Let's be careful out there

Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception." in the
article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to go have a lie down in a quiet room with
padded wall and bars on the window? ;-)

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays.....

Great! This is *just* what I want to hear as I put on my bicycle clips in preparation for my
commute home!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote: ( The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on
Fridays, while for pedestrians it is ) 1800 on Fridays ( ... ) Fatalities and serious injuries peak
at more than 250 at 1700 on Fridays, ( according to the RAC's campaigning arm, the RAC Foundation.

Presumably one should pull well off the road at 1659 and wait until 1701 before resuming
one's journey.

I wonder whether those were hours leading up to the hour, or hours centred on the hour, or hours
after the hour. I think we should be told.

Quoted message said:

The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays, while for pedestrians it is 1800 on Fridays

If that is when most accidents happen, could it be, perhaps, that there are more accidents merely
because there are more people around? Perhaps there are more cyclists/pedestrians who don't have
accidents as well.

For cyclists, Fri at 1700 might be the best time to ride, because cycling tends to be safer when
there are more bikes on the road.

If the RAC hasn't realised that the most accidents doesn't prove the situation is necessarily the
most dangerous, that reflects badly on them. If the RAC did realise it, and sent out the press
release anyway, that would be an even worse reflection.

Jeremy Parker

you know? said:

The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays, while for pedestrians it is 1800 on Fridays

Quoted message said:

The bloke from the RAC suggests that speeding is not the best way to increase road safety, which
will come as a shock to some.

Quoted message said:

-- text of article --

Quoted message said:

"This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception.

Oh, VERY good. You're completely distorting the very sensible RAC statement, from "increased speeds"
to "speeding".

When you see "increased speeds" and "hazard perception" in the same sentence, it would be an
excellent bet that the sort of "increased speeds" being discussed are those which are inappropriate
for the conditions.

I quote from my own web site:

"Inappropriate speed is usually defined as "going to fast for the conditions". This could be over
or under the speed limit. 69mph on a motorway in thick fog could be a suicidal example. We abhor
inappropriate speed because it is dangerous. Of course the opposite of inappropriate speed is
safe speed."

and:

We need drivers who slow down where the danger is greatest, not where the danger is smallest. This
is where emphasis on speed limits misses the point, such emphasis tends to affect areas where the
danger is least. On the other hand publicity about using speed wisely and safely would emphasis
reducing speed where danger is greatest.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of

hazard

Quoted message said:

perception." in the article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to

go

Quoted message said:

have a lie down in a quiet room with padded wall and bars on the window?

;-)

No, He'll say they lack attention because they aren't driving fast enough.

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter said:

Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception." in
the article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to go have a lie down in a quiet room with
padded wall and bars on the window? ;-)

I would guess at "no"... He does, after all, Know It All Already (and anything he doesn't (sic) he
can work out from a "thought" experiment rendered 100% perfect by his Advanced Driving instruction).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"Geraint Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Presumably one should pull well off the road at 1659 and wait until 1701 before resuming one's
journey.

No! You will almost certainly be run over by someone trying to park on the pavement!

Adrian Boliston said:

Quoted message said:

The worst time for cyclists is 1700 on Fridays.....

Quoted message said:

Great! This is *just* what I want to hear as I put on my bicycle clips in preparation for my
commute home!

Either leave early or have a cup of tea first :-)

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

"Jeremy Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For cyclists, Fri at 1700 might be the best time to ride, because cycling tends to be safer when
there are more bikes on the road.

Depends *what* type of cyclists! Many of the ones round here are a safety *hazard* rather than a
safety enhancer!

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote > Oh, VERY good. You're completely distorting the
very sensible RAC

Quoted message said:

statement, from "increased speeds" to "speeding".

When you see "increased speeds" and "hazard perception" in the same sentence, it would be an
excellent bet that the sort of "increased speeds" being discussed are those which are
inappropriate for the conditions.

No, I think the RAC man was equating higher speeds with higher danger. Seems sensible to me. There
was a BBC programme during the week that made this point too.

And 'speeding' does not necessarily mean breaking the speed limit. Your interpretation is
too narrow.

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<blahblahblah>

The word speed was mentioned once in the whole damn thing, and the silly genie pops out of
his bottle.

Surely according to you its not possible for them to go faster AND pay less attention.

Paul Smith said:

Oh, VERY good. You're completely distorting the very sensible RAC statement, from "increased
speeds" to "speeding".

My comment was entirely appropriate in context. The RAC bloke was clearly equating higher speeds
with greater hazard, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it. And neither would I. How many miles
have you ridden on your bike this week?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Peter Clinch said:

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter said:

Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception." in
the article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to go have a lie down in a quiet room
with padded wall and bars on the window? ;-)

I would guess at "no"... He does, after all, Know It All Already (and anything he doesn't (sic) he
can work out from a "thought" experiment rendered 100% perfect by his Advanced Driving
instruction).

Don't forget there will be a number of graphs to back it all up.

JohnB

Peter Clinch said:

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter said:

Indeed, will the quote of "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard perception." in
the article mean a certain PS is forced, through shock, to go have a lie down in a quiet room
with padded wall and bars on the window? ;-)

I would guess at "no"... He does, after all, Know It All Already (and anything he doesn't (sic) he
can work out from a "thought" experiment rendered 100% perfect by his Advanced Driving
instruction).

Pete.

Don't forget there will be a graph, done in paint brush no doubt, as supporting evidence of some
spurious claim.

Daniel.

W K said:

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<blahblahblah>

Quoted message said:

The word speed was mentioned once in the whole damn thing, and the silly genie pops out of
his bottle.

You really are a complete [censored] aren't you?

I posted a basic clarification since some of the sillier posters in here had started a pathetic
little rain dance at my expense.

Quoted message said:

Surely according to you its not possible for them to go faster AND pay less attention.

Like the nice RAC man said, poor hazard perception frequently results in drivers failing to reduce
speed when necessary. This is entirely compatible with the important concept that drivers forced to
travel at lower than normal speeds tends to exhibit poor concentration.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

John B said:

Don't forget there will be a number of graphs to back it all up.

And no data grouped by stupid arbitrary criteria like "class of road" or "speed limit," either.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗ highwaycode.gov.uk09.shtmlOpen ↗

Paul Smith said:

ike the nice RAC man said, poor hazard perception frequently results in drivers failing to reduce
speed when necessary.

Actually what the nice RAC man said was "This can lead to increased speeds and lack of hazard
perception." That's verbatim. He quite clearly equates both with increased danger, or they would not
have been combined in a single sentence in that way.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Paul [email hidden] Smith of Scotland, UK wrote, and I sincerely hope in this order:

Quoted message said:

Let's make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving You really are a complete [censored]
aren't you?

I suppose that is not as bad-tempered as "bugger off", so it must be some sort of an improvement.
How would "High blood pressure kills" do for a road safety slogan?

I know it is not as catchy, but "Half mass times the square of speed kills."