Helmets

Matt B said:

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.

You are not immune from blame if you are inside a limit though.

Quoted message said:

Speed cameras
*cannot* detect inappropriate speed, in fact I would go further and
suggest that they probably encourage it in many situations.

So why the support for flashup signs you've previously shown as an
alternative?

The only clear case of misrepresentation going on seems to be what you
are rationalising your argument as being as compared to what it actually
boils down to. And though you've succeeded in kidding yourself, that
still leaves me (and I rather suspect anyone else reading) entirely
underwhelmed with your "logic".

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:

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?

The OP was reminding us that speed limits were introduced as a reaction
to a spate of inappropriate speed incidents on the M1. I was
elucidating to the fact that, even though we do now have speed limits
(remembering why they were introduced), that we still also have
inappropriate speeds.

--
Matt B

MattB said:

No <snippity>

Good point, I'll try again:

That seems to be quite significant. 28.4mph instead of 32.8mph must make a
significant difference when there's an accident? Even better, they've done
it without speed bumps.

Peter Clinch said:

Matt B said:

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.

You are not immune from blame if you are inside a limit though.

But not likely to worry about it too much if you don't intent having an
"accident".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speed cameras *cannot* detect inappropriate speed, in fact I would go
further and suggest that they probably encourage it in many situations.

So why the support for flashup signs you've previously shown as an
alternative?

They don't have the baggage of a speed camera, and are seen as a
friendly reminder of a localised hazard, not as a potential threat to
your livelihood, even if you are not driving dangerously. The speed
that they are set to trigger at is determined by the specific hazard,
not "the" speed limit, they may well be set at a much lower speed than
the legal maximum, approaching a dangerous bend, for example. And...
they are, according to TRL, three times more effective than speed cameras.

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

They don't have the baggage of a speed camera, and are seen as a
friendly reminder of a localised hazard, not as a potential threat to
your livelihood, even if you are not driving dangerously. The speed
that they are set to trigger at is determined by the specific hazard,
not "the" speed limit, they may well be set at a much lower speed than
the legal maximum, approaching a dangerous bend, for example. And...
they are, according to TRL, three times more effective than speed
cameras.

Are these the flashing signs with the speed limit on that I keep seeing?

Matt B said:

They don't have the baggage of a speed camera, and are seen as a
friendly reminder of a localised hazard, not as a potential threat to
your livelihood, even if you are not driving dangerously. The speed
that they are set to trigger at is determined by the specific hazard,
not "the" speed limit

Last one I passed was on a straight piece of A road. I was doing 55 so
I wondered why it flagged up a note about 70 mph, but then the loon
zooming past revealed why it had gone off. Didn't seem to do anything
to slow him down either...

Quoted message said:

And...
they are, according to TRL, three times more effective than speed cameras.

Which you say are ineffective. So soince 3 x 0 = 0 that still doesn't
put you on very firm ground.

Things to do, goodbye.

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/

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

They don't have the baggage of a speed camera, and are seen as a
friendly reminder of a localised hazard, not as a potential threat to
your livelihood, even if you are not driving dangerously. The speed
that they are set to trigger at is determined by the specific hazard,
not "the" speed limit, they may well be set at a much lower speed than
the legal maximum, approaching a dangerous bend, for example. And...
they are, according to TRL, three times more effective than speed
cameras.

Are these the flashing signs with the speed limit on that I keep seeing?

The speed limit ones are friendly reminders that you are above the
limit, and, apparently, are more effective at slowing traffic than
*even* speed cameras ;-)

The ones I was referring to are the ones you find on the approach to
specific hazards such as bends or junctions, which are usually triggered
at speeds below the legal maximum. They illuminate as a normal
"crossroads", or whatever sign, with the words "slow down" underneath.

--
Matt B

Mark Thompson said:

MattB said:

No <snippity>

Good point, I'll try again:

That seems to be quite significant. 28.4mph instead of 32.8mph must make a
significant difference when there's an accident? Even better, they've done
it without speed bumps.

Perhaps, until you see what *could* be achieved by using systems
designed primarily to reduce conflict, or even those designed primarily
to reduce speed. The simple illuminating speed limit signs (like you
said you'd seen around in another post) have been shown to reduce the
average speed in 30 mph applications by 5.5 mph.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Mark Thompson said:

MattB said:

No <snippity>

Good point, I'll try again:

That seems to be quite significant. 28.4mph instead of 32.8mph must
make a significant difference when there's an accident? Even
better, they've done it without speed bumps.

Perhaps, until you see what *could* be achieved by using systems
designed primarily to reduce conflict, or even those designed
primarily to reduce speed. The simple illuminating speed limit signs
(like you said you'd seen around in another post) have been shown to
reduce the average speed in 30 mph applications by 5.5 mph.

Strange, given that they're always on the approach to the limit, and every
time they've shown me my speed, they've shown me that my speedo overreads by
about 10% at that range (in all the different cars I've approached the sign
at).

The ones in the roadworks on the M6 seem to be ignored. I couldn't even tell
if one 40mph was speed sensing or not, as it was lit every time I went past.
Unless my speedo underreads drastically at 40mph ish.
--
Ambrose

David Martin said:

Matt B wrote:

[someone else wrote:]

Quoted message said:

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..

Which one: 1. Speed cameras are not the most effective way to reduce
KSIs. 2. Speed cameras cannot detect inappropriate speed. 3. The speed
camera debate is similar to the cycle helmet debate???

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%).

Why settle for that when the vehicle activated speed signs give a 5,5
mph drop?

Quoted message said:

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

What is, a 4.4 mph drop in average speed?

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.

Thank you for that ;-)

Quoted message said:

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

By a lesser amount than all others in common use except "do nothing".

Quoted message said:

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)

No. 11% reduction in KSIs up to 500m from the camera. LM's statistically
adjusted (for RTM and trend, but leaving in the 5% resulting from flow
change) study of 211 accidents. The headline figure (before vs. after
observed change was 34%).

Quoted message said:

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.

The only migration considered was upstream or downstream of the cameras.
The effect caused by traffic choosing other routes wasn't studied.

Quoted message said:

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

In what way is it inaccurate?

Quoted message said:

nor sensible.

?

Quoted message said:

All safety measures are local.

Only if geographically rooted. Cultural and social changes, or vehicle
changes (as opposed to street furniture changes) are global.

Quoted message said:

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.

Can you direct us towards a source for that?

Quoted message said:

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.

The definition of "cost" and the scope of its definition being, of
course, open to political interpretation.

Quoted message said:

Cameras are an effective part of that equation.

Yes, the *least* effective.

--
Matt B

Peter Clinch said:

Matt B said:

They don't have the baggage of a speed camera, and are seen as a
friendly reminder of a localised hazard, not as a potential threat to
your livelihood, even if you are not driving dangerously. The speed
that they are set to trigger at is determined by the specific hazard,
not "the" speed limit

Last one I passed was on a straight piece of A road. I was doing 55 so
I wondered why it flagged up a note about 70 mph, but then the loon
zooming past revealed why it had gone off. Didn't seem to do anything
to slow him down either...

There we go then, a true scientist at work. A conclusion based on a
sample of one ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And... they are, according to TRL, three times more effective than
speed cameras.

Which you say are ineffective. So soince 3 x 0 = 0 that still doesn't
put you on very firm ground.

Black and white again. 100% or nothing! An 11% reduction in KSIs
within 500m was the figure I gave for cameras. See what you get
multiplying that by 3.

Quoted message said:

Things to do, goodbye.

Goodbye.

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Peter Clinch wrote:

>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?

Where did I say that? What I think is, there should be a 'one strike and
you're out' attitude to motoring offences. Whatever other penalty you
get, your license to drive should be revoked, for life, and without
appeal. And if you drive without a license, that should be automatic, no
excuse, no appeal, jail.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

>Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
>>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?

Where did I say that?

How do you suppose that those guilty of using inappropriate speed (below
the speed limit) will get caught then - speed cameras can't do it?

Quoted message said:

What I think is, there should be a 'one strike and
you're out' attitude to motoring offences.

Why just motoring offences?

Quoted message said:

Whatever other penalty you
get, your license to drive should be revoked, for life, and without
appeal.

Hehe. No room for that sort of wooly minded liberal stuff here I don't
think ;-)

Quoted message said:

And if you drive without a license, that should be automatic, no
excuse, no appeal, jail.

Same rules for cyclist too I presume.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

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

No. 11% reduction in KSIs up to 500m from the camera. LM's statistically
adjusted (for RTM and trend, but leaving in the 5% resulting from flow
change) study of 211 accidents. The headline figure (before vs. after
observed change was 34%).

I think you have still not read the paper. just tha abstract, so you
are taking figures out of context.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

The only migration considered was upstream or downstream of the cameras.
The effect caused by traffic choosing other routes wasn't studied.

You say that very authoritatively when you haven't read the papers

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

In what way is it inaccurate?

'more effective' is only true in a regime of unlimited means. And the
interpretation you give of the decline in injury rates is misleading
and simplistic, and a few years out of sync with what you claim are the
causes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All safety measures are local.

Only if geographically rooted. Cultural and social changes, or vehicle
changes (as opposed to street furniture changes) are global.

And these then would explain the change in the injury rates? You can't
have it both ways. Either cameras have had a global effect on injury
figures (when you claim they only have a local effect) or there are
other confounding factors of a social nature.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Can you direct us towards a source for that?

The Mountain paper you haven't read. You saw the average int eh
abstract, not the distribution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

The definition of "cost" and the scope of its definition being, of
course, open to political interpretation.

Right. Cost is how much I have to pay extra on my taxes to encourage
numpties to drive less dangerously. IMHO I'd rather the numpties
continued to contribute towards the provision of the enforcement
measures so I can spend my hard earned money on things I want to do,
rather than trying to persuade someone else to not kill me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cameras are an effective part of that equation.

Yes, the *least* effective.

You claim that yet have not provided any evidence that cameras are less
effective than the other methods. You have cited a paper which shows
site response to different measures, but those measures were not
selected randomly, so the study cannot be taken as a true comparison
between the methods.
Or to explain for the hard of science... If you have a site that
requires some treatment, a traffic engineer will look at it and suggest
an appropriate treatment method. they do not just pick one at random.
An interpretation of the data is that when TE's choose vertical
interventions then they are generally extremely successful, as they
physically manage speed control. Penal intervention, ie cameras, are
consistently successful in the sites in which they are positioned, but
for many reasons those sites may not be suitable for vertical
interventions. It may also be inferred that the requirements dubbed the
'four coffin rule' should be ignored and cameras introduced in areas
with a speed problem that leads to accident potential and loss of
quality of life for the residents. And they will be effective. (ie
ignoring the signals that lead to a regression to the mean effect)
Conscience and visual interventions are most variable in effect. they
can be good, or they can be useless.
Again they are introduced in sites where they seem to be the most
appropriate. Until there is a study that directly compares the
effectiveness of different measures in the same locations, you cannot
legitimately claim that one method is better than the other.

...d

David Martin said:

You say that very authoritatively when you haven't read the papers

But, but... he keeps on using measured tones and not losing his temper,
so it follows he /must/ be in the right and nasty people like me that
have given up on the argument have clearly been beaten because we're
wrong. Just like with the JWs!

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:

Quoted message said:

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

No. 11% reduction in KSIs up to 500m from the camera. LM's statistically
adjusted (for RTM and trend, but leaving in the 5% resulting from flow
change) study of 211 accidents. The headline figure (before vs. after
observed change was 34%).

I think you have still not read the paper. just tha abstract, so you
are taking figures out of context.

No, I just "guessed" the detail - did I get it right?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

The only migration considered was upstream or downstream of the cameras.
The effect caused by traffic choosing other routes wasn't studied.

You say that very authoritatively when you haven't read the papers

I must have dreamt it then?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

In what way is it inaccurate?

'more effective' is only true in a regime of unlimited means.

We, via our politicians, decide our spending priorities. As one of the
richest nations on earth we have ample means to make our road spaces
safe places to travel. We have, however, via our politicians, decided
that eliminating KSIs is not high priority enough to justify spending
tax payers money on. Instead we are complacent to accept the
unnecessarily high KSI figures so long as we can see 10,000's drivers
annually being criminalised and having their livelihoods threatened,
using a dodgy automated indiscriminate process, reliant upon compulsory
self incrimination, and the technical transgression of an arbitrary
limit. A process which is unable to detect *any* incidence of
inappropriate (i.e. dangerous) speed whether below *or* above the limit.

Quoted message said:

And the
interpretation you give of the decline in injury rates is misleading
and simplistic, and a few years out of sync with what you claim are the
causes.

I haven't claimed causes. All I'm suggesting is that the downward trend
has stopped, cameras haven't restored it, so we need to try something
designed for the purpose of restoring it - and stop flogging the poorly,
tired, old, horse.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All safety measures are local.

Only if geographically rooted. Cultural and social changes, or vehicle
changes (as opposed to street furniture changes) are global.

And these then would explain the change in the injury rates? You can't
have it both ways. Either cameras have had a global effect on injury
figures (when you claim they only have a local effect) or there are
other confounding factors of a social nature.

Eh? Cameras have only a limited local positive effect. They *may*, we
don't know, because the reseach hasn't been done, have a negative effect
over a much wider area, due to a certain amount of traffic choosing
alternative routes to avoid the camera routes. Even that though may be
insignificant compared to the nationwide negative effects due to the
social and cultural consequences of the "drive as dangerously as you
like, and with no attention to others, so long as you stick to the
posted limit" message that robotic enforcement promotes. Automatic
driving to comply with automatically enforced limits does not induce a
culture of driving safely and considerately.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Can you direct us towards a source for that?

The Mountain paper you haven't read. You saw the average int eh
abstract, not the distribution.

There is no mention of them in the "effectiveness of speed cameras"
treatise that I have read.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

The definition of "cost" and the scope of its definition being, of
course, open to political interpretation.

Right. Cost is how much I have to pay extra on my taxes to encourage
numpties to drive less dangerously.

That's one way of looking at it - yes :-) I would prefer to think of it
as an investment though. Not only for the wellbeing of our people now,
but perhaps more importantly as an investment to improve our society for
the future. Imagine if one day we could walk across our roads without
having to wait and lookout for fear of being hit by a cyclist or car.
Imagine if we could cycle or drive along our roads without the constant
drain on our senses and nerves of endless signs and regulations and
robotic enforcement. We could be part way there by now, but, instead we
chose to rely on speed cameras.

Quoted message said:

IMHO I'd rather the numpties
continued to contribute towards the provision of the enforcement
measures so I can spend my hard earned money on things I want to do,
rather than trying to persuade someone else to not kill me.

Say no more ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cameras are an effective part of that equation.

Yes, the *least* effective.

You claim that yet have not provided any evidence that cameras are less
effective than the other methods.

Do you choose not to physically attack everyone you come across in the
street for fear of being photographed doing it, or is there a higher
motive involved?

Do you think that all motorists are devoid of morals?

When hearded, whipped, scolded and treated like uncontrollable wild
beasts simply gagging to committ an attrocity, is it any wonder that
some "switch off" and conform to those expectations.

Who, given an open space, with no clear priorites or rights of way, no
obvious road/path demarkation, with no instructions or signals, with the
liklihood of children playing, mothers pushing prams across the
diagonal, drinkers sat round a table, the odd tree and raised flower
bed, a few parked cars, a fountain, an ornamental display of rounded
boulders, some steps, a wooden bench, a market stall, is going to drive
in a straight line down the middle at 30.00 mph?

Who upon being alerted to a sharp bend by an unmissable flashing sign,
triggered by their approach at a speed above which it would require
something more than luck to emerge safely from, would not slow down and
take special notice of the situation?

Who, whilst driving on the motorway at a respectable pace would override
the gentle braking applied by the onboard electronic wizzardry when it
decided that, given the speed, temperature, road wettness etc. one could
do with a bit more space between oneself and the vehicle in front?

Who would ignore an annoying buzzer and vibration applied to the
appropriate bum cheek being triggered by crossing the edge or centre
line or other lane markings whilst dozing off at the wheel?

Who wouldn't glance at a CCTV screen showing approaching traffic before
deciding to emerge from a blind junction?

Who, would ignore the infrared image, and accompanying sound effect, of
"warm bodies" ahead when hurtling down a country lane?

Who would deny that children should be taught "roadmanship" at school,
with at least the same vigour as is applied to the "3 Rs"?

Isn't removing the propensity to drive inconsiderately a worthy objective?

There may always be an anti-social element, but we must treat those
proportionately and consistently regardless of where they anti-socially
behave.

Sorry to waffle on so - but surely you see where I'm coming from?

--
Matt B

Peter Clinch said:

David Martin said:

You say that very authoritatively when you haven't read the papers

But, but... he keeps on using measured tones and not losing his temper,

Sorry to defer your attempts to provoke me ;-)

Quoted message said:

so it follows he /must/ be in the right and nasty people like me that
have given up on the argument have clearly been beaten because we're
wrong.

Not wrong, just operating on a different plane, or maybe from inside a
box :-)

Quoted message said:

Just like with the JWs!

JWs?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

JWs?

I assume he mean's Jehova's Witnesses.
Talking of which; living in the religious cult centre of the UK I see
quite a lot of smart suited salesmen wandering around town selling
"give us your house and all your money and you will be saved
hallejullah"
this morning I shared the train with half a dozen of them on their way
up to the US Embassy to get visas for their next Hubbard inspired
jolly, nice work if you can get it!

Matt B said:

Sorry to defer your attempts to provoke me ;-)

No such attempt being made. But sounding a reasonable tone is not the
same as talking sense.

Quoted message said:

Not wrong, just operating on a different plane, or maybe from inside a
box :-)

But with what the research suggests are better answers than yours when
digested by a well regarded professional scientist like David that's
actually read the papers which you haven't and is equipped to properly
understand them.

Quoted message said:

JWs?

Jehovah's Witnesses. You can't ever simply argue them off the doorstep
because they *Believe*, and no amount of evidence will change that.
They even feel sorry for the "closed minds" they encounter, and are only
going around because of a genuine want to help people by patiently
explaining what they see as The Truth.

You are the road safety equivalent of a JW, and because you can't see
that there's no point explaining it again and again to you. There's no
point you explaining your stuff again and again until you've done as
David suggests and read the whole papers you keep going on about and not
just the abstracts, but I'm sure you'll try because like a JW you think
it's completely reasonable and the Truth and everyone else must be
misguided.

The only way to get rid of JWs is to eventually shut the door, so into
the killfile with you so I'm not tempted to waste any more time on what
is bound to be fruitless in both directions.

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/

Matt B said:

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

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

No. 11% reduction in KSIs up to 500m from the camera. LM's statistically
adjusted (for RTM and trend, but leaving in the 5% resulting from flow
change) study of 211 accidents. The headline figure (before vs. after
observed change was 34%).

I think you have still not read the paper. just tha abstract, so you
are taking figures out of context.

No, I just "guessed" the detail - did I get it right?

Clearly not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

'more effective' is only true in a regime of unlimited means.

We, via our politicians, decide our spending priorities. As one of the
richest nations on earth we have ample means to make our road spaces
safe places to travel. We have, however, via our politicians, decided
that eliminating KSIs is not high priority enough to justify spending
tax payers money on. Instead we are complacent to accept the
unnecessarily high KSI figures so long as we can see 10,000's drivers
annually being criminalised and having their livelihoods threatened,
using a dodgy automated indiscriminate process, reliant upon compulsory
self incrimination, and the technical transgression of an arbitrary
limit. A process which is unable to detect *any* incidence of
inappropriate (i.e. dangerous) speed whether below *or* above the limit.

This is a somewhat distorted but otherwise vacuous rant. It reads very
strongly of someone throwing their toys out of the pram because they
have been told they can't do just what they want.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And the
interpretation you give of the decline in injury rates is misleading
and simplistic, and a few years out of sync with what you claim are the
causes.

I haven't claimed causes. All I'm suggesting is that the downward trend
has stopped, cameras haven't restored it, so we need to try something
designed for the purpose of restoring it - and stop flogging the poorly,
tired, old, horse.

You infer teh PS line of cameras increasing accidents, whilst happily
ignoring the many other social changes that have occurred, the strong
evidence opposing a negative effect of cameras and so on. You have an
anti camera obsession.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> All safety measures are local.

Only if geographically rooted. Cultural and social changes, or vehicle
changes (as opposed to street furniture changes) are global.

And these then would explain the change in the injury rates? You can't
have it both ways. Either cameras have had a global effect on injury
figures (when you claim they only have a local effect) or there are
other confounding factors of a social nature.

Eh? Cameras have only a limited local positive effect. They *may*, we
don't know, because the reseach hasn't been done, have a negative effect
over a much wider area, due to a certain amount of traffic choosing
alternative routes to avoid the camera routes.

That work has been done and was considered by some of the studies cited
in LMs papers.

Quoted message said:

Even that though may be
insignificant compared to the nationwide negative effects due to the
social and cultural consequences of the "drive as dangerously as you
like, and with no attention to others, so long as you stick to the
posted limit" message that robotic enforcement promotes.

It doesn't promote that. The people who promote that message most are
the anti-camera crowd.

Quoted message said:

Automatic
driving to comply with automatically enforced limits does not induce a
culture of driving safely and considerately.

Neither does driving as fast as you want.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

Can you direct us towards a source for that?

The Mountain paper you haven't read. You saw the average int eh
abstract, not the distribution.

There is no mention of them in the "effectiveness of speed cameras"
treatise that I have read.

Well go and find the full documetns then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

The definition of "cost" and the scope of its definition being, of
course, open to political interpretation.

Right. Cost is how much I have to pay extra on my taxes to encourage
numpties to drive less dangerously.

That's one way of looking at it - yes :-) I would prefer to think of it
as an investment though. Not only for the wellbeing of our people now,
but perhaps more importantly as an investment to improve our society for
the future.

Even better if others make the investment for you. Get the problem to
pay for the solution..

Quoted message said:

Imagine if one day we could walk across our roads without
having to wait and lookout for fear of being hit by a cyclist or car.

Because there are none around..

Quoted message said:

Imagine if we could cycle or drive along our roads without the constant
drain on our senses and nerves of endless signs and regulations and
robotic enforcement. We could be part way there by now, but, instead we
chose to rely on speed cameras.

No, some of us move to Scotland ;-)

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that a crowded
society like ours can get to that kind of utopian dream where VRU can
behave without regard for any others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMHO I'd rather the numpties
continued to contribute towards the provision of the enforcement
measures so I can spend my hard earned money on things I want to do,
rather than trying to persuade someone else to not kill me.

Say no more ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Cameras are an effective part of that equation.

Yes, the *least* effective.

You claim that yet have not provided any evidence that cameras are less
effective than the other methods.

Do you choose not to physically attack everyone you come across in the
street for fear of being photographed doing it, or is there a higher
motive involved?

Silly comparison. There is little for me to gain and a lot for me to
lose. If there is only gain, and the risk of loss is slight (to me)
then there is a considerable difference. People will drive as fast as
they can get away with.

Quoted message said:

Do you think that all motorists are devoid of morals?

When hearded, whipped, scolded and treated like uncontrollable wild
beasts simply gagging to committ an attrocity, is it any wonder that
some "switch off" and conform to those expectations.

Welcome to the rush hour.. your characterisation is not particularly
recognisable. It is more like the people who will carelessly drop
litter. The cost benefit to them is low, but to society it is high.

Quoted message said:

Who, given an open space, with no clear priorites or rights of way, no
obvious road/path demarkation, with no instructions or signals, with the
liklihood of children playing, mothers pushing prams across the
diagonal, drinkers sat round a table, the odd tree and raised flower
bed, a few parked cars, a fountain, an ornamental display of rounded
boulders, some steps, a wooden bench, a market stall, is going to drive
in a straight line down the middle at 30.00 mph?

Now try modelling traffic flow through that.

Quoted message said:

Who upon being alerted to a sharp bend by an unmissable flashing sign,
triggered by their approach at a speed above which it would require
something more than luck to emerge safely from, would not slow down and
take special notice of the situation?

So I can drive as fast as I want then and I will be safe as long as I
slow down where I see a flashing sign? Rather silly way to do things.

Quoted message said:

Who, whilst driving on the motorway at a respectable pace would override
the gentle braking applied by the onboard electronic wizzardry when it
decided that, given the speed, temperature, road wettness etc. one could
do with a bit more space between oneself and the vehicle in front?

And get hacked off immediately by the chap pushing their way in
between. Very soon you find yourself travelling backwards if the
traffic flow is normal by SE standards.

Quoted message said:

Who would ignore an annoying buzzer and vibration applied to the
appropriate bum cheek being triggered by crossing the edge or centre
line or other lane markings whilst dozing off at the wheel?

Selby mean anything to you?

Quoted message said:

Sorry to waffle on so - but surely you see where I'm coming from?

Yes. And I don't see anything realistic in your proposals at all. You
take one set of constraints and replace it with a differenc set of
expectations, and when they are not there the system falls down.

Your idealism falls down as soon as joe bloggs is a teensy bit behind
time for getting to work, as soon as jane bloggs is in a wee bit of a
rush and so on. Then 'I'm not really hurting anyone else' comes to the
fore and selfishness takes over.

...d