Cycle helmets and speed cameras - the common denominator?



Clive George wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cyclists and motorists could unite
>>>
>>>You're confused. Micheal Schumacher is a cyclist. Even Jeremy Clarkson is
>>>a cyclist. Guy is a motorist. I don't think the divide as you present it
>>>exists.
>>
>>I didn't intend to suggest a divide existed, but that the road safety
>>issues of both modes could be presented as a united effort.
>
>
> You mean, without mentioning either helmets or cameras?
>
>
>>Do you see the parallels in the helmet/camera debates?
>
>
> Not really, no. One is about enforcement of a law, the other is about
> useless safety equipment.
>

And its all about That Burke and his single issue trolling yet again. Yawn.

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill
 
"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.

--
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
 
"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > Whereas I see none.
>>
>> Why am I not surprised ;-)
>
> Enlighten me as to why you're not surprised. It may give me an inkling as
> to
> how others perceive me from my posts.

Sorry, it was nothing personal, I was casting you in the uk.r.c mould ;-)

Can you really see no parallels? Government claim one thing, intellectuals
with a critical eye claim the opposite.

--
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 10:33:08 +0100,
Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
Erm, no! (Unless I've misunderstood what the speed camera debate is
about)

The arguments about compulsory helmets is that it deters cyclists for no
measurable (maybe even negative) safety gain.

Were cycle helmets to become compulsory I would either stop cycling or
wear a helmet (actually a bit of both, I'd probably stop the leisure
cycling but continue with the commute atm because it would still be more
pleasant on a bike than on the tube - in my last job I'd probably have
gone back to taking the car)

Now lets go one step further and assume that the "fine" for not wearing
a cycle helmet was 30GBP and that, on average, I would get stopped twice
per year. Then I would probably not wear the helmet because 60 quid a
year really isn't that much to me.

Now introduce "cycle helmet cameras". Now I'm going to get caught every
day because "they" are going to put one on my route. I _still_ wouldn't
campaign against the cameras but against the stupid law that they were
enforcing.


Now lets get to speed cameras. I will accept that there are _some_
speedlimits that could reasonably be higher. Motorways in particular -
all non motorized traffic is excluded as is low powered motor traffic.
Additionally, most of the crash barriers have now been upgraded -
previously the design spec was to stop a car weighing up to 2 tons with
a centre of gravity 21" above the road travelling at 70mph at an angle
of impact of 20 degrees[1] from crossing over onto the other carriage way.
Many 4x4 can trivially exceed three of these four at the same time.

Now the M25 has it right in part because the speed limit is set by the
conditions (and yes they do go wrong occasionally - I've driven round
that bit once at about 11:30pm when there was hardly any traffic at all
and the signs were alternating between 40mph and NSL)

But if the speed limits are wrong then campaign against the speed
limits, not the cameras. But remember that not all speed limits are set
for safety reasons, especially in built up areas.

===

I wish we would switch to the Italian model of flashing amber lights at
night rather than red/green. Not for safety reasons but for noise. Cars
doing 30->20->30 are pretty quiet (unless you've got a really stupid
driver) 30->0->30 is inevitably more noisy.
(Additionally, as a cyclist, a significant number of lights don't change
so you are forced to go through on red - I know there is no reason for
the lights to behave like this but that is how a lot are set up - and if
I'm approaching a junction at 15mph (where I'm going to have to go
through on red anyway) it's safer to maintain that speed than stop, wait
to see if I've been detected this time, decide no and then pull away
from rest across a junction that is 60-80 feet wide. At 15mph I can
clear the junction in 4 seconds. Assuming an average of 7mph it takes 8
seconds and the idiot in the car doing 55mph towards a green light can
get me from over 1/10 of a mile away - I couldn't even see the car when
I made the decision to go! (actually this particular problem has never
happened to me but I used to have to (effectively) cross the sliproad of
the M1 into Hemel and I have had cars I couldn't even see when I joined
the roundabout blast their horns at me because they can do 800 feet in
the time it takes me from rest, uphill to do 60 (especially if I miss
the clip in) and they couldn't exit the roundabout because I was in the
way. (I know that they have to give way to traffic on the roundabout and
what I did was correct but it doesn't make it a pleasant experience)




Two glasses of wine and one rambling paragraph later, I'm off to make
something to eat :)

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/
 
Matt B wrote:
> So you say. That is all part of the debate really.

By your logic then...

Helmets protect people other than the wearer. Seatbelts protect people
other than the wearer. Would you like to explain the mechanism by which
this might occur (I am aware that wearing a helmet has been proven to
protect at least one other person than the wearer! ;-) )

No parallels. Sorry.

Jon
 
Matt B wrote:

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

I've got access to the data on helmets and I've read a fair cross
section of the papers claiming they're wonderful. I'm a professional
scientist and that gives me a good leg up on seeing the claims for what
they really are, and for helmets I've seen they really don't stack up.

> I've not spent any time researching it myself

Well, there is a difference straight there, then. I'm not going to make
common cause with something which someone tells me at least a couple of
people have cast some doubts on, especially as people are very good at
quoting original research out of context.

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/
 
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:49:37 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
> I've got access to the data on helmets and I've read a fair cross
> section of the papers claiming they're wonderful. I'm a professional
> scientist and that gives me a good leg up on seeing the claims for what
> they really are, and for helmets I've seen they really don't stack up.

Oh no, that's not true. My kids' helemats stack up, but it's a pretty
unstable stack and with the slightest bump they fall down.

--
Trevor Barton
 
Trevor Barton wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:49:37 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>I've got access to the data on helmets and I've read a fair cross
>>section of the papers claiming they're wonderful. I'm a professional
>>scientist and that gives me a good leg up on seeing the claims for what
>>they really are, and for helmets I've seen they really don't stack up.
>
>
> Oh no, that's not true. My kids' helemats stack up, but it's a pretty
> unstable stack and with the slightest bump they fall down.

Were your kids wearing them at the time?

<f/x> human pyramid </f/x>

R.
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Simple physics you might think, but given that most accidents occur below
>> the posted speed limit how can speed cameras help?
>
> They won't help in such examples, but nobody's saying they do.

The parterships' targets are to reduce KSI figures to 40% of the 1994-98
"annual average" by 2010. Their main tool, to date, is the speed camera.

> OTOH, do you really think it's fair to suppose that had those vehicles
> been breaking the speed limit things may well not have been any worse?

Who knows. The fact that they weren't means speeding plays no role.

>> Maybe, but will the incidence of serious accidents be less?
>
> Quite possibly, yes, especially if VSLs are implemented and adhered to.

"Quite possibly", no, too. They are basing their strategy on weak evidence
and weak logic.

--
Matt B

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
- Albert Einstein
 
Matt B wrote:

> The aim is to reduce KSI figures across the country. Cameras have, at best,
> a localised benefit. Given that cameras "cover" less than 1% of our roads,
> and that they may even lead to an increase in accidents outside of their
> range, how can they be deemed effective?

If they can be shown to be effective locally, that would suggest an area
much greater than 1% would be beneficial...

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/
 
> But _not_ as much as is claimed and portrayed, and only a very
> localised effect. So, they're misrepresented and not much use to
> tackle the KSI figures nationwide then.

They do tend to put them at (well, near) accident 'blackspots' tho, so
they're covering the worst 1%.

The thing I like about them is that whatever their direct effect the twits
that drive significantly over the limit on roads they don't know, or fail
to pay attention on roads they do know, eventually lose their licence. It's
a very inefficient way of doing things but neither I nor the government is
paying, so we're all quids in.

Let's face it, if a driver regularly misses 40 feet of markings in the
middle of the road and a naffing huge reflective yellow box then we don't
want 'em on our roads.
 
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>> So you say. That is all part of the debate really.
>
> By your logic then...
>
> Helmets protect people other than the wearer. Seatbelts protect people
> other than the wearer. Would you like to explain the mechanism by which
> this might occur (I am aware that wearing a helmet has been proven to
> protect at least one other person than the wearer! ;-) )
>
> No parallels. Sorry.

No, you have entirely misunderstood (misrepresented?) my point.

Helmets are being promoted as the solution to the KSI problem for pedal
cycle "accidents".
Speed cameras are being promoted as the solution to the KSI problem for
motor vehicle "accidents".

In both cases spurious evidence and unscientific conclusions are being
presented as "proof" that the chosen solutions will work. In both cases
independent research has been undertaken (by _real_ scientists as well as by
eccentric amateurs) which casts doubt on the establishment pronouncements.
The public are being duped, and "victimised" if they object to the basis of
the policies.

--
Matt B

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
- Albert Einstein
 
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:22:07 +0100, Richard wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:49:37 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>>I've got access to the data on helmets and I've read a fair cross
>>>section of the papers claiming they're wonderful. I'm a professional
>>>scientist and that gives me a good leg up on seeing the claims for what
>>>they really are, and for helmets I've seen they really don't stack up.
>>
>>
>> Oh no, that's not true. My kids' helemats stack up, but it's a pretty
>> unstable stack and with the slightest bump they fall down.
>
> Were your kids wearing them at the time?
>
><f/x> human pyramid </f/x>

LOL! I'll try that to see if it's more stable. The helmets might be
quite useful on their 'eads, then, too.

--
Trevor Barton
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> The aim is to reduce KSI figures across the country. Cameras have, at
>> best, a localised benefit. Given that cameras "cover" less than 1% of
>> our roads, and that they may even lead to an increase in accidents
>> outside of their range, how can they be deemed effective?
>
> If they can be shown to be effective locally, that would suggest an area
> much greater than 1% would be beneficial...


In what way? By "locally" I mean within a hundred yards or so of the camera
and on the same road.

--
Matt B

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
- Albert Einstein
 
"Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:33:08 +0100,
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Erm, no! (Unless I've misunderstood what the speed camera debate is
> about)

You appear to have, in this thread at least. My point is - is their use to
reduce the national KSI figures based on sound science.

[...]

> Now lets get to speed cameras. I will accept that there are _some_
> speedlimits that could reasonably be higher.

Should some be lower?

[...]
>
> Now the M25 has it right in part because the speed limit is set by the
> conditions (and yes they do go wrong occasionally - I've driven round
> that bit once at about 11:30pm when there was hardly any traffic at all
> and the signs were alternating between 40mph and NSL)

Yes.

> But if the speed limits are wrong then campaign against the speed
> limits, not the cameras. But remember that not all speed limits are set
> for safety reasons, especially in built up areas.

The limits are not the issue. It is whether cameras will reduce the KSI
results.

> ===
> I wish we would switch to the Italian model of flashing amber lights at
> night rather than red/green.

Yes, common throughout Europe, in fact.

Also the turn right (left here :) on red rule as found in the USA.

Another interesting idea are the traffic lights which change to red, but
only if you're going too fast, as found in Portugal and elsewhere. They
actively _reward_ compliance by not forcing you to stop.

[...]

> Two glasses of wine and one rambling paragraph later, I'm off to make
> something to eat :)

:)

--
Matt B

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
- Albert Einstein
 
Matt B wrote:

> Also the turn right (left here :) on red rule as found in the USA.

Is this universal? I was of the impression it varied from state to state.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Here, take these cheese-shaped stilts. You'll know when to use them.
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can you really see no parallels? Government claim one thing,
intellectuals
> with a critical eye claim the opposite.

I can see parallels in that they are seen as panaceas in their respective
areas however the sentiment behind them is worlds apart.
One is about infringing my civil liberty to take personal risks, the other
is about curtailing my potential to harm others.

While I remain cynical about the motivations behind the proliferation of
"safety" cameras they don't bother me because they're easy to cheat <1>, an
unmarked police car at night isn't ;-)
<1> Either drive within the posted limit at all times or just look out for
camera signs, bright yellow cameras and re-assess your speed.

I was amused the other week when watching a programme featuring Cheshire
police. A patrol officer stopped a van because the driver wasn't wearing a
seat belt and sounded mighty pleased with himself for having done so. I
thought the officers time could have been better used catching a driver
who's a danger to others.
In future they could be stopping cyclists for not wearing helmets, maybe the
next step would be to stop people doing DIY without adequate protective
clothing, where will it end :)

Pete.
 
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:35:20 +0100,
Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> But if the speed limits are wrong then campaign against the speed
>> limits, not the cameras. But remember that not all speed limits are set
>> for safety reasons, especially in built up areas.
>
> The limits are not the issue. It is whether cameras will reduce the KSI
> results.
>
No. That is not what the speed camera debate is about.

The speed _limit_ debate might be.

But the speed camera debate is about whether the law should be enforced.

You will find most people around here think that cyclists should not be
cycling on the pavement when there is no green paint and have no
sympathy when pavement cyclists do get caught and fined.

You will find most people around here think that cyclists should not be
cycling through red lights and have no sympathy when red light jumpers
do get caught and fined.

You will find most people around here think that drivers should keep to
the speed limits and have no sympathy when speeders do get caught and
fined.


Note that this is independent of whether those people think the law
should be changed. Some people here would probably argue that
"responsible" cycling should be allowed on all pavements. Some people
here would probably argue that turning left on red should be allowed.
And some people here will probably argue that some speedlimits should be
higher (indeed I think there are some here who would like the
speedlimits in the Royal Parks that do apply to cyclists raised)


Speedlimits were brought in because so many people were dying on the
roads. Pedestrians are now much better at not getting killed, down by a
factor of about 4 from about 3000/year to about 800/year. But they have
now been scared off the roads except for the ones that have to be there
so it's getting increasingly difficult for them to make the safety
improvements and the trend has gone from a reduction of about 100/year
in the nineties, to about 50/year now.

Motorists, on the other hand have only managed to reduce their numbers
dying from about 4500/year to about 2500/year in the same period despite
all the safety improvements in cars, airbags, abs, crumplezones,
improved tyres, etc, etc, etc. And their number are going up again,
faster than the improving death record of pedestrians can compensate.
About one in five of these deaths are single vehicle, loss of control
accidents.

IIRC about 50 pedestrians a year are killed on the footpath or verge and
about 50/year on pedestrian crossings[1].


I think this all points to a serious problem with drivers overestimating
their abilities, or their cars abilities. I find it interesting that I
drive slower since taking additional training and doing the IAM test
than I did before. And I don't think my car control has changed
significantly[2] but I see far, far more potential issues. And I no longer
feel comfortable being driven along a motorway at an indicated 90mph.
(almost) Invariably at this speed there will be harsh braking involved
somewhere and general blinkered ignoring of the cars in lane 2
approaching a slower vehicle infront.


Tim.


[1] Think this includes within the zigzag areas
[2] Most people can make smooth gear changes, smooth lane changes, know
how to stop at junctions without the car rocking backwards etc.

--
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/
 
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:15:05 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>By "locally" I mean within a hundred yards or so of the camera
>and on the same road.

Sounds like a good argument for having cameras every 300m or so
then. That is precisely what is being done in places.


--
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.
 
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