Number 9

Marc Brett said:

The PM's Highway Code petition, with 18,469 signatures, is now the 9th
most popular petition. Fantastic!

If you expect them to comply with the demands in a petition because it
is at number 9, would you support them complying with the demands of the
petition currently at number 8?

--
Matt B

Marc Brett said:

The PM's Highway Code petition, with 18,469 signatures, is now the 9th
most popular petition. Fantastic!

It seems that this is going to be debated in the upper house.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=highway%20code&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=%22highway%20code%20%22&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=muscat_highlighter_first_match&URL=/pa/ld200607/minutes/070522/ldordpap.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match
House of Lords - Minute

"
Motions relating to Statutory Instruments

.....

Earl of Mar and Kellie to move to resolve that the proposed alterations
in the provisions of the Highway Code, laid before the House on 28
March, be not made.
"

I'm not sure if it is today, or something for the near future, but it
only has a few more days of parliamentry time left before it is due to
come into force.

Martin.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:57:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett said:

The PM's Highway Code petition, with 18,469 signatures, is now the 9th
most popular petition. Fantastic!

If you expect them to comply with the demands in a petition because it
is at number 9, would you support them complying with the demands of the
petition currently at number 8?

Considering the relative populations of motorists and cyclists, number 8
doesn't have much support at all. Heck, I even signed #8 (but not under
my real name).

On 23/05/2007 17:46, Marc Brett said,

Quoted message said:

The PM's Highway Code petition, with 18,469 signatures, is now the 9th
most popular petition. Fantastic!

The road charging one got well over 2 million signatures, and look how
much notice was taken of that! I'd already decided that the whole PM
petition thing is just to give the impression of listening, but actually
to just ignore what people think as usual. Still, there'll be a nice
shiny new government in a year or so, which I suppose will be exactly
the same as the old one whoever gets in.

What do you mean, did I have a bad day? :-) You try getting hold of DHL
to arrange re-delivery or collection of an exciting box from Chain
Reaction Cycles :-(

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:57:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett said:

The PM's Highway Code petition, with 18,469 signatures, is now the 9th
most popular petition. Fantastic!

If you expect them to comply with the demands in a petition because it
is at number 9, would you support them complying with the demands of the
petition currently at number 8?

Considering the relative populations of motorists and cyclists, number 8
doesn't have much support at all.

I would "sign" #8 as a non-motorist, because I think their removal would
increase road safety for vulnerable road users. I don't think you
should assume that only motorists would sign it. Equally non-cyclists
may sign #9. The measure of importance should be as a proportion of all
road users.

Quoted message said:

Heck, I even signed #8 (but not under
my real name).

Why: a) did you sign it b) didn't you use your real name?

--
Matt B

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:18:12 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:57:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett wrote:
> The PM's Highway Code petition, with 18,469 signatures, is now the 9th
> most popular petition. Fantastic!
If you expect them to comply with the demands in a petition because it
is at number 9, would you support them complying with the demands of the
petition currently at number 8?

Considering the relative populations of motorists and cyclists, number 8
doesn't have much support at all.

I would "sign" #8 as a non-motorist, because I think their removal would
increase road safety for vulnerable road users.

Bwahahahaha! And that's my final word.

Quoted message said:

I don't think you
should assume that only motorists would sign it. Equally non-cyclists
may sign #9. The measure of importance should be as a proportion of all
road users.

Sadly, few signatories indicated affiliations. One ABD for #8, one CTC
and a SWRC for #9. Indicative, but not conclusive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heck, I even signed #8 (but not under my real name).

Why: a) did you sign it b) didn't you use your real name?

Mine was one of the protest messages, no name at all.

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:18:12 +0100, Matt B

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heck, I even signed #8 (but not under my real name).

Why: a) did you sign it b) didn't you use your real name?

Mine was one of the protest messages, no name at all.

You think we should keep them!!! Do you have no regard for the safety
of our roads?

--
Matt B

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:24:11 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:18:12 +0100, Matt B

Quoted message said:

> Heck, I even signed #8 (but not under my real name).
Why: a) did you sign it b) didn't you use your real name?

Mine was one of the protest messages, no name at all.

You think we should keep them!!!

Of course I don't, Matt. Don't be ridiculous.

I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them to
random points on the road network.

Then double the fines.

Then paint those "brake now" calibration stripes all OVER the place.
That'll mess their heads.

Then I'd poison those irresponsible GPS databases with false locations
for the cameras.

Then I'd add community service in a large city's morgue to speeders who
hadn't gotten the message yet.

There is a point where even the most irresponsible will get the message.

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:24:11 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:18:12 +0100, Matt B

>> Heck, I even signed #8 (but not under my real name).
> Why: a) did you sign it b) didn't you use your real name?
Mine was one of the protest messages, no name at all.

You think we should keep them!!!

Of course I don't, Matt. Don't be ridiculous.

Phew, I thought you'd swallowed all the hype and spin over them for a
moment there.

Quoted message said:

I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them to
random points on the road network.

Why? Move them every day? Every hour - how often? Dig-up the post,
the under-road stuff, each move?

Quoted message said:

Then double the fines.

Ah, you support their use as revenue generators rather than for any road
safety reasons. I see.

Quoted message said:

Then paint those "brake now" calibration stripes all OVER the place.
That'll mess their heads.

And lead to more collisions.

Quoted message said:

Then I'd poison those irresponsible GPS databases with false locations
for the cameras.

Eh?

Quoted message said:

Then I'd add community service in a large city's morgue to speeders who
hadn't gotten the message yet.

What message? That the roads would be safer without the cameras?

Quoted message said:

There is a point where even the most irresponsible will get the message.

What's the point? Why not concentrate on making the roads safe? Forget
the camera distraction tactics. They're attempting the same ploy with
bicycle helmets.

--
Matt B

On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:13:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

the roads would be safer without the cameras

You are Paul Smith AICMFP

Marc Brett said:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:13:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

the roads would be safer without the cameras

You are Paul Smith AICMFP

I was just looking at the RCGB data for a reply in another thread. Have
you ever looked at it?

The downward trend in road deaths levels off in the early 1990s, after
decades of steady decrease. Is it just a coincidence that that
correlates with the rapid growth of camera usage?

Even if they didn't stop the downward trend, they certainly didn't
restore it.

What makes you think that cameras may be beneficial in terms of road safety?

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:13:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

the roads would be safer without the cameras

Too true. The ones in my area seem to have been subject to attempts to
turn them into roadside fireballs. As they are on the pavement, I can
only say that this is a hazard to pedestrians.

A

On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:42:59 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett said:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:13:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

the roads would be safer without the cameras

You are Paul Smith AICMFP

I was just looking at the RCGB data for a reply in another thread. Have
you ever looked at it?

No. I'm not a statistician, so the subtleties are completely lost on
me.

Quoted message said:

The downward trend in road deaths levels off in the early 1990s, after
decades of steady decrease. Is it just a coincidence that that
correlates with the rapid growth of camera usage?

I think even you know that correlation != causation.

Quoted message said:

Even if they didn't stop the downward trend, they certainly didn't
restore it.

What makes you think that cameras may be beneficial in terms of road safety?

I'm not qualified to interpret the stats. But I do know enough not to
trust interested players such as the safety camera partnerships, and I
certainly don't trust raving lunatics like Paul Smith and his acolytes.

So that leaves me with the academics, who can (usually) be trusted to do
work that won't be ridiculed by their peers.

I've searched http://scholar.google.com for anything supporting Paul
Smith's conclusions (or, indeed, anything authored by Mr. Smith) and
have come up with 2 hits. One from an Australian sociologist (not a
traffic expert) who used Paul Smith and the Safe Speed website as his
primary source, and one newsletter which noted that UK speed cameras
have restrictive rules on where they are placed, leaving some dangerous
zones uncovered, so the whole programme should be scrapped(!)

But plenty of studies supporting cameras' effectiveness, and even
supporting hidden cameras' effectiveness, from the UK, NZ, Oz, and
Leftpondia.

Why should I believe you over them?

Marc Brett said:

Matt B said:

What makes you think that cameras may be beneficial in terms of road safety?

I'm not qualified to interpret the stats. But I do know enough not to
trust interested players such as the safety camera partnerships, and I
certainly don't trust raving lunatics like Paul Smith and his acolytes.

A good start.

Quoted message said:

So that leaves me with the academics, who can (usually) be trusted to do
work that won't be ridiculed by their peers.

Assuming, of course, that someone has sponsored them to study the subject.

Quoted message said:

I've searched http://scholar.google.com for anything supporting Paul
Smith's conclusions (or, indeed, anything authored by Mr. Smith)...

I doubt that he has the resources to get an academic to complete the
necessary research.

Quoted message said:

But plenty of studies supporting cameras' effectiveness, and even
supporting hidden cameras' effectiveness, from the UK, NZ, Oz, and
Leftpondia.

Sponsored, in the main, by those who have a vested interest in them
being effective? There are changes afoot though. Disgruntled academics
are beginning to be listened to. Last year saw the first
acknowledgement that putting cameras at known casualty hot-spots does
not automatically mean that the inevitable drop from a temporary high is
due to the camera itself. This year we may see more honesty in the way
camera effectiveness is reported.

Do you apply the same logic of blind trust in academics to the volumes
of academic reports supporting the use of bicycle helmets?

Quoted message said:

Why should I believe you over them?

You need to make your own decision. I have difficulty accepting
messages trumpeted by official bodies with vested interests, especially
when the supporting evidence is so obviously flawed, exaggerated, and
excessively spun. Those who question it are smeared rather than
challenged with convincing arguments. Acclaiming speeding was the root
cause of one third of all road casualties was the last straw, especially
when they had to include "driving too close", "skidding", and other
obviously non-speeding factors to make up the numbers. Then, when the
appropriate statistics were finally collected and reported, they
revealed that, even after re-jigging the system to increase the
likelihood of speeding being recorded as a factor, that speeding was,
indeed, one of the factors in only 5% of all events.

Their story does not hang together.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" wrote

Quoted message said:

Marc Brett wrote:

About speed cameras

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them to
random points on the road network.

Why? Move them every day? Every hour - how often? Dig-up the post, the
under-road stuff, each move?

Reductio ad absurdam (?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then double the fines.

Ah, you support their use as revenue generators rather than for any road
safety reasons. I see.

False conclusion

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then paint those "brake now" calibration stripes all OVER the place.
That'll mess their heads.

Quoted message said:

And lead to more collisions.

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then I'd poison those irresponsible GPS databases with false locations
for the cameras.

Eh?

So the speeders don't know where they are, silly.

You claim to accept risk homeostasis (compensation) as the explanation for
accidents. If the present risks of speeding do not outweigh the rewards,
surely the level of risk posed to the speeder by his or her behaviour needs
to be increased?

Mike Sales

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:13:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

the roads would be safer without the cameras

You are Paul Smith AICMFP

He was on TV the other night, my better half said he reminded
her of the cartoon character Droopy.
--
Cheers
the.Mark

Mike Sales said:

"Matt B" wrote

Quoted message said:

Marc Brett wrote:

About speed cameras

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them to
random points on the road network.

Why? Move them every day? Every hour - how often? Dig-up the post, the
under-road stuff, each move?

Reductio ad absurdam (?)

No - simply illustrating how absurd the idea is. If they aren't
continuously moved about, everyone will know where they all are again
after a short time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then double the fines.

Ah, you support their use as revenue generators rather than for any road
safety reasons. I see.

False conclusion

Given that they have not increased road safety, what can increasing
fines achieve - other than more revenue?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then paint those "brake now" calibration stripes all OVER the place.
That'll mess their heads.

Quoted message said:

And lead to more collisions.

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

<http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=1107&ArticleID=848315>
<http://londonbikers.com/news/89a89a67-eb71-479c-b376-2458be5283b2>
<http://www.youclaim.co.uk/Personal_Injury_News.asp?spid=149>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then I'd poison those irresponsible GPS databases with false locations
for the cameras.

Eh?

So the speeders don't know where they are, silly.

Surely the point of knowing where they are is to /not/ speed?

Quoted message said:

You claim to accept risk homeostasis (compensation) as the explanation for
accidents.

Not quite. I claim to realise that an increased perception of safety
can lead to greater risks being taken to achieve the perceived
acceptable risk level.

Quoted message said:

If the present risks of speeding do not outweigh the rewards,
surely the level of risk posed to the speeder by his or her behaviour needs
to be increased?

Or, increase the /perceived/ risk, by providing illusions of a narrower
road, or of increased pedestrian or cyclist activity, or whatever.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" wrote

Quoted message said:

Mike Sales said:

Quoted message said:

> I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them to
> random points on the road network.
Why? Move them every day? Every hour - how often? Dig-up the post,
the under-road stuff, each move?

Reductio ad absurdam (?)

No - simply illustrating how absurd the idea is. If they aren't
continuously moved about, everyone will know where they all are again
after a short time.

So you think moving cameras every hour would be necessary to outwit drivers?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Then double the fines.
Ah, you support their use as revenue generators rather than for any road
safety reasons. I see.

False conclusion

Given that they have not increased road safety, what can increasing fines
achieve - other than more revenue?

They have increased road safety. At the sites. Even if deaths had not
decreased, slowing traffic, even at the sites only is worthwhile. If, as he
suggests, motorists were not aware of where the cameras are they would
traffic calm over a much wider area.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Then paint those "brake now" calibration stripes all OVER the place.
> That'll mess their heads.

Quoted message said:

And lead to more collisions.

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

<http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=1107&ArticleID=848315>
<http://londonbikers.com/news/89a89a67-eb71-479c-b376-2458be5283b2>
<http://www.youclaim.co.uk/Personal_Injury_News.asp?spid=149>

CBA to read them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Then I'd poison those irresponsible GPS databases with false locations
> for the cameras.
Eh?

So the speeders don't know where they are, silly.

Surely the point of knowing where they are is to /not/ speed?

Quoted message said:

You claim to accept risk homeostasis (compensation) as the explanation
for accidents.

Not quite. I claim to realise that an increased perception of safety can
lead to greater risks being taken to achieve the perceived acceptable risk
level.

I think you should read a bit more about the subject.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the present risks of speeding do not outweigh the rewards, surely the
level of risk posed to the speeder by his or her behaviour needs to be
increased?

Or, increase the /perceived/ risk, by providing illusions of a narrower
road, or of increased pedestrian or cyclist activity, or whatever.

This, in conjunction with your comment about perceived acceptable risk leads
me to guess that you think that the road user can be conned into seeing more
risk when there is in fact less risk. People are rather better at risk
asssessment than that, if only empirically. I am also amused a your illusion
of increased pedestrian or cyclist activity. Would these be animatronic
dummies, or just cardboard cut outs?

Mike Sales

in message <[email hidden]>, Mike Sales

(') said:

"Matt B" wrote

Quoted message said:

Mike Sales said:

>> I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them to
>> random points on the road network.
> Why? Move them every day? Every hour - how often? Dig-up the post,
> the under-road stuff, each move?

Reductio ad absurdam (?)

No - simply illustrating how absurd the idea is. If they aren't
continuously moved about, everyone will know where they all are again
after a short time.

So you think moving cameras every hour would be necessary to outwit
drivers?

The simplest thing to do would be to do what my local constabulary do: have
the camera mounted in an unmarked white van, which is driven from site to
site. No problems with moving it, no problems with vandalism, no
significant problems with drivers knowing to expect it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>