driving at 70mph or
any other uniform speed and I drive on them all the time.

>
>> >Although less misleading than "speed kills", which it obviously doesn't.
>>

I think I asked you before to provide evidence that higher speeds save
lives. Where is it?


--
Michael MacClancy

[Dave Larrington]

John Wallace wrote:

> If speed=death is such a direct correlation, how in turn do you
> explain that statistics show unrestricted autobahns in Germany to be
> twice as safe as speed-restricted motorways in Belgium.

My /personal/ take on this is that it's because the Germans are generally
safe and sensible drivers, whereas the Belgians are maniacs who have no
truck with the notion of leaving more than a foot between vehicles at 120+
km/h... With apologies to any Belgians who may be reading.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:20:56 +0100 someone who may be "John Wallace"
> wrote this:-

>> Yes, if people drove more slowly on motorways there would be fewer
>> deaths. That's the straightforward logic.
>
>Except that on the roads where people do exactly that, there are more
>deaths. That's the straightforward fact.

It's a fact, but not a straightforward one.

If you wish to compare then you must compare like with like. Take a
road with limited access, various types of vehicle and pedestrians
banned, simplified junctions, fully fenced where people drive along
it at say 40mph; then compare this with a motorway.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace > writes
>"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...
>
>> So how do you explain the fact that the KSI rate on German Autobahns is
>> higher than UK motorways? It certainly isn't because British drivers
>> are better or vehicles in the UK more modern.
>
>If speed=death is such a direct correlation, how in turn do you explain that
>statistics show unrestricted autobahns in Germany to be twice as safe as
>speed-restricted motorways in Belgium.

Have you ever driven in Belgium? It's crazy over there.
--
Michael MacClancy

[John Wallace]

"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, John Wallace >
> writes
> >Adding more cameras will cost the taxpayer a fortune, in paying for the
> >cameras, the processing of the fines, and the cleaning up the mess
>
> Quite the opposite is true. The cameras reduce costs, that's why
> they're used.

They only do if you look at them as simplistically as the "speed kills"
preachers insist on doing.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...

> Not at all ridiculous and your comment only shows that you have no
> appreciation of the effects of such changes when applied to large
> numbers of people. It is indeed unlikely that you will have an accident
> as a result of driving at 51mph instead of 50mph but it _is_ more
> likely. Applied to all drivers in the country it is a certainty that
> the accident/fatality rate would increase.

Statistics from countries across Europe show the opposite to be the result.
The logic may suggest that it is, but sadly our world is full of human
beings, rather than being people by beings responding in the manner of a
simple academic application of logic.

> Most do allow for pedestrians, cyclists, HGVs etc. Only an
> inconsiderate minority doesn't.

For one who's arguments are so heavily (and spuriously) based on statistics,
it's surprising that you term categorise the 2/3 of the UK population who
speed as being "a minority".

> >Cars coming through, say, Beckets at 160mph have no closure rate with me,
> >yet relative to you they will meet you at an enormous closure rate. So
too
> >on a country road - round about where you live (Utopia?) all drivers
travel
> >safely, able to stop their vehicles in the distance they can see, and
> >expecting that around every corner could be a tractor, child on bike etc,
> >travelling much more slowly than them. Manwhile, in the real world,
that's
> >not happening.
>
> That's why there are speed limits.

Which set an upper limit and therefore do not control speed differentials,
which was the original point that remains missed.

> Who mentioned the 60's? You are less likely to stop when driving at
> 90mph than driving at 70mph. This was true in the 60s and is true now.

Once again - 70mph was considered "safe" at the time it was set in the
'60's. Given the massive improvements in car technology and safety since
then, it is illogical to consider that a much faster speed would not be
equally safe today.

> You are being much too categorical in your argument. I haven't said
> that speed is the only problem but I do believe that it is an important
> contributing factor. Roads do get safer when speed is reduced.

Once again, statistics prove that to be incorrect. In stating the above you
make two erroneous assumptions. Firstly that everyone will comply with
whatever measures are introduced to ensure that will occur, and secondly
that even assuming the reduced speed is achieve, that all other factors will
remain equal. They do not. Changing the speed re-bases the whole equation,
resulting in an _increase_ in accidents. Logic dictates that you should be
100% correct, but the facts coming out of where this has been tried proves
that your statement is wrong.

> >Are you seriously suggesting it's not?!? If one of your family members
> >urgently needed to get to hospital, rather than drive at the fastest safe
> >conditions for the road, you would toddle along at 30mph while they
suffered
> >alongside you?
>
> If it was that urgent I'd call for an ambulance.

Avoidance....

> I have never been on a UK motorway where everyone is driving at 70mph or
> any other uniform speed and I drive on them all the time.

Avoidance. You've never seen a car travelling significantly slower than the
prevailing? Additionally your assertion was not that you had never seen
that, it was that it never happened. The fact that I have experienced it
many times already makes the point.

> I think I asked you before to provide evidence that higher speeds save
> lives. Where is it?

The same place as your evidence that lower speeds saves them. Look at the
safespeed website, you'll find all the information you need.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as John
Wallace > breathed:

>"Jack Howard" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >, John Wallace > writes

>> >To simply focus on speed would be
>> >short-sighted in the extreme, and to assume that the mass installation of
>> >cameras is trying to do anything other than tax drivers is equally
>> >short-sighted. The current approach risks turning public opinion heavily
>> >against this hidden taxation approach.

>> I'll never understand this argument. There's a very simple solution to
>> the speed camera "problem", just drive within the speed limit!

>I'll never understand how people can describe this as a "solution".

???

We have a law which says "on this road the fastest speed you can drive a
motor vehicle at is xx miles per hour".

We have a police force, plus technical aids like speed cameras, which
enable us to enforce this law.

Yet you don't understand how simply obeying the law is a way to avoid
being prosecuted for breaking it?

<boggle>

>I'm sure you have equal difficulty understanding the drugs "problem" - just
>don't take them.

The drugs "problem" is that drugs are illegal. Were they to be
legalised, the only people harmed by taking too many of them would be
the users. Speeding is different - the harm is mostly to innocent third
parties, not the speeding driver.

>Perhaps crime? Just stop breaking into people's houses.

The reason theft is illegal is not because the thief gains, but because
their victim looses. Excessive speed causes death and injury, usually
to someone other than the speeder. And more cameras and automated
anti-speed systems free up police time to investigate theft, etc. Now
we just need to get the courts to start actually punishing the caught
thieves.

>I
>don't disagree with your statement, and that would really be a nice
>situation - the only difference is that I recognise that is neither
>hapenning, nor going to happen, with the present approach.

It is happening, and very effectively. A new 50mph speed limit has
recently been imposed on the roads between Rotherham and Gainsborough,
and people obey it. A few lunatics still storm past at 80+ as they've
always done, but the police will soon catch them, and the ones who
refuse to moderate their behaviour will collect the relevant points and
loose their licences. All they have to do to keep driving is slow down
a bit. It's not that hard you know!

>> Since cameras started appearing, I've found myself being a lot more
>> careful to travel at or below the speed limit on any given stretch of
>> road.

>Any statistic you care to look at will demonstrate you are in a minority -
>2/3 of the UK population speed, a figure which has been rising year-on-year.
>As modern life gets more hectic, people working longer hours, and roads get
>more congested, people will tend to drive more quickly and more aggressively
>on the uncongested roads to save time in their lives.

Only idiots, or those with no real understanding, will do this. Driving
more aggressively simply increases your own heart rate and stress
levels, it certainly doesn't get you to your destination any faster.

On a congested motorway I find the best way to arrive un-stressed and in
reasonable time is to drop to 56 mph and sit with the trucks in the
inside lane. On a 30 mile commute on the M1 this is only fractionally
slower than all the "drive like a lunatic" flat-out to complete-stop
antics you see people in lane 3 doing, yet it uses about half the fuel,
saves a fortune in tyre and brake wear, and lets you relax and enjoy
your music / radio4 / whatever.

I find that compared to the start-stop brigade, it takes me about 5
minutes longer to make the same journey, but because of the much lower
stress levels I'm able to think about work, solve problems, plan things,
etc, while the nutters are concentrating on not rear-ending the car in
front. Simply adjusting your times to avoid the rush hour solves many
problems - I find working 10am to 6:30pm means traffic jams are mostly a
distant memory for me.

>This is not something
>I'm saying is a good thing or in any way laudable, but to solve the problem
>you at first must acknowledge it and recognise the root cause. Adding more
>cameras will cost the taxpayer a fortune, in paying for the cameras, the
>processing of the fines, and the cleaning up the mess as drivers slow in
>those areas, risking accidents, and drive faster in camera-free areas,
>risking accidents.

More cameras, hidden cameras, and best of all average speed from x-to-y
systems (as already used in France). Plus remote automatic video
recording of areas known for "lunatic antics". It's not that expensive
and the saving in costs due to deaths, damage, etc, far outweighs the
cost of the cameras.

Now speed-humps on the other hand, those are a real menace and should be
banned without delay, as they really do promote start-stop driving, with
attendant pollution and noise. They also damage vehicles, and are
equally inconvenient whether you're speeding or not. Cameras on the
other hand only inconvenience people who are speeding, they have no
effect on anyone else.

>You may not, but to say that no-one will is to focus on the wrong problem,
>and ultimately continue failing to solve it.

So how would you solve it? What do you regard as "the problem" anyway?

>> I should, of course, have done this anyway, but I didn't. Now I
>> have an incentive to do so. Roll on the repeal of the "must be
>> visible" rules and the introduction of more mobile units, I say - the
>> roads will be safer for everyone as a result.

>You should have, and you didn't - nor will anyone else. The pace of life
>gets faster, rising house prices force longer commutes, and congested roads
>make progress slow - people will tend to drive faster when they can.

This is nonsense. Just because I've spent 10 minutes in a traffic jam
on the M1 doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly drive at 70 on roads I'd
usually take at 50 to 60 - the reason I take them at 50 or 60 is because
that's as fast as is safe, and no amount of being late is going to make
speeding safer. If I get caught in traffic I arrive late. If it's
important to be somewhere at a given time, I'll leave earlier and allow
extra time for the trip.

>Cameras
>will force people to slow down around them, but will speed up elsewhere when
>the regular commuters know where they are, and where the police sit.

The next generation of anti-speeding equipment will not rely on fixed
cameras at specific locations. Soon we'll have systems that can track a
vehicle's progress along a road, calculating speeds over a distance,
instead of the "spot speed" Gatso approach. These will solve the
problem of idiots who only slow for cameras they can see.

>This approach is another short-term, short-sighted quick fix, and will
>continue not to work.

This is necessary until people stop speeding. Back when roads were
largely empty and traffic light, speeding was less of a problem. Now
that most people have cars and rely on them for mobility, rather than
regarding them as a luxury, speeding is much more of a problem.

If the roads are really that badly congested, you should campaign for
better trains and trams to carry the traffic instead. When I worked in
the same city I live in, I found I could cycle to work in 10 minutes in
the rush hour, mostly spent passing lines of stationary traffic. By car
it took at least 25!

--
- Pyromancer, speaking for himself.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.

[John Wallace]

"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...

> If you wish to compare then you must compare like with like. Take a
> road with limited access, various types of vehicle and pedestrians
> banned, simplified junctions, fully fenced where people drive along
> it at say 40mph; then compare this with a motorway.

Or we can compare with motorways elsewhere in Europe - either way proves my
point.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...

> So, the first part of your argument is that UK accident rates are low,
> and its motorway speeds are low.

I don't say they are low, I say they are probably "too low".

> The latter part of your argument is that geography is irrelevant to
> accident rates, and so it should be okay to travel at the speed of the
> fastest geographical area, rather than at the speed of the safest
> geographical area?

You find this strange because you believe there to be a correlation between
the two, that safest and fastest are mutually exclusive. I know that the
accident statistics do not uphold this belief, therefore keep an open mind
on the issue.



>
> Cheers,
> Euan
> Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
> Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
> Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...

> Hmm, not 1mph over, more like 10% / 5mph over, whichever is the
> lesser.

That's the law as currently loosely interpreted - if you read what I said I
was talking about what the over-zealous zero-tolerance nutters would say.

> > ... my conviction was for
> >7mph over the limit on a motorway
>
> Yes, that sounds like 10% over, decently above the generous margin of
> error.

33mph in a 30 is a momentary slip of the foot. When your kids are playing
outside would you rather all the cars drove through at 30mph with eyes
firmly glued to the speedo to ensure they wouldn't be fined for slipping
over the "generous margin for error", or do you think 31mph or even 35mph
with full attention would be better?

Please consider the question rhetorical, as it is so obvious not only that
the latter is far safer, but equally obvious that on usenet nobody ever
abandons a position, therefore I expect you will wish for the speedo-staring
accident-fest.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Richard Bates]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:48:08 +0100, "John Wallace" >
in > wrote:

>33mph in a 30 is a momentary slip of the foot. When your kids are playing
>outside would you rather all the cars drove through at 30mph with eyes
>firmly glued to the speedo to ensure they wouldn't be fined for slipping
>over the "generous margin for error", or do you think 31mph or even 35mph
>with full attention would be better?

I would prefer people to drive at 27 mph. with full attention. That
way, a momentary 3mph slip of the foot will have less serious
consequences.

Even better if you drive at 20 (+/- 3mph).
--
If ingnorance is bliss then I am the erm er
luckiest thingy in the whatchamacallit.
To mail me, change the obvious bit to richard

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace >
writes
>
>> I think I asked you before to provide evidence that higher speeds save
>> lives. Where is it?
>
>The same place as your evidence that lower speeds saves them. Look at the
>safespeed website, you'll find all the information you need.
>

Ha, ha, ha. The difficulty is that it's really hard to find any truth
there. A bit like your jottings.
--
Michael MacClancy

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace > writes
>"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
>> If you wish to compare then you must compare like with like. Take a
>> road with limited access, various types of vehicle and pedestrians
>> banned, simplified junctions, fully fenced where people drive along
>> it at say 40mph; then compare this with a motorway.
>
>Or we can compare with motorways elsewhere in Europe - either way proves my
>point.
>

And countries where the permitted motorway speeds are higher than in the
UK have higher KSIs. *Your* point was what exactly?

--
Michael MacClancy

[JohnB]

John Wallace wrote:

> "Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > I think I asked you before to provide evidence that higher speeds save
> > lives. Where is it?
>
> Look at the
> safespeed website, you'll find all the information you need.

Watcha P**l
Did you have a good holiday?
Now they've let you out, be a good boy and waddle off.

John B

[JohnB]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> >
> >
> Does anyone else sense that John Wallace is actually P**l Sm*t*
> trolling?
>

Once he mentioned that web****e he gave the game away ;-)

John B

[Velvet]

John Wallace wrote:
> "Gawnsoft" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>
>>Hmm, not 1mph over, more like 10% / 5mph over, whichever is the
>>lesser.
>
>
> That's the law as currently loosely interpreted - if you read what I said I
> was talking about what the over-zealous zero-tolerance nutters would say.
>
>
>>>... my conviction was for
>>>7mph over the limit on a motorway
>>
>>Yes, that sounds like 10% over, decently above the generous margin of
>>error.
>
>
> 33mph in a 30 is a momentary slip of the foot. When your kids are playing
> outside would you rather all the cars drove through at 30mph with eyes
> firmly glued to the speedo to ensure they wouldn't be fined for slipping
> over the "generous margin for error", or do you think 31mph or even 35mph
> with full attention would be better?
>
> Please consider the question rhetorical, as it is so obvious not only that
> the latter is far safer, but equally obvious that on usenet nobody ever
> abandons a position, therefore I expect you will wish for the speedo-staring
> accident-fest.
>
> Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

How about a really novel idea.

If there's kids likely to be about in a 30 limit, why don't you try
driving at 25. That way, the slip of the foot won't take you over the
limit, and allows you to drive without eyes glued to speedo...

There's nothing that says you have to drive AT the speed limit,
regardless of what other drivers seem to think. They're a limit, not a
mandatory speed.

Velvet

[Velvet]

Paul Kelly wrote:

> In ,
> John Wallace > typed:
> that a full paid up
>
>>"speed
>>kills" zealot can make - you are mixing reasoning with the preaching.
>>Your postulation means that if I drive to work at 51mph rather than
>>50mph I am
>>more likely to have an accident - plainly ridiculous. If I drive
>>along a
>>windy country road at 25mph, where the speed limit is 60mph, I am more
>>likely to cause an accident - even the police acknowledge this fact.
>
>
>
> Or as i just experienced on the M25 about an hour ago. Three lanes moving
> smoothly and safely 60+ in LH. ~70 in the middle ~80 in the RH lane, only
> problem came when traffic came up behind a doddering car doing <50 in the LH
> lane. Legal but inappropriate speed for the situation.
>
> pk
>
>
>
Oh, and another thought.

Given the lanes 2 and 3 are for overtaking, it would seem that the
inappropriate speed was actually going on in lanes 2 and 3. If lane 1
was 50mphish, lane 2 60mphish, and lane 3 70mphish, then very few people
would be breaking the law, and no-one would have been doing an
'inappropriate speed for the situation'.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Velvet

[Simon Proven]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> John Wallace wrote:
>
>
>>If speed=death is such a direct correlation, how in turn do you
>>explain that statistics show unrestricted autobahns in Germany to be
>>twice as safe as speed-restricted motorways in Belgium.
>
>
> My /personal/ take on this is that it's because the Germans are generally
> safe and sensible drivers, whereas the Belgians are maniacs who have no
> truck with the notion of leaving more than a foot between vehicles at 120+
> km/h... With apologies to any Belgians who may be reading.

It happens that Belgium has the highest rate of toxoplasmosis
infection in humans in Europe (and toxoplasma is associated with
risk taking and increased reaction times).

Simon

[Simon Proven]

marc wrote:

> Simon Proven > wrote:
>
>
>>>How many people did you kill at 80, and to prove your theory ,was it
>>>more than when you were travelling at 52 or the same?
>>
>>With that level of reasoning, you should be applying to
>>run the space shuttle programme. They made that mistake
>>as well. Twice.
>
>
> Surely you're not trying to argue that his theory ("No excuses. Speed
> kills.") is wrong?

No, I am trying to argue that the suggested method of
proof (suggested by you - perhaps in sarcasm) is invalid.

[The Oracle]

Excess speed kills. Period. We all feel so safe in our cars. "Accidents
happen to other people, not to me". "I know what I am doing". "I have been
driving for forty years - don't tell me how to drive". Heard any of these?
They all think they know best. Until that accidebt when they least expect
ot when they were driving too fast.

I don't understand your space shuttle point?


"marc" > wrote in message
. co.uk...
> Simon Proven > wrote:
>
> >
> > > How many people did you kill at 80, and to prove your theory ,was it
> > > more than when you were travelling at 52 or the same?
> >
> > With that level of reasoning, you should be applying to
> > run the space shuttle programme. They made that mistake
> > as well. Twice.
>
> Surely you're not trying to argue that his theory ("No excuses. Speed
> kills.") is wrong?
>
>
> --
> Marc
> Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
> for clubs and associations of all types.
> http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:48:08 +0100, "John Wallace" >
wrote (more or less):

>"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
>message ...
>
>> Hmm, not 1mph over, more like 10% / 5mph over, whichever is the
>> lesser.
>
>That's the law as currently loosely interpreted - if you read what I said I
>was talking about what the over-zealous zero-tolerance nutters would say.
>
>> > ... my conviction was for
>> >7mph over the limit on a motorway
>>
>> Yes, that sounds like 10% over, decently above the generous margin of
>> error.
>
>33mph in a 30 is a momentary slip of the foot. When your kids are playing
>outside would you rather all the cars drove through at 30mph with eyes
>firmly glued to the speedo to ensure they wouldn't be fined for slipping
>over the "generous margin for error", or do you think 31mph or even 35mph
>with full attention would be better?
>
>Please consider the question rhetorical, as it is so obvious not only that
>the latter is far safer, but equally obvious that on usenet nobody ever
>abandons a position, therefore I expect you will wish for the speedo-staring
>accident-fest.
>
>Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

If you really are concerned that you have an inability to control your
foot, consider relinquishing your licence on medical grounds.

If you adjudge yourself unable to maintain a constant legal speed
without focussing all your attention onto the speedometer, consider
relinquishing your licence on grounds of incompetence.

Alternatively, fit an audible warning to your car, that sounds when
you break a given speed threshold. That way you can keep your eyes on
the road, and still know when your medical condition and/or your
incompetence have taken you over the speed limit.


Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[marc]

The Oracle > wrote:

> Excess speed kills. Period.

Really?

You have moved from "speed kills", to "Excess speed kills", very
quickly, am I to assume that there will be further thought given to your
position later?

> We all feel so safe in our cars. "Accidents
> happen to other people, not to me". "I know what I am doing". "I have been
> driving for forty years - don't tell me how to drive". Heard any of these?
> They all think they know best. Until that accidebt when they least expect
> ot when they were driving too fast.
>
> I don't understand your space shuttle point?

I didn't make it. You see, top posting is confusing, isn't it?


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[marc]

Simon Proven > wrote:

> >
> >>>How many people did you kill at 80, and to prove your theory ,was it
> >>>more than when you were travelling at 52 or the same?
> >>
> >>With that level of reasoning, you should be applying to
> >>run the space shuttle programme. They made that mistake
> >>as well. Twice.
> >
> >
> > Surely you're not trying to argue that his theory ("No excuses. Speed
> > kills.") is wrong?
>
> No, I am trying to argue that the suggested method of
> proof (suggested by you - perhaps in sarcasm) is invalid.

It's valid for absolutes, "speed kills" is an absolute. If "speed kills"
then more speed must kill more. Therefore there must have been some
deaths at 52 and more at 80, unless of course the basic premise was
wrong?


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[marc]

Tony W > wrote:

> > They only do if you look at them as simplistically as the "speed kills"
> > preachers insist on doing.
>
>
> I've seen impressive accident reduction figures from Northamptonshire Police
> which more than justify the use of cameras.

A pity they used a year with an oddly high acident rate to compare, any
one would think that they were trying to deliberately "sex up" the
numbers to prove their case.


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[Paul Kelly]

In o.uk,
marc > typed:
> Paul Kelly > wrote:
>
>>>> I've seen impressive accident reduction figures from
>>>> Northamptonshire Police which more than justify the use of cameras.
>>>
>>> A pity they used a year with an oddly high acident rate to compare,
>>>
>> Can you support that statement?
>
> Oh God!:-(
>
> Yes, if I really have to! :-(
>
> The year that Northamptonshire Police are using as a comparison was a
> high blip, I have seen the figures somewhere but can't remember where
> exactly, but I will see if I can dig them out for you.
>
> Not exactly an unbiased source ....
>
> http://www.abd.org.uk/rigging_the_evidence.htm

Correct - a biased source.

The Northants police site gives much better data
http://www.northants.police.uk/safetycamera/story.htm

which shows the trend not just a comparison to a single year's number as you
suggest.

1994 -1998 baseline average = 773
Year KSI Figure
1999 738
2000 646
2001 549
2002 535
2010 target 464

pk

[marc]

Paul Kelly > wrote:

> >> I've seen impressive accident reduction figures from
> >> Northamptonshire Police which more than justify the use of cameras.
> >
> > A pity they used a year with an oddly high acident rate to compare,
> >
> Can you support that statement?

Oh God!:-(

Yes, if I really have to! :-(

The year that Northamptonshire Police are using as a comparison was a
high blip, I have seen the figures somewhere but can't remember where
exactly, but I will see if I can dig them out for you.

Not exactly an unbiased source ....

http://www.abd.org.uk/rigging_the_evidence.htm


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[John Wallace]

"Paul Kelly" > wrote in message
...

> > Not exactly an unbiased source ....
> > http://www.abd.org.uk/rigging_the_evidence.htm
>
> Correct - a biased source.
> The Northants police site gives much better data
> http://www.northants.police.uk/safetycamera/story.htm

Oh of course, the police are an unbiased source in upholding the police
statistics on the police' cameras....

I'd sooner trust the government's stats




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...

> >Or we can compare with motorways elsewhere in Europe - either way proves
my
> >point.
> >
> And countries where the permitted motorway speeds are higher than in the
> UK have higher KSIs. *Your* point was what exactly?

That you are 100% wrong - across Europe there is *NO* correlation between
speed and KSIs.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[marc]

Paul Kelly > wrote:

> > Paul Kelly > wrote:
> >
> >>>> I've seen impressive accident reduction figures from
> >>>> Northamptonshire Police which more than justify the use of cameras.
> >>>
> >>> A pity they used a year with an oddly high acident rate to compare,
> >>>
> >> Can you support that statement?
> >
> > Oh God!:-(
> >
> > Yes, if I really have to! :-(
> >
> > The year that Northamptonshire Police are using as a comparison was a
> > high blip, I have seen the figures somewhere but can't remember where
> > exactly, but I will see if I can dig them out for you.
> >
> > Not exactly an unbiased source ....
> >
> > http://www.abd.org.uk/rigging_the_evidence.htm
>
> Correct - a biased source.

As is the Northamptonshire Police ?
>
> The Northants police site gives much better data
> http://www.northants.police.uk/safetycamera/story.htm

< Rice -Davies mode>
They would woudn't they?
< Rice -Davies mode>
>
> which shows the trend not just a comparison to a single year's number as you
> suggest.
>
> 1994 -1998 baseline average = 773
> Year KSI Figure
> 1999 738
> 2000 646
> 2001 549
> 2002 535
> 2010 target 464

If you would like to believe numbers recorded to justify income please
feel free, but you can't exactly claim that they are unbiased.


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[John Wallace]

"Richard Bates" > wrote in
message ...

> >33mph in a 30 is a momentary slip of the foot. When your kids are playing
> >outside would you rather all the cars drove through at 30mph with eyes
> >firmly glued to the speedo to ensure they wouldn't be fined for slipping
> >over the "generous margin for error", or do you think 31mph or even 35mph
> >with full attention would be better?
>
> I would prefer people to drive at 27 mph. with full attention. That
> way, a momentary 3mph slip of the foot will have less serious
> consequences.

Answer the question.

> Even better if you drive at 20 (+/- 3mph).

Perhaps, even if you can ignore the consequences to the already horrific
transport problems and knock on effect to the economy, but you know what the
main problem is with your "solution"? People won't do it.

So why the hell propose it, spend millions discussing it, implementing it,
then further millions analysing why it didn't work?





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"Velvet" > wrote in message
...
> John Wallace wrote:

> How about a really novel idea.
>
> If there's kids likely to be about in a 30 limit, why don't you try
> driving at 25. That way, the slip of the foot won't take you over the
> limit, and allows you to drive without eyes glued to speedo...

Fact is I do - in fact I tap cruise at an appropriate speed so I don't even
have to worry about speed, and can spend all of my time watching the
surroundings. I'd be prepared to bet that I'm _massively_ in the minority,
given the people who fly through my street at 40mph+, and the queues that
build behind me as I do drive like that.

As a matter of fact I would have thought that any lawmaker with even half a
brain would have allowed for that, and set a speed limit of 30mph if he
wanted the speed to be below 35. It's a basic concept of design to consider
such tolerances, measurement errors etc and build-in a guard band, so it
could be considered that 30, with the odd slip, is acceptable. If you want
people at 25mph then the law needs to say so - then you're back to the same
problem of foot-slip. Since 2/3 of the population are reported as speeding,
it's hardly likely that en-masse they're all going to drive even AT the
speed limit, far less below it.

> There's nothing that says you have to drive AT the speed limit,
> regardless of what other drivers seem to think. They're a limit, not a
> mandatory speed.

I think everyone is aware of that. However the point is not to have a law
that would solve the problem, the point is to actually get people to behave
like that. You could pass a law tomorrow that says we all have to drive at
25mph in built-up areas, but if no-one follows it you have achieved nothing.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...

> If you really are concerned that you have an inability to control your
> foot, consider relinquishing your licence on medical grounds.

Reading comprehension : At no time did I refer to myself. This was a
hypothetical (although highly likely) scenario, which at no time referred to
me, my actions, or my ability to drive at a given speed.

Hope that can help you in future add something useful to a debate.

> If you adjudge yourself unable to maintain a constant legal speed
> without focussing all your attention onto the speedometer, consider
> relinquishing your licence on grounds of incompetence.

See above.

> Alternatively, fit an audible warning to your car, that sounds when
> you break a given speed threshold. That way you can keep your eyes on
> the road, and still know when your medical condition and/or your
> incompetence have taken you over the speed limit.

See above.

If you are so incapable of understanding what was written, consider handing
in your highway code and your license.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"Simon Proven" > wrote in message
...

> It happens that Belgium has the highest rate of toxoplasmosis
> infection in humans in Europe (and toxoplasma is associated with
> risk taking and increased reaction times).

"Interesting".....

Please come back to me once you have any causal link between the two. It's a
separate subject, but if it would help the general safety of roads in the UK
I'd be delighted to see tougher laws on cat ownership, and responsibility
for the actions of said pets.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Wallace]

"The Oracle" > wrote in message
...
> Excess speed kills. Period.

Except that roads with higher speeds have lower accident rates.

The figures do not support what you want people to believe.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Paul Kelly]

In ,
John Wallace > typed:
> "Paul Kelly" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Not exactly an unbiased source ....
>>> http://www.abd.org.uk/rigging_the_evidence.htm
>>
>> Correct - a biased source.
>> The Northants police site gives much better data
>> http://www.northants.police.uk/safetycamera/story.htm
>
> Oh of course, the police are an unbiased source in upholding the
> police statistics on the police' cameras....
>
> I'd sooner trust the government's stats


Which are...?

pk

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace >
writes
>"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >Or we can compare with motorways elsewhere in Europe - either way proves
>my
>> >point.
>> >
>> And countries where the permitted motorway speeds are higher than in the
>> UK have higher KSIs. *Your* point was what exactly?
>
>That you are 100% wrong - across Europe there is *NO* correlation between
>speed and KSIs.
>
That's an assertion that you are unable to prove.
--
Michael MacClancy

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace > writes
>"Velvet" > wrote in message
...
>
>> And what about cars coming up on lorries limited to 56mph? One has to
>> wonder that if cars had to routinely come up against slower moving
>> traffic on ALL roads, perhaps they'd not be so bad at judging their
>> closing speed on such vehicles. Practice makes perfect, as they say.
>
>Excellent - so if we allow everyone to practice driving at the higher speeds
>we'll have a nation of better drivers and get those KSIs down in no time
>
>
You might be right about that but not in the sense you mean. If you let
the people who want to drive fast they will drive fast and then kill
themselves faster (unfortunately they'll take some innocent pedestrians,
cyclists and other drivers with them). The result will be higher KSIs
for a while until the fast drivers have killed themselves. The KSIs
will then come down in no time, as you suggest.

Go back to your cave.
--
Michael MacClancy

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, John Wallace >
writes
>"The Oracle" > wrote in message
...
>> Excess speed kills. Period.
>
>Except that roads with higher speeds have lower accident rates.
>
>The figures do not support what you want people to believe.
>
You really are pathetic. You won't accept the fact that motorways are
not the same as other roads, will you? I suppose you want to pave the
whole country in motorways in order to reduce accident rates.
--
Michael MacClancy

[Velvet]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> In message >, John Wallace > writes
>
>> "Velvet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> And what about cars coming up on lorries limited to 56mph? One has to
>>> wonder that if cars had to routinely come up against slower moving
>>> traffic on ALL roads, perhaps they'd not be so bad at judging their
>>> closing speed on such vehicles. Practice makes perfect, as they say.
>>
>>
>> Excellent - so if we allow everyone to practice driving at the higher
>> speeds
>> we'll have a nation of better drivers and get those KSIs down in no time
>>
>>
> You might be right about that but not in the sense you mean. If you let
> the people who want to drive fast they will drive fast and then kill
> themselves faster (unfortunately they'll take some innocent pedestrians,
> cyclists and other drivers with them). The result will be higher KSIs
> for a while until the fast drivers have killed themselves. The KSIs
> will then come down in no time, as you suggest.
>
> Go back to your cave.

The idea was that better driver education, and a reduction in the
commonly held view that it is those driving slower than the norm who are
the problem in that situation, might result in safer driving by the
rest. It seems rather odd, does it not, that drivers learn to judge how
much braking in what distance is required to stop at a junction (most!)
of the time, yet those same drivers seem incapable of applying the same
process to evaluating speed of other road users (yes, they are on the
move, but the actual process is not significantly different to be able
to match speeds). By actively seeking to remove the instances where
speed evaluation is required, it is just perpetuating the problem, not
solving it.

Drivers who are continually surprised by closing speeds require more
practice, and if they realise one of their skills is somewhat lacking,
should drive in such a manner that they don't far exceed their current
skill level - ie, not bomb along the motorway at or exceeding the speed
limit. Such skill only comes with experience, but I am suggesting it
should be a learned skill, not one deemed unnecessary by those drivers
who lack it, and will only *be* learned by encountering that situation.

Perhaps if drivers took the time to realise closing speed evaluation is
an important skill to have in their repertoire, they would be less
surprised when coming up behind slower moving traffic on the motorway,
pull out to overtake said traffic earlier, and thus stop the inevitable
situation of the vehicles behind them suddenly realising their closing
speed is also too fast through travelling too close... and perhaps
eventually learn to gauge more extreme speed differentials such as are
commonly encountered between cars and cyclists.

I'll thank you not to twist my point around so that driving faster to
practice this is thought to be the correct approach.

Velvet

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, Velvet
> writes
>Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
>> In message >, John Wallace > writes
>>
>>> "Velvet" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> And what about cars coming up on lorries limited to 56mph? One has to
>>>> wonder that if cars had to routinely come up against slower moving
>>>> traffic on ALL roads, perhaps they'd not be so bad at judging their
>>>> closing speed on such vehicles. Practice makes perfect, as they say.
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent - so if we allow everyone to practice driving at the
>>>higher speeds
>>> we'll have a nation of better drivers and get those KSIs down in no time
>>>
>>>
>> You might be right about that but not in the sense you mean. If you
>>let the people who want to drive fast they will drive fast and then
>>kill themselves faster (unfortunately they'll take some innocent
>>pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers with them). The result will
>>be higher KSIs for a while until the fast drivers have killed
>>themselves. The KSIs will then come down in no time, as you suggest.
>> Go back to your cave.
>
>The idea was that better driver education, and a reduction in the
>commonly held view that it is those driving slower than the norm who
>are the problem in that situation, might result in safer driving by the
>rest. It seems rather odd, does it not, that drivers learn to judge
>how much braking in what distance is required to stop at a junction
>(most!) of the time, yet those same drivers seem incapable of applying
>the same process to evaluating speed of other road users (yes, they are
>on the move, but the actual process is not significantly different to
>be able to match speeds). By actively seeking to remove the instances
>where speed evaluation is required, it is just perpetuating the
>problem, not solving it.
>
>Drivers who are continually surprised by closing speeds require more
>practice, and if they realise one of their skills is somewhat lacking,
>should drive in such a manner that they don't far exceed their current
>skill level - ie, not bomb along the motorway at or exceeding the speed
>limit. Such skill only comes with experience, but I am suggesting it
>should be a learned skill, not one deemed unnecessary by those drivers
>who lack it, and will only *be* learned by encountering that situation.
>
>Perhaps if drivers took the time to realise closing speed evaluation is
>an important skill to have in their repertoire, they would be less
>surprised when coming up behind slower moving traffic on the motorway,
>pull out to overtake said traffic earlier, and thus stop the inevitable
>situation of the vehicles behind them suddenly realising their closing
>speed is also too fast through travelling too close... and perhaps
>eventually learn to gauge more extreme speed differentials such as are
>commonly encountered between cars and cyclists.
>
>I'll thank you not to twist my point around so that driving faster to
>practice this is thought to be the correct approach.
>
>Velvet
>

Velvet, I agree with you although your reply makes it look as if you're
replying to and hacked off with me and not John Wallace (aka Paul
Smith?).
--
Michael MacClancy

[Velvet]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> In message >, Velvet
> > writes
>
>> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>>
>>> In message >, John Wallace > writes
>>>
>>>> "Velvet" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> And what about cars coming up on lorries limited to 56mph? One has to
>>>>> wonder that if cars had to routinely come up against slower moving
>>>>> traffic on ALL roads, perhaps they'd not be so bad at judging their
>>>>> closing speed on such vehicles. Practice makes perfect, as they say.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excellent - so if we allow everyone to practice driving at the
>>>> higher speeds
>>>> we'll have a nation of better drivers and get those KSIs down in no
>>>> time
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You might be right about that but not in the sense you mean. If you
>>> let the people who want to drive fast they will drive fast and then
>>> kill themselves faster (unfortunately they'll take some innocent
>>> pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers with them). The result will
>>> be higher KSIs for a while until the fast drivers have killed
>>> themselves. The KSIs will then come down in no time, as you suggest.
>>> Go back to your cave.
>>
>>
>> The idea was that better driver education, and a reduction in the
>> commonly held view that it is those driving slower than the norm who
>> are the problem in that situation, might result in safer driving by
>> the rest. It seems rather odd, does it not, that drivers learn to
>> judge how much braking in what distance is required to stop at a
>> junction (most!) of the time, yet those same drivers seem incapable of
>> applying the same process to evaluating speed of other road users
>> (yes, they are on the move, but the actual process is not
>> significantly different to be able to match speeds). By actively
>> seeking to remove the instances where speed evaluation is required, it
>> is just perpetuating the problem, not solving it.
>>
>> Drivers who are continually surprised by closing speeds require more
>> practice, and if they realise one of their skills is somewhat lacking,
>> should drive in such a manner that they don't far exceed their current
>> skill level - ie, not bomb along the motorway at or exceeding the
>> speed limit. Such skill only comes with experience, but I am
>> suggesting it should be a learned skill, not one deemed unnecessary by
>> those drivers who lack it, and will only *be* learned by encountering
>> that situation.
>>
>> Perhaps if drivers took the time to realise closing speed evaluation
>> is an important skill to have in their repertoire, they would be less
>> surprised when coming up behind slower moving traffic on the motorway,
>> pull out to overtake said traffic earlier, and thus stop the
>> inevitable situation of the vehicles behind them suddenly realising
>> their closing speed is also too fast through travelling too close...
>> and perhaps eventually learn to gauge more extreme speed differentials
>> such as are commonly encountered between cars and cyclists.
>>
>> I'll thank you not to twist my point around so that driving faster to
>> practice this is thought to be the correct approach.
>>
>> Velvet
>>
>
> Velvet, I agree with you although your reply makes it look as if you're
> replying to and hacked off with me and not John Wallace (aka Paul Smith?).

Oh, sorry bout that! I was in fact replying to JW, not you - the perils
of reading threads whilst also thinking about the 101 other things that
need doing in 'real life' as opposed to 'the philosophical debate
regarding all forms of perambulation' ;-)

Velvet

[Simon Proven]

marc wrote:

> It's valid for absolutes, "speed kills" is an absolute. If "speed kills"
> then more speed must kill more. Therefore there must have been some
> deaths at 52 and more at 80, unless of course the basic premise was
> wrong?

No, because you have failed to take into account the level of risk.

[Simon Proven]

John Wallace wrote:

> "Simon Proven" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>It happens that Belgium has the highest rate of toxoplasmosis
>>infection in humans in Europe (and toxoplasma is associated with
>>risk taking and increased reaction times).
>
>
> "Interesting".....
>
> Please come back to me once you have any causal link between the two.

Aren't measured reaction times, risk of fatal accident and
ability to concentrate for long periods all being associated
with being tp-positive sufficient for you? The fact that
the disease works by making rats less fearful of cats (it
infects rats to get between cats) so they get eaten and
infect another host would also suggest that the link is
causal. Of course, limiting cats' freedom would mean more
rats, and more disease, not less.

[marc]

Simon Proven > wrote:

>
> > It's valid for absolutes, "speed kills" is an absolute. If "speed kills"
> > then more speed must kill more. Therefore there must have been some
> > deaths at 52 and more at 80, unless of course the basic premise was
> > wrong?
>
> No, because you have failed to take into account the level of risk.
I didn't ( I realise the difference between risk and danger) the
"oracle " ( s******) did!


--
Marc
Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc
for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:33:17 +0100 someone who may be "John Wallace"
> wrote this:-

>Remember these people WANT to have more cameras, because it saves cost

How?

Please tell us how many police officers Northamptonshire sacked as a
result of introducing speed cameras and how much expensive machinery
was sold off.

>and increases revenue.

Incorrect. The police are not a business. Money from the fines
levied on criminals first went to central government. It now goes to
purchasing and operating more crime detection cameras, if there is a
suitable "partnership".


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:46:39 +0100, "John Wallace" >
wrote:

>Nice to see that Speed = death has metamorphosised into speed = risk
>association. Very much closer to the mark.

Not sure I ever implied anything else. Remember, though, that "risk"
is "risk of death" - and not necessarily to the driver, either.

>> Cameras can't detect anything other than objectively measurable
>> offences like speeding and jumping red lights. But they do free up
>> police resources by detecting these offences leaving Real Plod (TM) to
>> work on judgement-based issues.

>Or it would do, if Real Plod was not being decimated in droves to cut costs,
>leaving the cameras as the main resource. I truly love the idea of a ****so
>though - if that could work I would b a great supporter...

That's a separate issue. Since cameras are self-financing they are
not a part of the equation, but they do reduce the need for manned
speed-traps on known dangerous stretches of road. As I have said all
along, if you don't like the cameras, all you have to do is drive
within the limit. You even get a margin of error; nobody's gogin to
nick you if the needle creeps up to 33 in a 30 limit. You'll get
there just the same. And if the limits are too low because your
council is run by weasels, then vote for a different set of weasels
and make sure the curent lot know exactly why.

>> The only people who suffer are those who are absolutely determined to
>> break the law. I don't have a problem with that.

>Nor I - but a 2/3 majority in the democratic UK are demonstrating that they
>do not believe the law to be appropriate. I do have a concern with that.

It's not wholly surprising given that the PTB spend very little on
informing people of why speed limits are there in the first place.
Note the new scheme to show drivers video footage of the effects of
excessive speed - apparently highly effective. Remember, we're
cyclists as well, so we're on the receiving end of the increased
danger.

I don't believe that anywhere close to a majority of that 2 in 3 is
sufficiently wedded to speed to behave like Wayne Kerr around Gatsos.
That is a particular behaviour of a particular kind of idiot. If I
were a plod I'd sit behind a Gatso with a video camera and get them
for dangerous driving - a double whammy ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
New! Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

[Stevie D]

Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP] wrote:

> motor-cyclist (don't know what the perjorative term for one of those is),

"Donor"

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

[Stevie D]

Trevor Barton wrote:

> The difference is that someone in a landrover travelling at 12kph would
> be able to stop in something like one metre.

12km/h = 3.5m/s ... so the total stopping distance from when they saw
you would certainly be more than 5m.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:16:08 +0100, Stevie D
> wrote (more or less):

>Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>> The difference is that someone in a landrover travelling at 12kph would
>> be able to stop in something like one metre.
>
>12km/h = 3.5m/s ... so the total stopping distance from when they saw
>you would certainly be more than 5m.

The way the stopping distances on the back of the Highway code are
calculated

v + 1/20 * v^2

(v + one twentieth v squared)

with v in mph, and the result in feet.

12kph = 8mph => stopping distance = 8 + 3 = 10.3' = approx. 3.2m

Over triple the distance Trevor estimated as the appropriate stopping
distance.



Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"Stevie D" > wrote in message
...

> > Why? Why shouldn't they be there to promote compliance? It's not as
> > if speed limits are a recent invention, after all.

> The only reason for speed limits to exist is to promote safety. If
> they are not set at a level that does this effectively for most of the
> time, they are not doing their job properly.

It's very simple - on any given road, the slower ther traffic drives the
lower the chance of crashes, and the faster the traffic moves the greater
the chance of crashes. Speed limits are not only about safety, they are
about balancing safety with the desire of motor vehicle drivers to go fast.
There is always a safety benefit from reducing traffic speeds.

> > Why are those extra few mph between traffic jams so vital to people?

> Some of us drive on uncongested roads that don't suffer from traffic
> jams. Being required to drive unnecessarily slowly *does* cost me
> time, and when it is done for no good reason, I resent that.

Resent. An interesting word. Motorists do seem to resent a lot of things,
like excise duties, speed limits, traffic, parking restrictions and so on -
sometimes they spend so much time resenting that they forget what an
enormous privilege it is to be allowed to drive the most dangerous machine
most poeple will ever use in thier lifetime.

I don't find that driving within the limits makes enough difference to be
worth resenting. It adds about ten minutes to my old average time home from
Birmingham, for example, and some of that could be put down solely to the 50
limits on the M42 roadworks.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, Stevie D
> writes
>The only reason for speed limits to exist is to promote safety.

This isn't the full story. Speed limits can also be set for
environmental reasons, like noise reduction.
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk

[Stevie D]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> This isn't the full story. Speed limits can also be set for
> environmental reasons, like noise reduction.

They can, but they rarely are. I can think of no limits OTTOMH that
have been justified by those reasons.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

[Michael MacClancy]

In message >, Stevie D
> writes
>Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
>> This isn't the full story. Speed limits can also be set for
>> environmental reasons, like noise reduction.
>
>They can, but they rarely are. I can think of no limits OTTOMH that
>have been justified by those reasons.
>

There are loads in Germany.
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk

[Mike Gayler]

Stevie D > writed in
:

> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
>> This isn't the full story. Speed limits can also be set for
>> environmental reasons, like noise reduction.
>
> They can, but they rarely are. I can think of no limits OTTOMH that
> have been justified by those reasons.
>

I *think* the A563 in Leicester between the A47 & the dual carriagway
section has a 40mph limit for this reason - it goes between two sets of
houses, but has access to neither.

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003, Stevie D > wrote:
> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> > This isn't the full story. Speed limits can also be set for
> > environmental reasons, like noise reduction.
>
> They can, but they rarely are. I can think of no limits OTTOMH that
> have been justified by those reasons.

There's a block (some miles across) of lanes near me that have 40mph
on them and the stated aim (I thought, but I can't find a reference)
was to disuade traffic from cutting through the lanes and use the
major routes around them instead. That could be described as an
environmental reason.

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