Another wrist slapping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vulnerable road users are just as vulnerable.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Matt B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt B wrote:

SNIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Bates wrote:

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

Thank you.

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

:-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

?

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

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

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

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

--
Matt B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Matt B

"Matt B"wrote spindrift wrote:
" in a car 30 doesn't feel fast nor does 50. "

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

Certainly do.



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Vulnerable road users are just as vulnerable.

Yes.

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

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

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

Strange suggestion. I think that most drivers know how to do all these
things but for some reason don't. I think they only need sufficient
incentive.

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

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

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


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

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

Mike Sales

Mike Sales wrote:
"Matt B" wrote:
spindrift wrote:
the accident rate increased after seat belts were made compulsory.
Do you have a source for that? The official UK figures don't seem to show
it.

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

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

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

Indeed, we have to ensure that the all road users have an equal investment
in avoiding accidents.

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

Just what does a killer driver have to do to lose their licence?
Not much these days. Yet even with thousands of disqualified drivers, the
roads are still no safer.

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

Strange suggestion. I think that most drivers know how to do all these
things but for some reason don't. I think they only need sufficient
incentive.

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

Get
rid of them, the roads are overcrowded after all, and populated by far
too many people like Ms Hunter who learn nothing from their (two)
previous convictions for speeding.
Or, alternatively, recongise the "human condition" as a valid, natural,
phenomenon, and design around it.

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

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

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

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

--
Matt B

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:38:53 +0100,
Mike Sales wrote:

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

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

No. Driver deaths went down - but only between the hours of 10pm and 4am
(or something like that).

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


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

Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

spindrift wrote:

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

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

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

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

--
Matt B