Helmets

Peter Clinch said:

Matt B said:

Research is sparse and interpretation is mainly by vested interest
groups, the anti-car lobbyists, establishment road safety groups and
those who have long since dug themselves into holes.

Where your interpretations are by a vested interest group (you, who want
to go at "appropriate speed" whenever you want without a ticket)

Why the misrepresentation? All I've ever argued for, as you must surely
recognise by now, is to remove the excuse of legitimacy from those
involved in the majority of accidents. The excuse that despite having
been travelling at an *in*appropriate speed, they are immune from blame
because they *were* within the arbritary speed limit set. Speed cameras
*cannot* detect inappropriate speed, in fact I would go further and
suggest that they probably encourage it in many situations.

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

Don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is made up. He has already
decided what the LM papers say without reading more than the abstracts.

This is all a distraction from the point raised which has led us down
this path (IIRC to do with the similaities between the helmet and camera
debate), which itself is secondary to the *main* point of how to best
reduce KSIs on our roads.

My contention is that because cameras cannot detect inappropriate speed
(and may even lead to more of it as drivers assert their "right" to
travel *at* the limit), and even though they *may* reduce average speeds
slightly within their limited area of influence by clipping off the
upper extremes, they are not the most efficacious way of achieving
harmony between users on our roads - and thus not likely to contribute
to the goal of eliminating KSIs across our land.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

My contention is that because cameras cannot detect inappropriate speed

That is incorrect. You surely mean *all* inappropriate speed.

Quoted message said:

(and may even lead to more of it as drivers assert their "right" to
travel *at* the limit)

It has been established in law time and time again that there is no
right to travel at the limit. If theere was no limit people would
travel as fast as they want to, probably much faster than they do now.

Quoted message said:

and even though they *may* reduce average speeds
slightly

Significantly according to all the research. While you may quible over
the precise extent, it is agreed that they do reduce speeds

Quoted message said:

within their limited area of influence by clipping off the
upper extremes, they are not the most efficacious way of achieving
harmony between users on our roads - and thus not likely to contribute
to the goal of eliminating KSIs across our land.

"Not likely to contribute"? They do contribute. Every study, even those
critical of other studies finds that speed cameras do contribute to the
reduction of KSI on the roads. The precise level is debatable but that
there is a positive contribution is clear.

...d

David Martin said:

Matt B wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My contention is that because cameras cannot detect inappropriate speed

That is incorrect. You surely mean *all* inappropriate speed.

It'll be the same inappropriate speed that flash-up signs detect.
Oddly, Matt seemed to think that they were a /good/ idea. Odd that the
ones that give him a fine are Bad while others with exactly the same (to
him) fundamental problem are Good...

Quoted message said:

"Not likely to contribute"? They do contribute. Every study, even those
critical of other studies finds that speed cameras do contribute to the
reduction of KSI on the roads. The precise level is debatable but that
there is a positive contribution is clear.

Ah, but if it's less than 100% effective and he doesn't like them then
it's "obviously" pointless. As opposed to if it's in any way effective
(including "there is an outside chance based on gut feeling rather than
research"😉 and he does like it (i.e., it doesn't give him speeding
tickets) then everyone should be implementing it everywhere ASAP.

He remains fundamentally Mr. Double Standards, and it's because he can't
see where standards differ it's not too surprising he thinks issues
relating to cycle helmets and speed cameras are basically the same.

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David Martin said:

It has been established in law time and time again that there is no
right to travel at the limit. If theere was no limit people would
travel as fast as they want to, probably much faster than they do now.

I was reading just the other day about the reason the 70mph national
speed limit was introduced. When the M1 was opened an AC Cobra driver
was clocked doing 186mph on it and Jaguar owners started running races
up to Watford Gap cruising at 120mph+. Within a year of that the 70mph
limit was introduced. So the concept that without speed limits people
will drive at "appropriate speeds" is nonsense.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

I was reading just the other day about the reason the 70mph national
speed limit was introduced. When the M1 was opened an AC Cobra driver
was clocked doing 186mph on it and Jaguar owners started running races
up to Watford Gap cruising at 120mph+. Within a year of that the 70mph
limit was introduced. So the concept that without speed limits people
will drive at "appropriate speeds" is nonsense.

So, I fear, is the concept that Matt B will take any notice of mere
evidence if it doesn't fit his "open" mind's preconceived conclusion...

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

My contention is that because cameras cannot detect inappropriate speed

That is incorrect. You surely mean *all* inappropriate speed.

No. They do not know whether *any* speed is appropriate or not. They
are set with a fixed speed, and all those traveling below that speed,
even if it is grossly inappropriate for the prevailing conditions are
ignored, and all those traveling above that speed, including those who
may be traveling appropriately and even legally are "snapped" - the
camera doesn't know. The assumption is that most of those traveling at
speeds above the threshold will be "inappropriate", but who knows?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(and may even lead to more of it as drivers assert their "right" to
travel *at* the limit)

It has been established in law time and time again that there is no
right to travel at the limit.

So you know of a successful speed camera case brought below the limit?

Quoted message said:

If theere was no limit people would
travel as fast as they want to, probably much faster than they do now.

That's as maybe, but doesn't alter my point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and even though they *may* reduce average speeds
slightly

Significantly according to all the research. While you may quible over
the precise extent, it is agreed that they do reduce speeds

Locally, and slightly, according to LM data on 149 30mph sites, the mean
speed dropped by only 4.4 mph, and the mean speed of speeders dropped by
only 1.4 mph.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

within their limited area of influence by clipping off the
upper extremes, they are not the most efficacious way of achieving
harmony between users on our roads - and thus not likely to contribute
to the goal of eliminating KSIs across our land.

"Not likely to contribute"? They do contribute.

Have we reached that goal? Will they be part of it when/if we do? I
think it is *unlikely*.

Quoted message said:

Every study, even those
critical of other studies finds that speed cameras do contribute to the
reduction of KSI on the roads. The precise level is debatable but that
there is a positive contribution is clear.

But, with that contribution being only relatively small, and very local,
and with it not being understood what increase in KSIs they may induce
across the wider area, it is not even clear that their overall
contribution is positive. And whilst the obsession remains and other,
potentially vastly more effective (albeit more costly) strategies are
not implemented, we see the UK KSI curve remaining practically
horizontal - in stark contrast to the impressive downward trend before
speed cameras became de rigueur.

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Peter Clinch said:

Matt B said:

Research is sparse and interpretation is mainly by vested interest
groups, the anti-car lobbyists, establishment road safety groups and
those who have long since dug themselves into holes.

Where your interpretations are by a vested interest group (you, who
want to go at "appropriate speed" whenever you want without a ticket)

Why the misrepresentation? All I've ever argued for, as you must
surely recognise by now, is to remove the excuse of legitimacy from
those
involved in the majority of accidents. The excuse that despite having
been travelling at an *in*appropriate speed, they are immune from blame
because they *were* within the arbritary speed limit set.

This is just a fallacy. It isn't (and never has been) a defence against
any dangerous driving charge[1] to say 'but I was not breaking the speed
limit'. You may not break the speed limit and, at the same time, you may
not drive without due care and attention.

[1] Where 'dangerous driving charge' includes anything from DWDCA to
CDDD.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

David Martin said:

Don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is made up. He has already
decided what the LM papers say without reading more than the
abstracts.

This is all a distraction from the point raised which has led us down
this path (IIRC to do with the similaities between the helmet and
camera debate), which itself is secondary to the *main* point of how to
best reduce KSIs on our roads.

Well, given that cameras are proven to work, more cameras (and, ideally
more stealth cameras) would be a good start.

Quoted message said:

My contention is that because cameras cannot detect inappropriate speed

Whenever a speed camera catches a motorist, that motorist was definitely
travelling at inappropriate speed. This doesn't mean, of course, that
all those motorists who weren't caught weren't travelling at
inappropriate speed, but getting the first lot of idiots off the road is
a good start. It means the police have more time (and money) to
concentrate on catching the rest.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Roburt Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'

Peter Clinch said:

David Martin said:

Matt B wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My contention is that because cameras cannot detect inappropriate speed

That is incorrect. You surely mean *all* inappropriate speed.

It'll be the same inappropriate speed that flash-up signs detect.

No, they are tweaked to flash at speeds which reflect the "danger" of a
specific looming hazard. They will probably trigger at speeds *below*
the actual speed limit.

Quoted message said:

Oddly,
Matt seemed to think that they were a /good/ idea.

They are. They detect a vehicle driving at an inadvisable speed towards
a recognisable specific hazard, and flash a warning - why is that not good?

Quoted message said:

Odd that the ones
that give him a fine are Bad while others with exactly the same (to him)
fundamental problem are Good...

Here you go again. They fine *nobody* and warn *nobody* who is
traveling within the limit - even if they are approaching a dangerous
junction or bend too fast. OTOH vehicle activated signs highlight a
specific hazard to those traveling above a certain speed, which may well
be *below* the legal limit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Not likely to contribute"? They do contribute. Every study, even those
critical of other studies finds that speed cameras do contribute to the
reduction of KSI on the roads. The precise level is debatable but that
there is a positive contribution is clear.

Ah, but if it's less than 100% effective and he doesn't like them then
it's "obviously" pointless.

If it was even 50% effective it might be a desirable first step, but as
it is at best 11% effective over a very limited area, and potentially
has a negative affect on the grand scheme, it is not pointless, but
reckless (no, not wreckless).

Quoted message said:

As opposed to if it's in any way effective
(including "there is an outside chance based on gut feeling rather than
research"😉 and he does like it (i.e., it doesn't give him speeding
tickets) then everyone should be implementing it everywhere ASAP.

Why do you continue to harp on about speeding tickets? When did you
last hear of anyone getting one for driving dangerously within the limit?

Quoted message said:

He remains fundamentally Mr. Double Standards,

Please explain the "double standards" charge.

Quoted message said:

and it's because he can't
see where standards differ it's not too surprising he thinks issues
relating to cycle helmets and speed cameras are basically the same.

The arguments are uncannily similar, don't kid yourself that they are not.

--
Matt B

Tony Raven said:

David Martin said:

It has been established in law time and time again that there is no
right to travel at the limit. If theere was no limit people would
travel as fast as they want to, probably much faster than they do now.

I was reading just the other day about the reason the 70mph national
speed limit was introduced. When the M1 was opened an AC Cobra driver
was clocked doing 186mph on it and Jaguar owners started running races
up to Watford Gap cruising at 120mph+. Within a year of that the 70mph
limit was introduced. So the concept that without speed limits people
will drive at "appropriate speeds" is nonsense.

And since that piece of knee jerk law was introduced in 1965[1] isn't it
spooky how inappropriate speed is no longer a problem in the UK ;-)

[1] 1965 - the days when 70 mph was not achievable by the majority of
cars on the road, which had drum brakes, crossply tyres and no seat
belts anyway, and when motorways had no central barriers.

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

Locally, and slightly, according to LM data on 149 30mph sites, the mean
speed dropped by only 4.4 mph, and the mean speed of speeders dropped by
only 1.4 mph.

That seems to be quite significant, for the non-speeders at least. 25.6mph
instead of 30mph must make a significant difference when there's an
accident? Even better, they've done it without speed bumps.

Peter Clinch said:

Tony Raven said:

I was reading just the other day about the reason the 70mph national
speed limit was introduced. When the M1 was opened an AC Cobra driver
was clocked doing 186mph on it and Jaguar owners started running races
up to Watford Gap cruising at 120mph+. Within a year of that the
70mph limit was introduced. So the concept that without speed limits
people will drive at "appropriate speeds" is nonsense.

So, I fear, is the concept that Matt B will take any notice of mere
evidence if it doesn't fit his "open" mind's preconceived conclusion...

Evidence that speed limits *don't* eliminate the use of inappropriate speed?

--
Matt B

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Locally, and slightly, according to LM data on 149 30mph sites, the mean
speed dropped by only 4.4 mph, and the mean speed of speeders dropped by
only 1.4 mph.

That seems to be quite significant, for the non-speeders at least. 25.6mph
instead of 30mph must make a significant difference when there's an
accident? Even better, they've done it without speed bumps.

<logic?>And seeing as how MattB claims that most accidents happen below
the speed limit, we don't need to concentrate on the wilful speeders
;-)</logic?>

...d

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Peter Clinch said:

Matt B wrote:

>Research is sparse and interpretation is mainly by vested interest
>groups, the anti-car lobbyists, establishment road safety groups and
>those who have long since dug themselves into holes.

Where your interpretations are by a vested interest group (you, who
want to go at "appropriate speed" whenever you want without a ticket)

Why the misrepresentation? All I've ever argued for, as you must
surely recognise by now, is to remove the excuse of legitimacy from
those
involved in the majority of accidents. The excuse that despite having
been travelling at an *in*appropriate speed, they are immune from blame
because they *were* within the arbritary speed limit set.

This is just a fallacy. It isn't (and never has been) a defence against
any dangerous driving charge[1] to say 'but I was not breaking the speed
limit'.

So you accept inappropriate speed so long as it doesn't result in a
charge? By "excuse of legitimacy" I meant more in their own
consciences. They think they must be driving safely because they are
within the limit, enforced by the knowledge that the camera won't react.

Quoted message said:

You may not break the speed limit and, at the same time, you may
not drive without due care and attention.

Yes, back to the point, as long as you *don't* break the speed limit you
will probably not be charged with anything so long as you avoid having
an "accident".

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

David Martin said:

Don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is made up. He has already
decided what the LM papers say without reading more than the
abstracts.

This is all a distraction from the point raised which has led us down
this path (IIRC to do with the similaities between the helmet and
camera debate), which itself is secondary to the *main* point of how to
best reduce KSIs on our roads.

Well, given that cameras are proven to work, more cameras (and, ideally
more stealth cameras) would be a good start.

Proven to work in what sense? Granted they have been shown to reduce
KSIs by up to 11% in confined area, but their overall effect on the
bigger picture is unknown.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My contention is that because cameras cannot detect inappropriate speed

Whenever a speed camera catches a motorist, that motorist was definitely
travelling at inappropriate speed.

How does the camera know? Was it a paramedic rushing to an accident
scene? A policeman after a gunman? An expectant mother in labour? A
football manager with "the runs"? Someone fleeing in fear of their
life? Someone 400 miles away ignorant that their number plate has been
cloned?

Quoted message said:

This doesn't mean, of course, that
all those motorists who weren't caught weren't travelling at
inappropriate speed, but getting the first lot of idiots off the road is
a good start.

Couldn't agree more, which is why I don't think cameras are the right tool.

Quoted message said:

It means the police have more time (and money) to
concentrate on catching the rest.

Why is the only alternative you offer "police"?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

It has been established in law time and time again that there is no
right to travel at the limit.

So you know of a successful speed camera case brought below the limit?

I didn't realise it was an offence to be a speed camera. The offences
usually cited would be careless or dangerous driving or DWDCA. It
obviously being pointless to bring a charge of exceeding the speed
limit when the motorist is travelling dangerously below the speed
limit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If theere was no limit people would
travel as fast as they want to, probably much faster than they do now.

That's as maybe, but doesn't alter my point.

It entirely contradicts your point..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and even though they *may* reduce average speeds
slightly

Significantly according to all the research. While you may quible over
the precise extent, it is agreed that they do reduce speeds

Locally, and slightly, according to LM data on 149 30mph sites, the mean
speed dropped by only 4.4 mph, and the mean speed of speeders dropped by
only 1.4 mph.

Something in excess of 10% is not significant? assuming the drop is
centred around 30mph, this gives a much longer stopping distance and
significantly less kinetic energy on impact. (<70%).

Has to be a good thing. Strangely enough, thats broadly in line with
the effects of having 20mph zones.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

within their limited area of influence by clipping off the
upper extremes, they are not the most efficacious way of achieving
harmony between users on our roads - and thus not likely to contribute
to the goal of eliminating KSIs across our land.

"Not likely to contribute"? They do contribute.

Have we reached that goal? Will they be part of it when/if we do? I
think it is *unlikely*.

What you think is irrelevant. WHat can be ddemonstrated by fact is that
they move us towards that (unacheivable) goal.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Every study, even those
critical of other studies finds that speed cameras do contribute to the
reduction of KSI on the roads. The precise level is debatable but that
there is a positive contribution is clear.

But, with that contribution being only relatively small, and very local,

What do you mean by small and local? 2km radius? 50% reduction?
(different studies)

Quoted message said:

and with it not being understood what increase in KSIs they may induce
across the wider area, it is not even clear that their overall
contribution is positive.

Had you read the relevant papers you would have seen examination of the
effect of accident migration, and the conclusion that any effects, if
indeed they do occur, are more than outweighed by the positive
contribution of cameras.

Quoted message said:

And whilst the obsession remains and other,
potentially vastly more effective (albeit more costly) strategies are
not implemented, we see the UK KSI curve remaining practically
horizontal - in stark contrast to the impressive downward trend before
speed cameras became de rigueur.

That is neither accurate nor sensible. All safety measures are local.
Some are cost-effective with regard to the number of casualties
prevented wrt expenditure. Others are not.

Your favoured flashing signs are the most varied in their
effectiveness. They can be extremely effective, but at the other end of
the scale they can have a negative effect. The effectiveness
distribution for cameras is far tighter, ie their behaviour is more
predictable.

The question is to find the most cost effective way of reducing KSI on
the roads. Cameras are an effective part of that equation.
...d

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

So, I fear, is the concept that Matt B will take any notice of mere
evidence if it doesn't fit his "open" mind's preconceived conclusion...

Evidence that speed limits *don't* eliminate the use of inappropriate speed?

Should we scrap drink-drive laws because they don't eliminate the use
of inappropriate speed? C&U regs? Age of consent?

...d

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Locally, and slightly, according to LM data on 149 30mph sites, the mean
speed dropped by only 4.4 mph, and the mean speed of speeders dropped by
only 1.4 mph.

That seems to be quite significant, for the non-speeders at least.

Who said non-speeders? The was on the mean speed of *all* vehicles.

Quoted message said:

25.6mph
instead of 30mph

No, it was 32.8 mph before and 28.4 mph after. The mean speed of
speeders dropped from 36.9 mph to 35.5 mph.

Quoted message said:

must make a significant difference when there's an
accident? Even better, they've done it without speed bumps.

Yes, but nothing like the improvements likely user other (non cost
neutral) methods.

--
Matt B

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Locally, and slightly, according to LM data on 149 30mph sites, the mean
speed dropped by only 4.4 mph, and the mean speed of speeders dropped by
only 1.4 mph.

That seems to be quite significant, for the non-speeders at least.

Who said non-speeders? The was on the mean speed of *all* vehicles.

Quoted message said:

25.6mph
instead of 30mph

No, it was 32.8 mph before and 28.4 mph after. The mean speed of
speeders dropped from 36.9 mph to 35.5 mph.

Quoted message said:

must make a significant difference when there's an
accident? Even better, they've done it without speed bumps.

Yes, but nothing like the improvements likely user other (non cost
neutral) methods.

--
Matt B