Cycle helmets and speed cameras - the common denominator?



"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Obviously you're free to go and start another one if you wish
>>
>> Why should I want to?
>
> You're the one complaining about it - for once in your life, stop whining
> on usenet and actually go and do something.

Complaining about what - helmets or cameras? Not me. I'm attempting to
compare the discussions of the two. I see parallels - don't you?

> Or are does your interest go no further than trying to argue on
> newsgroups?

Eh? Oh, and what do you come here for then?

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono
 
Matt B wrote:

> Eh? Speed cameras only target "speeding", whether it is dangerous or not,
> they _cannot_ target inappropriate speed, which is _always_ dangerous.

But speeding is inappropriate on a road with a speed limit, so they can
at least target a subset of inappropriate speed, which is better than
nothing.

As for your point of documented cases of cameras causing accidents, the
same "problem" is caused by marked police patrol cars suddenly causing a
dive at the brakes, so does that mean police patrols should either be
all unmarked, or suspended altogether? The *actual* problem is people
breaking the law. I don't fear speed cameras because I drive inside
speed limits, so I don't have to brake sharply while double checking the
speedo every time I see one. So they don't cause me to act any
differently, and they shouldn't cause anyone who isn't a habitual
speeder to worry any more than is the case for me.

> It's just you - you are giving the impression of being someone who has
> totally missed the point.

Or has grasped the fact that speed cameras and helmet compulsion aren't
as closely related as you seem to think...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Or are does your interest go no further than trying to argue on
>> newsgroups?
>
> Eh? Oh, and what do you come here for then?

Bikes, and discussions thereof. You probably ignored my recent post on
brompton chains, on the grounds that it was on topic and useful (well, to me
anyway).

There is a certain 'prodding the rotten corpse with a twig to see what
happens' element to my off-topic posts - I'd be entirely happy if these
conversations didn't happen.

cheers,
clive
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Eh? Speed cameras only target "speeding", whether it is dangerous or
>> not, they _cannot_ target inappropriate speed, which is _always_
>> dangerous.
>
> But speeding is inappropriate on a road with a speed limit, so they can at
> least target a subset of inappropriate speed, which is better than
> nothing.

He he :)

> As for your point of documented cases of cameras causing accidents, the
> same "problem" is caused by marked police patrol cars suddenly causing a
> dive at the brakes, so does that mean police patrols should either be all
> unmarked, or suspended altogether?

> The *actual* problem is people breaking the law.

You may _think_ that is the case, but surely the _actual_ problem is people
driving dangerously. 71 mph is (except for certain specific exceptions)
illegal on UK motorways, yet _may_ be perfectly safe. OTOH, 69 mph, which
is a perfectly legal speed may give rise to many casualties if the car three
feet in front had to slow suddenly. Can you see the argument?

> I don't fear speed cameras because I drive inside speed limits, so I
> don't have to brake sharply while double checking the speedo every time I
> see one. So they don't cause me to act any differently,

No, along with many other good drivers. However, it might surprise you to
hear that these may well be the people who cause the accidents. We don't
need a technology that _cannot_ target dangerous driving. What we need is
to educate road users so that dangerous road use is reduced.

> and they shouldn't cause anyone who isn't a habitual speeder to worry any
> more than is the case for me.

No, but, as I'm sure you'll agree, 30 mph in ice or fog outside a school at
8:30 a.m. on a dark wintery Monday morning is not something we should allow
to go unchallenged. Change the mindset. Cameras are a smoke screen, they
_cannot_ recognise dangerous driving.

>> It's just you - you are giving the impression of being someone who has
>> totally missed the point.
>
> Or has grasped the fact that speed cameras and helmet compulsion aren't as
> closely related as you seem to think...

Both are examples of contentious, if not completely counter productive, road
safety measures.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono
 
Matt B wrote:

> > and we still ignore some
> > innapropriate and excessive speed and catch some speeders in favour of
> > ignoring all inappropriate and excessive speed.
>
> Eh? Speed cameras only target "speeding", whether it is dangerous or not,
> they _cannot_ target inappropriate speed, which is _always_ dangerous.

Some speeding is inappropriate. (In the context that it is illegal, all
speeding is inapproriate).
Speed cameras do therefore target a subset of inappropriate speed.

Your original point implied that speed cameras had displaced targetting
inappropriate speed. This is not the case. Targetting of driving
offences was de-emphasised beacuase traffic offences are not included
in the targets by which your friendly local Constabulary is judged.
Speed cameras make up some of the shortfal in policing coverage,
allowing limited resources to be better applied.

> > Is it just me or is there a correlation between the anti-speed camera
> > mindset and the 'your fault for not wearing a helmet' crowd?
>
> It's just you - you are giving the impression of being someone who has
> totally missed the point.

I would concur that the presence of millions of voluntary contributions
to the public purse is an indication that speed cameras are not as
effective in slowing down traffic as one might have hoped. I would hope
that speed awareness systems, such as that reported from Sweden, would
be reasonably effective in slowing traffic.

Maybe coupling that with requiring all commercial vehicles[1] to have
BB recorders to replace the tachograph which record location and speed
as well as time and driver, would go some way towards improving traffic
behaviour and lowering the injury rate.

Oh yes, place cameras behind speed limit signs. No complaints about
stealth then..

...d

[1] including cars used on business, ie for which mileage is being
claimed where such use is over *** miles a year
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Or are does your interest go no further than trying to argue on
>>> newsgroups?
>>
>> Eh? Oh, and what do you come here for then?
>
> Bikes, and discussions thereof.

Is road safety a bike issue in your opinion?

> You probably ignored my recent post on brompton chains, on the grounds
> that it was on topic and useful (well, to me anyway).

Not at all. I read it with much delight, but having no experience of
Bromptons, I didn't feel qualified to comment on the most appropriate chain
joining system to employ.

> There is a certain 'prodding the rotten corpse with a twig to see what
> happens' element to my off-topic posts - I'd be entirely happy if these
> conversations didn't happen.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono
 
On 8 Jun 2005 05:22:10 -0700, "David Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Is it just me or is there a correlation between the anti-speed camera
>mindset and the 'your fault for not wearing a helmet' crowd?

Could be. I have yet to meet a speedophile who has read and understood
Risk, although it could happen I suppose.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> > and we still ignore some
>> > innapropriate and excessive speed and catch some speeders in favour of
>> > ignoring all inappropriate and excessive speed.
>>
>> Eh? Speed cameras only target "speeding", whether it is dangerous or
>> not,
>> they _cannot_ target inappropriate speed, which is _always_ dangerous.
>
> Some speeding is inappropriate. (In the context that it is illegal, all
> speeding is inapproriate).
> Speed cameras do therefore target a subset of inappropriate speed.

But it not quantified _or_ specifically targetted.

> Your original point implied that speed cameras had displaced targetting
> inappropriate speed.

I was pointing out that speed cameras do not target the cause of serious
road "accidents".

[...]

>> > Is it just me or is there a correlation between the anti-speed camera
>> > mindset and the 'your fault for not wearing a helmet' crowd?
>>
>> It's just you - you are giving the impression of being someone who has
>> totally missed the point.
>
> I would concur that the presence of millions of voluntary contributions
> to the public purse is an indication that speed cameras are not as
> effective in slowing down traffic as one might have hoped.

What about casualty figures, or aren't they as important?

> I would hope
> that speed awareness systems, such as that reported from Sweden, would
> be reasonably effective in slowing traffic.

Do they reduce road casualties?

> Maybe coupling that with requiring all commercial vehicles[1] to have
> BB recorders to replace the tachograph which record location and speed
> as well as time and driver, would go some way towards improving traffic
> behaviour and lowering the injury rate.

They don't really tackle dangerous driving either. A tired trucker falling
asleep at 56 mph on a busy motorway will not be targetted. A trucker using
a phone at 56 mph, three feet from the car in front will also get through
that net.

> Oh yes, place cameras behind speed limit signs. No complaints about
> stealth then..

Do they target dangerous drivers? Are they even a deterrent to breaking the
speed limit?

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono
 
Matt B wrote:

> You may _think_ that is the case, but surely the _actual_ problem is people
> driving dangerously. 71 mph is (except for certain specific exceptions)
> illegal on UK motorways, yet _may_ be perfectly safe. OTOH, 69 mph, which
> is a perfectly legal speed may give rise to many casualties if the car three
> feet in front had to slow suddenly. Can you see the argument?

Yes, I see the argument, but it is driving dangerously if you're
breaking the speed limit and spend too much time looking at your speedo
or slamming on the anchors just because you've seen a camera. If
cameras are "causing" such behaviour it is at /least/ as good an
argument to remove the problem by slowing down as to remove the cameras.

> No, along with many other good drivers. However, it might surprise you to
> hear that these may well be the people who cause the accidents. We don't
> need a technology that _cannot_ target dangerous driving.

As I have pointed out, it does target a subset of it.

> What we need is
> to educate road users so that dangerous road use is reduced.

But in the meantime, why not target a subset of dangerous behaviour?

> No, but, as I'm sure you'll agree, 30 mph in ice or fog outside a school at
> 8:30 a.m. on a dark wintery Monday morning is not something we should allow
> to go unchallenged.

Certainly not, but it's better than 35 or 40 in the same place...

> Change the mindset. Cameras are a smoke screen, they
> _cannot_ recognise dangerous driving.

But they recognise breaking the speed limit, which is (a) illegal and
(b) can be a contributory point in dangerous driving.

> Both are examples of contentious, if not completely counter productive, road
> safety measures.

Cameras recognise breaking the speed limit, just like a policeman with a
radar gun, and issue fines for breaking the law, just like a policeman
with a radar gun. ISTM that since nobody seems to be complaining about
police with radar guns it's just the fact that you're far more likely to
get caught by a camera if you're a habitual speeder that is causing the
outcry.

The argument that you should be at an appropriate speed is a fair one,
but it really shouldn't affect motorists if "appropriate" does not
include breaking legal limits. I know this as I drive inside (note
"inside", not "at") speed limits where I used to break them under the
rationalisation that it was safe on this open stretch of straight road,
and it hasn't really affected my driving much except to make it less
aggressive and it hasn't affected the outcome of arriving at my
destination by a planned time either.

So the "appropriate speed" argument is just a misdirection. It should
be policed, but so should speed limits. Cameras can do limits, leaving
traffic police to worry about things which you seem to think are far
more important. So that would be a good thing, then.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> You may _think_ that is the case, but surely the _actual_ problem is
>> people driving dangerously. 71 mph is (except for certain specific
>> exceptions) illegal on UK motorways, yet _may_ be perfectly safe. OTOH,
>> 69 mph, which is a perfectly legal speed may give rise to many casualties
>> if the car three feet in front had to slow suddenly. Can you see the
>> argument?
>
> Yes, I see the argument, but it is driving dangerously if you're breaking
> the speed limit and spend too much time looking at your speedo or slamming
> on the anchors just because you've seen a camera. If cameras are
> "causing" such behaviour it is at /least/ as good an argument to remove
> the problem by slowing down as to remove the cameras.

I wouldn't be arguing that cameras are _causing_ a significant problem,
simply that they do not _target_ the problem we _already_ have of
incompetent road users causing serious accidents.

>> No, along with many other good drivers. However, it might surprise you
>> to hear that these may well be the people who cause the accidents. We
>> don't need a technology that _cannot_ target dangerous driving.
>
> As I have pointed out, it does target a subset of it.

Not specifically because it is dangerous driving though, more by accident.

>> What we need is to educate road users so that dangerous road use is
>> reduced.
>
> But in the meantime, why not target a subset of dangerous behaviour?

Because it is a distraction from the real problem, like forcing the use of
helmets.

>> No, but, as I'm sure you'll agree, 30 mph in ice or fog outside a school
>> at 8:30 a.m. on a dark wintery Monday morning is not something we should
>> allow to go unchallenged.
>
> Certainly not, but it's better than 35 or 40 in the same place...

What about 35 or 40 at 4 a.m. on a bright dry Sunday morning?

>> Change the mindset. Cameras are a smoke screen, they _cannot_ recognise
>> dangerous driving.
>
> But they recognise breaking the speed limit, which is (a) illegal

One offence amonst _many_.

> and (b) can be a contributory point in dangerous driving.

A distraction. Helmets prevent some head injuries.

>> Both are examples of contentious, if not completely counter productive,
>> road safety measures.
>
> Cameras recognise breaking the speed limit, just like a policeman with a
> radar gun, and issue fines for breaking the law, just like a policeman
> with a radar gun.

Are either any better than the other at preventing road casualties?

> ISTM that since nobody seems to be complaining about police with radar
> guns it's just the fact that you're far more likely to get caught by a
> camera if you're a habitual speeder that is causing the outcry.

What outcry? I am comparing cameras and helmet discussions, and I find them
remarkably similar.

> The argument that you should be at an appropriate speed is a fair one, but
> it really shouldn't affect motorists if "appropriate" does not include
> breaking legal limits. I know this as I drive inside (note "inside", not
> "at") speed limits where I used to break them under the rationalisation
> that it was safe on this open stretch of straight road, and it hasn't
> really affected my driving much except to make it less aggressive and it
> hasn't affected the outcome of arriving at my destination by a planned
> time either.

Has it reduced the number of serious accidents?

> So the "appropriate speed" argument is just a misdirection. It should be
> policed, but so should speed limits. Cameras can do limits, leaving
> traffic police to worry about things which you seem to think are far more
> important. So that would be a good thing, then.

A well spun message, encouraging much arrogant self satisfaction, and a
false view of what safe driving is. Just like the helmet assertions? Are
the casualty figures tumbling?

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono
 
Matt B wrote:

> Not specifically because it is dangerous driving though, more by accident.

But whether or not any given case is specifically dangerous it does
target da subset of driving that is dangerous. Not driving in such a
way has little problematical effect on the motorist, so I don't really
see the problem with just not speeding.

> Because it is a distraction from the real problem, like forcing the use of
> helmets.

Not really that like it, because cameras do target a subset of dangerous
drivers, while helmets do nothing obviously useful at all. And until
something better comes along for targeting dangerous driving, a limited
subset is better than nothing. But helmets, which do basically nothing,
can't even claim that.

> What about 35 or 40 at 4 a.m. on a bright dry Sunday morning?

Ooh look, you've just ridden over a kid leaving the rugby 7s match that
was on Sunday morning because the sun was in your eyes and you didn't
see them in time, and doing 40 rather than 30 there's an order of
magnitude better chance of killing him...

or alternatively, and more to the point, since doing 40 past the local
school won't really change my local journey times significantly enough
to impact my day, why insist on being able to do 40 there?

> One offence amongst _many_.

But still an offense. Just because you can't solve all the problems
doesn't mean it isn't worth doing something about some of them.

> A distraction. Helmets prevent some head injuries.

There is no evidence that helmets have any effect on serious head injury
rates amongst cyclists.

> Are either any better than the other at preventing road casualties?

If they're basically the same thing, which they are, there won't be much
difference.

> What outcry?

The outcry across a large and vocal subset of UK motorists against speed
cameras, with levels up to and including the House of Commons. *That*
outcry...

> I am comparing cameras and helmet discussions, and I find them
> remarkably similar.

And though there are similarities, I don't find them as similar as you.

> Has it reduced the number of serious accidents?

You point me to some credible data that it hasn't, then. In particular,
you should probably use data from somewhere the A697 which is now camera
coated and then some, between now and 10 years ago when it wasn't, and
compare trends with similar roads where no cameras have been installed.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Not specifically because it is dangerous driving though, more by
>> accident.
>
> But whether or not any given case is specifically dangerous it does target
> da subset of driving that is dangerous.

Like helmets target _some_ head injuries.

> Not driving in such a way has little problematical effect on the motorist,
> so I don't really see the problem with just not speeding.
>
>> Because it is a distraction from the real problem, like forcing the use
>> of helmets.
>
> Not really that like it, because cameras do target a subset of dangerous
> drivers, while helmets do nothing obviously useful at all.

They prevent some head injuries.

> And until something better comes along for targeting dangerous driving, a
> limited subset is better than nothing. But helmets, which do basically
> nothing, can't even claim that.

Nothing? As in prevent _no_ injuries?

>> What about 35 or 40 at 4 a.m. on a bright dry Sunday morning?
>
> Ooh look, you've just ridden over a kid leaving the rugby 7s match that
> was on Sunday morning

At 4 a.m. ?

> because the sun was in your eyes and you didn't see them in time, and
> doing 40 rather than 30 there's an order of magnitude better chance of
> killing him...

Not if you don't hit them.

> or alternatively, and more to the point, since doing 40 past the local
> school won't really change my local journey times significantly enough to
> impact my day, why insist on being able to do 40 there?
>
>> One offence amongst _many_.
>
> But still an offense. Just because you can't solve all the problems
> doesn't mean it isn't worth doing something about some of them.

Just like helmets then.

>> A distraction. Helmets prevent some head injuries.
>
> There is no evidence that helmets have any effect on serious head injury
> rates amongst cyclists.

Like cameras on serious accidents then.

>> Are either any better than the other at preventing road casualties?
>
> If they're basically the same thing, which they are, there won't be much
> difference.
>
>> What outcry?
>
> The outcry across a large and vocal subset of UK motorists against speed
> cameras, with levels up to and including the House of Commons. *That*
> outcry...

Ah, like the anti-helmet lobby then.

>> I am comparing cameras and helmet discussions, and I find them remarkably
>> similar.
>
> And though there are similarities, I don't find them as similar as you.

Fair enough.

>> Has it reduced the number of serious accidents?
>
> You point me to some credible data that it hasn't, then. In particular,
> you should probably use data from somewhere the A697 which is now camera
> coated and then some, between now and 10 years ago when it wasn't, and
> compare trends with similar roads where no cameras have been installed.

Yes, good points. What I should have said, of course, was: Has it reduced
the number of serious accidents _country wide_?

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono
 
Matt B wrote:

> Like helmets target _some_ head injuries.

Not completely "like", because they don't target the dangerous ones at all.

> They prevent some head injuries.

But not any of the dangerous ones. There is no good evidence of *any*
effect on KSI rates amongst cyclists as helmet wearing rates have gone up.

> Nothing? As in prevent _no_ injuries?

See above. There is no evidence that they prevent serious, i.e.,
dangerous, injuries.

> At 4 a.m. ?

I did miss that. But residential areas don't shut down at 11, and
indeed people walking through them at such times returning from very
good parties aren't liable to have their wits about them to the same
extent as usual. There is, OTOH and quite simply, no need to drive at
40 in a residential area, so why do it?

> Not if you don't hit them.

Which no amount of training can guarantee.

>>But still an offense. Just because you can't solve all the problems
>>doesn't mean it isn't worth doing something about some of them.

> Just like helmets then.

No, still not like helmets, because helmets don't address any degree of
serious injuries, while speeding can be part of dangerous driving that
causes fatalities.

> Like cameras on serious accidents then.

There's a good collection of population level data supporting my case
indexed at www.cyclehelmets.org which is well known to anyone looking at
helmets in these parts. You haven't yet pointed me at any to support the
supposition that cameras don't help reduce accidents at all. I'll
concede it might exist, but I don't really see that I should dig for it
personally if you're well informed on the matter. Since cameras have no
effect on me but compulsory helmet legislation would, I choose to
concentrate my research into the latter area.

> Ah, like the anti-helmet lobby then.

There is no anti-helmet lobby that I'm aware of. If you think there is
then you need to pay more attention if you're going to discuss the matter.

> Yes, good points. What I should have said, of course, was: Has it reduced
> the number of serious accidents _country wide_?

Since the cameras don't exist country wide that would be a fairly bogus
point of comparison. Where compulsory helmet legislation has been
introduced it has affected a whole country, not isolated stretches of a
small subset of the road network.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
David Martin ([email protected]) wrote:
: Or is that not what you want? surely one has to compare the same roads,
: look at change in mean speed, traffic density and correlations with a
: change in accident rate.
: So you have data showing there is no correlation?

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/413.asp

Liverpool University: Speed Cameras Don't Reduce Fatalities
"It was a surprise," Dr. Mountain said yesterday revealing the outcome of
the investigation. "I had expected to find some reduction."

Blair.
 
B.G. Finlay wrote:
> David Martin ([email protected]) wrote:
> : Or is that not what you want? surely one has to compare the same roads,
> : look at change in mean speed, traffic density and correlations with a
> : change in accident rate.
> : So you have data showing there is no correlation?
>
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/413.asp
>
> Liverpool University: Speed Cameras Don't Reduce Fatalities
> "It was a surprise," Dr. Mountain said yesterday revealing the outcome of
> the investigation. "I had expected to find some reduction."

A splendid example of the speedophile doing some serious quoting out of
context. Follow the evidence back to Mountain's original paper, where
she concludes that both speed cameras and other measures (speed humps,
etc) reduce mean speeds and accident levels.

R.
 
Matt B wrote:
> "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:51:35 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>>If officials and party politicians were serious about reducing
>>>>transport deaths and injuries they would first make plastic hats for
>>>>pedestrians and car occupants compulsory. In absolute and relative
>>>>terms this would do more for "road safety" as defined by officials.
>>>
>>>LOL.
>>
>>I note you were unable or unwilling to answer the point.
>
>
> I'm not pro or anti-helmet. The precise details of the argument are not
> relevent to the discussion of whether the camera and helmet debates are
> similar.
>

Precise details of any argument don't seem to be relevant to anything
you want to argue about, do they?

--
Trevor Barton
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Reading the arguments against cycle helmets so eloquently presented by the
> poster "Just zis Guy, you know?" in the concurrent thread "Helmets -
> again!", I see an uncanny resemblance to the "speed camera" debate.

Whereas I see none.
Helmets and seatbelts are to protect the wearer, an adult of sound mind
should be free to choose based on available evidence.
Speed limits are to protect others who have no choice in how fast someone
else may drive.

Pete
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
[...]
>
>>>But still an offense. Just because you can't solve all the problems
>>>doesn't mean it isn't worth doing something about some of them.
>
>> Just like helmets then.
>
> No, still not like helmets, because helmets don't address any degree of
> serious injuries, while speeding can be part of dangerous driving that
> causes fatalities.

Isn't it the same old suspects who make both sets of claims?

>> Like cameras on serious accidents then.
>
> There's a good collection of population level data supporting my case
> indexed at www.cyclehelmets.org which is well known to anyone looking at
> helmets in these parts. You haven't yet pointed me at any to support the
> supposition that cameras don't help reduce accidents at all. I'll concede
> it might exist, but I don't really see that I should dig for it personally
> if you're well informed on the matter. Since cameras have no effect on me
> but compulsory helmet legislation would, I choose to concentrate my
> research into the latter area.

I've not spent any time researching it myself, but I am aware that others,
including Dr Linda Mountain of Liverpool University and Dr Alan Buckingham
of Bath Spa University College, have cast doubt on many, if not all, of the
claims made by the "safety camera" partnerships.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono
 
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:51:35 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>>No, I mean presenting both as examples of poor safety initiatives
>>>motivated
>>>by a need to be seen to be doing _something_ (anything), and appealing to
>>>mass public (spun) opinion, rather than based on evidence and research.
>>
>> Your presentation is wrong.
>
>Which presentation?

"I mean presenting both"

>The research was retrospective,

Some of it was, some of it was not.

>Why do they want them? Is it because they have reviewed all the available
>research and commentary?

I don't know all the campaigners. In the case of the ones I do know,
yes.

>No, it's because they _think_ they are the answer
>to a specific local problem.

That is called politics.

>> If officials and party politicians were serious about reducing
>> transport deaths and injuries they would first make plastic hats for
>> pedestrians and car occupants compulsory. In absolute and relative
>> terms this would do more for "road safety" as defined by officials.
>
>LOL.

I note you were unable or unwilling to answer the point.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Reading the arguments against cycle helmets so eloquently presented by
>> the
>> poster "Just zis Guy, you know?" in the concurrent thread "Helmets -
>> again!", I see an uncanny resemblance to the "speed camera" debate.
>
> Whereas I see none.

Why am I not surprised ;-)

> Helmets and seatbelts are to protect the wearer, an adult of sound mind
> should be free to choose based on available evidence.
> Speed limits are to protect others who have no choice in how fast someone
> else may drive.

So you say. That is all part of the debate really.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Police joggers in cycle helmets!?
Replies
18
Views
742
UK and Europe
Tom Crispin
T
Q
Cycle helmets - could anyone take up the cudgel?
Replies
11
Views
367
UK and Europe
Paul Boyd
P
C
GMTV, cycle helmets and shonky physics
Replies
21
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Nigel Randell
N
S
Cycle Helmets
Replies
17
Views
979
UK and Europe
Rich
R
D
Briton's spending less on cycle helmets?
Replies
4
Views
507
UK and Europe
David Hansen
D
Top Bottom Back