BBC Have Your Say

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm

"Have Your Say" here:-
<http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&tt...>

--
Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Cyclists don't pay road tax"

"I blame the immigrants"

That's enough of that.

spindrift said the following on 16/10/2007 13:44:

Quoted message said:

"Cyclists don't pay road tax"

Did you see the "Do you think you own the roads? Yes - we pay road
tax!" one.

Oh dear!

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

Paul Boyd said:

This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm

"Have Your Say" here:-
<http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>

They also have one about there being too many blobs of fat in the
country, at the same time an "MP" wants to mandate hellmets.

Paul Boyd said:

This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm

"Have Your Say" here:-
<http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>

There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.

Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
it clear what IS being proposed?

JNugent said:

There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.

Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
it clear what IS being proposed?

I'm assuming that was a rhetorical question. The media lives by driving
eyeballs to their advertisers, they don't make money by printing the truth.

JNugent said:

Paul Boyd said:

This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm

"Have Your Say" here:-
<http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>

There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.

Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
it clear what IS being proposed?

Why not?

Average speed is usually much less...

Martin Dann said:

Paul Boyd said:

This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm

"Have Your Say" here:-
<http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>

They also have one about there being too many blobs of fat in the
country, at the same time an "MP" wants to mandate hellmets.

Ironically, the MP who is usually behind such campaigns IS a blob of fat.

Martin Dann said the following on 16/10/2007 17:39:

Quoted message said:

They also have one about there being too many blobs of fat in the
country, at the same time an "MP" wants to mandate hellmets.

Or this morning's news headline at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7047244.stm - "Obesity 'not
individuals' fault'"

What? Someone else is forcing the burger and crisps and "diet" coke
down their throats?

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

JNugent said the following on 16/10/2007 18:10:

Quoted message said:

There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.

That does seem to apply to the BBC site generally though these days,
unfortunately. My pet hate is where the report has something like "Bert
Smith has stated that blah-de-blah". Who the f*** is Bert Smith? Some
bloke passing in the street or someone with some authority on the matter
being discussed?

As for the specific HYS, yup - people are confused! There's one guy who
says that he won't be out of second gear at 20mph, and an inadvertent
sneeze means he's doing 50. Several people say that modern cars can't
drive at 20mph. Jeez - and these people are on the roads? I don't know
if my 12 year old Mondeo counts as modern or not, but it can reasonably
happily do 20mph in 4th once it's warmed up.

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

Adam Lea said the following on 17/10/2007 09:57:

Quoted message said:

There is more too it than that

I know - I was being partially glib. However, an obviously grossly
overweight person stuffing Big Macs down themselves washed down with
coke isn't doing themselves any favours.

By the way, I've been 6ft for a goodly number of years, and was around
10 stone through my student days. Then I got up to around 11st and sat
there for a while. In my mid-30's something caught up, and at 41 I've
been around 13.5-14st for about 5 years. None of my dietary or exercise
habits have changed - the weight just suddenly caught up!

....and I do stuff Big Macs down myself on occasion :-)

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

On 16 Oct, 19:03, _ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

JNugent said:

Paul Boyd wrote:

Quoted message said:

Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
it clear what IS being proposed?

Why not?

Average speed is usually much less...

Because the average speed would then be even lower, the traffic
density along urban main roads would go up, leading to more frequent
grid-lock. Also, when travelling at lower speeds, drivers can find
more distractions to occupy themselves, rather than having to pay full
attension to their driving. What I think you will end up with is a lot
more lower speed collisions with bicycles, parked vehicles and road
furniture.

David Lloyd

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

As for the specific HYS, yup - people are confused! There's one guy who
says that he won't be out of second gear at 20mph, and an inadvertent
sneeze means he's doing 50. Several people say that modern cars can't
drive at 20mph. Jeez - and these people are on the roads? I don't know
if my 12 year old Mondeo counts as modern or not, but it can reasonably
happily do 20mph in 4th once it's warmed up.

This makes me boggle, too. I think there should be a section in the
driving test where the speedometer is covered up, and the candidate must
remain within +-10% of the speed specified by the examiner.

I can drive very, very close to the speed I intend to go at by just
looking out of the window and listening to the sound my car's
transmission is making. In fact, once you've had a car for a week or so,
any driver of average competence should be able to make a *close*
estimate of their speed from the sound of the transmission and how fast
objects outside are going past. It just isn't that hard. You don't need
to stare at the speedometer, and anyone who does needs remedial
training.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Response to Dylan Smith:

Quoted message said:

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

As for the specific HYS, yup - people are confused! There's one guy who
says that he won't be out of second gear at 20mph, and an inadvertent
sneeze means he's doing 50. Several people say that modern cars can't
drive at 20mph. Jeez - and these people are on the roads? I don't know
if my 12 year old Mondeo counts as modern or not, but it can reasonably
happily do 20mph in 4th once it's warmed up.

This makes me boggle, too. I think there should be a section in the
driving test where the speedometer is covered up, and the candidate must
remain within +-10% of the speed specified by the examiner.

I can drive very, very close to the speed I intend to go at by just
looking out of the window and listening to the sound my car's
transmission is making. In fact, once you've had a car for a week or so,
any driver of average competence should be able to make a *close*
estimate of their speed from the sound of the transmission and how fast
objects outside are going past. It just isn't that hard. You don't need
to stare at the speedometer, and anyone who does needs remedial
training.

This has come up in various x-posted hooleys with driving-related
newsgroups: one argument often advanced against speed limits is the
distraction of glancing regularly at the speedo in order to be certain
of driving under the limit. There are a couple of obvious responses to
that ;-) of which the above observation is one. Funny that
cyclist/motorists like me can keep a car under 50mph by judging the
engine noise, yet Proper Drivers such as one finds in uk.transport
can't.

It's in the news as well:

http://www.newcarnet.co.uk/Auto_news.html?id=7291

from which we can conclude that my three-year-old car is In Fact a
rackety old banger. ;-)

--
Mark, UK
"Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty."

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:34:08 -0700 someone who may be David Lloyd
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
it clear what IS being proposed?

Why not?

Average speed is usually much less...

Because the average speed would then be even lower,

Would it? By how much?

Given that motor vehicles spend a considerable time in/approaching
queues and the like in many urban areas I doubt if the average speed
would change by very much. What would change with a vigourously
enforced 20mph speed limit would be the maximum speeds.

Quoted message said:

the traffic density along urban main roads would go up,

Why?

Quoted message said:

Also, when travelling at lower speeds, drivers can find
more distractions to occupy themselves, rather than having to pay full
attension to their driving. What I think you will end up with is a lot
more lower speed collisions with bicycles, parked vehicles and road
furniture.

Evidence for this, such as figures from other places which have such
speed limits?

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

David Lloyd said:

On 16 Oct, 19:03, _ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

JNugent said:

Paul Boyd wrote:

Quoted message said:

Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
it clear what IS being proposed?

Why not?

Average speed is usually much less...

Because the average speed would then be even lower, the traffic
density along urban main roads would go up, leading to more frequent
grid-lock. Also, when travelling at lower speeds, drivers can find
more distractions to occupy themselves, rather than having to pay full
attension to their driving. What I think you will end up with is a lot
more lower speed collisions with bicycles, parked vehicles and road
furniture.

I rather think whjat will result will be another equilibrium, where the
average speed is the same, the number of motorcars is less, and the number
of cyclists is greater.

A draw-win-win situation.

Adam Lea said:

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

Or this morning's news headline athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7047244.stm- "Obesity 'not
individuals' fault'"

Quoted message said:

What? Someone else is forcing the burger and crisps and "diet" coke
down their throats?

There is more too it than that. One important consideration is the
amount of food someone needs to eat to maintain a certain weight, and
the amount of food their appetite is telling them to eat. I have been
thin all my life, I eat reasonably healthy but still eat fatty, sugary
foods occasionally. I have seen people go to all you can eat places
and have three full sized meals in one sitting. Me, on the other hand
would throw up if I attempted such a thing, because my appetite is
suppressed much sooner. Hence my equilibrium weight hovers around the
10.5-11 stone level, whereas others who have to eat more to feel full
would hover around the 15-16 stone level.

People don't have to eat until they feel full. I think I'm right in
saying the only two times in the last year that I've eaten to my
capacity were last Christmas and a visit to my local indian restaurant
in May. That is not to say that my capacity is large, even going by
the mountain of pasta I can shovel away.

I remember one slimming technique that Paul Mckenna recommended was
for people to learn to leave something on their plate, which is sooo
against the British attitude.

David Lloyd

On 17 Oct, 12:02, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:34:08 -0700 someone who may be David Lloyd
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
> blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
> it clear what IS being proposed?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Average speed is usually much less...

Quoted message said:

Because the average speed would then be even lower,

Would it? By how much?

If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.

Quoted message said:

Given that motor vehicles spend a considerable time in/approaching
queues and the like in many urban areas I doubt if the average speed
would change by very much. What would change with a vigourously
enforced 20mph speed limit would be the maximum speeds.

Quoted message said:

the traffic density along urban main roads would go up,

Why?

When a vehicle approaches a lower speed limit it is required to slow
down. Any vehicle behind arrives at the same point later, so begins to
slow down later. This delay between two vehicles slowing down results
in the distance between the two vehicles being reduced. Extend this
over a series of vehicles and it can be seen that the line of traffic
will occupy a shorter distance in the lower speed limit zone than when
in the higher speed limit. As the number of vehicle in the line of
traffic has not changed with the shortening of the distance between
the front and the back of the line of traffic, the traffic density has
increased.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, when travelling at lower speeds, drivers can find
more distractions to occupy themselves, rather than having to pay full
attension to their driving. What I think you will end up with is a lot
more lower speed collisions with bicycles, parked vehicles and road
furniture.

Evidence for this, such as figures from other places which have such
speed limits?

I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is said on this link,
but it does show that the side effects that I talked about have been
thought about before.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html

As to the consequences - I was just expressing an opinion, as
indicated by the phrase 'What I think'.

Personally, I would support a 20mph limit through housing estates,
where one can reasonably be expected to see kids playing in the
street. However, I think it can be acheived through thoughtful
engineering of the street scene, not through detection and
enforcement. If what I believe about urban main roads is true,
limiting these to 20mph will be counterproductive.

David Lloyd

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:34:45 -0700 someone who may be David Lloyd
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because the average speed would then be even lower,

Would it? By how much?

If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.

It may be basic maths. However, more advanced maths recognises that
all else is most unlikely to be equal. Reducing peak speeds has the
effect of reducing stop/start conditions and promoting more steady
speeds. The end result is an average speed much the same or a little
higher than before. The most well known example in the UK is the
M25, but there are other examples.

Quoted message said:

When a vehicle approaches a lower speed limit it is required to slow
down. Any vehicle behind arrives at the same point later, so begins to
slow down later. This delay between two vehicles slowing down results
in the distance between the two vehicles being reduced. Extend this
over a series of vehicles and it can be seen that the line of traffic
will occupy a shorter distance in the lower speed limit zone than when
in the higher speed limit.

Such a simple model may well work for discrete vehicles which are
relatively widely spaced, trains on open line being an example.
However, it doesn't work in crowded networks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Evidence for this, such as figures from other places which have such
speed limits?

I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is said on this link,
but it does show that the side effects that I talked about have been
thought about before.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html

Excellent. No further comment necessary.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I would support a 20mph limit through housing estates,
where one can reasonably be expected to see kids playing in the
street.

Such areas are best as Home Zones. That leaves the larger roads.

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

On 17 Oct, 13:53, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:34:45 -0700 someone who may be David Lloyd
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Because the average speed would then be even lower,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would it? By how much?

Quoted message said:

If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.

It may be basic maths. However, more advanced maths recognises that
all else is most unlikely to be equal. Reducing peak speeds has the
effect of reducing stop/start conditions and promoting more steady
speeds. The end result is an average speed much the same or a little
higher than before. The most well known example in the UK is the
M25, but there are other examples.

Quoted message said:

When a vehicle approaches a lower speed limit it is required to slow
down. Any vehicle behind arrives at the same point later, so begins to
slow down later. This delay between two vehicles slowing down results
in the distance between the two vehicles being reduced. Extend this
over a series of vehicles and it can be seen that the line of traffic
will occupy a shorter distance in the lower speed limit zone than when
in the higher speed limit.

Such a simple model may well work for discrete vehicles which are
relatively widely spaced, trains on open line being an example.
However, it doesn't work in crowded networks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Evidence for this, such as figures from other places which have such
speed limits?

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is said on this link,
but it does show that the side effects that I talked about have been
thought about before.

Quoted message said:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html

Excellent. No further comment necessary.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I would support a 20mph limit through housing estates,
where one can reasonably be expected to see kids playing in the
street.

Such areas are best as Home Zones. That leaves the larger roads.

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

Oh good grief, not those safespeed nutjobs, David - Smith's "proof"
that drivers are distracted by cameras is some scientific research.

Carried out by Smith.

Sitting in his garage with a stopwatch.

The man's a gibbering baboon, read the forum on that wacko site for
the biggest collection of raving loons this side of Bedlam- calling
traffic wardens nazis and so on.

Alternatively, do me a favour and pop over to the forum where Smith
claims "independent scientific experts" have examined Smith's work and
praised it.

Ask Smith for these "independent experts" names....