Number 9

Mike Sales said:

"Matt B" wrote

Quoted message said:

Mike Sales wrote:

They [speed cameras] have increased road safety.

Do you have a reference to that, which shows that any positive effect is
not small and only extremely local to the camera, and is not largely due
to site selection, and that the negative effect is not widespread and
countrywide, in terms of lost opportunity due to the "cameraisation" of
the safety agenda.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the present risks of speeding do not outweigh the rewards, surely the
level of risk posed to the speeder by his or her behaviour needs to be
increased?

Or, increase the /perceived/ risk, by providing illusions of a narrower
road, or of increased pedestrian or cyclist activity, or whatever.

This, in conjunction with your comment about perceived acceptable risk leads
me to guess that you think that the road user can be conned into seeing more
risk when there is in fact less risk.

Not "conned" into seeing more risk when there is less risk, but left to
fairly and realistically see the /actual/ risk. That is to say that the
actual and present risks should not be masked by "safety" cues which
lead motorists tp perceive less risk than is actually the case.

Quoted message said:

People are rather better at risk
asssessment than that, if only empirically.

Exactly. Let them know the risk, and let them deal with it using the
excellent tools provided by nature. Do not screen motorists from the
risks by providing them with the illusion of safety provided by kerbs,
lanes, lines, signs and signals. Let them negotiate, as equals, with
each other road user, for each separate encounter.

Quoted message said:

I am also amused a your illusion
of increased pedestrian or cyclist activity. Would these be animatronic
dummies, or just cardboard cut outs?

A better way of putting it would be to say that the level of activity
should be exposed for what it is, rather than "hidden" behind railings,
inside cycle lanes, by "red men" at crossings, etc. Expose the
motorists to the real risks - they will then have to take appropriate care.

--
Matt B

On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:07:27 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

A better way of putting it would be to say that the level of activity
should be exposed for what it is, rather than "hidden" behind railings,
inside cycle lanes, by "red men" at crossings, etc. Expose the
motorists to the real risks - they will then have to take appropriate care.

The early history of motoring had none of the modern road safety
engineering you describe above. Yet the carnage was massive. (9200
deaths in 1941) The lack of these devices didn't work then, and it
won't work now.

Quoted message said:

The early history of motoring had none of the modern road safety
engineering you describe above. Yet the carnage was massive. (9200
deaths in 1941) The lack of these devices didn't work then, and it
won't work now.

Did they have a blackout then? I think you're making an argument for good
headlights and streetlighting.

"Matt B" >

Quoted message said:

Not "conned" into seeing more risk when there is less risk, but left to
fairly and realistically see the /actual/ risk. That is to say that the
actual and present risks should not be masked by "safety" cues which lead
motorists tp perceive less risk than is actually the case.

Quoted message said:

People are rather better at risk
asssessment than that, if only empirically.

Exactly. Let them know the risk, and let them deal with it using the
excellent tools provided by nature. Do not screen motorists from the
risks by providing them with the illusion of safety provided by kerbs,
lanes, lines, signs and signals. Let them negotiate, as equals, with each
other road user, for each separate encounter.

Quoted message said:

I am also amused a your illusion
of increased pedestrian or cyclist activity. Would these be animatronic
dummies, or just cardboard cut outs?

A better way of putting it would be to say that the level of activity
should be exposed for what it is, rather than "hidden" behind railings,
inside cycle lanes, by "red men" at crossings, etc. Expose the motorists
to the real risks - they will then have to take appropriate care.

The point I tried to make earlier was that the risk seen by motorists of an
encounter with more vulnerable users is less than the risk seen bu the VU in
the same encounter. Realistically and accurately. This does affect their
respective behaviour and the result is that motors clain the available road
space first by and in order to drive faster. I suggested that exposing them
to the real risk they pose to others could be best acheived by making them
equally vulnerable physically. Failing that we have to inctrease their risk
exposure by legal penalties.

Mike Sales

Mike Sales.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qfbli4-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No - simply illustrating how absurd the idea is. If they aren't
continuously moved about, everyone will know where they all are again
after a short time.

So you think moving cameras every hour would be necessary to outwit
drivers?

The simplest thing to do would be to do what my local constabulary do:
have
the camera mounted in an unmarked white van, which is driven from site to
site. No problems with moving it, no problems with vandalism, no
significant problems with drivers knowing to expect it.

If you send a text to (I believe) 81066 in West Yorkshire with the word
"where?" they will very helpfully text back the location of their mobile
speed cameras. If I'm wrong I'll post the correct number and keyword
tomorrow - because this information is on the rear of most local buses
here - today I've seen almost no buses.

Absurd, stupid and quite obviousely pro speed, pro motorist. In my view.

John
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

Mike Sales said:

Quoted message said:

The point I tried to make earlier was that the risk seen by motorists of an
encounter with more vulnerable users is less than the risk seen bu the VU in
the same encounter.

Not necessarily. "Risk" can include, not only risk of injury, but also
risk of loss of "reputation" and loss of respect. Why do strong young
men give-way to weak old women on the pavement and in shop doorways?

Quoted message said:

Realistically and accurately. This does affect their
respective behaviour and the result is that motors clain the available road
space first by and in order to drive faster.

Turn the tables and you'll see exactly the same behaviour from
pedestrians at zebra crossings. This behaviour results from percption
of having priority. Remove the perception of priority and the behaviour
will change.

Quoted message said:

I suggested that exposing them
to the real risk they pose to others could be best acheived by making them
equally vulnerable physically.

Not actually necessary, simply remove their actual, and perceived priority.

Quoted message said:

Failing that we have to inctrease their risk
exposure by legal penalties.

No. Try some of the more sustainable measures first. Legal sanctions
should be the very last resort - required only to deal with deliberate
and wanton anti-social acts.

--
Matt B

Paul Boyd twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

The road charging one got well over 2 million signatures, and look how
much notice was taken of that! I'd already decided that the whole PM
petition thing is just to give the impression of listening, but actually
to just ignore what people think as usual.

It could be worse. They could be using it to enable us "trouble makers"
to identify ourselves so that we can be some of the first against the
wall(s)? A more technologically advanced version of "Let A Thousand
Flowers Bloom, Let a Thousand Schools of Thought Contend" you might say!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Marc Brett said:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:07:27 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

A better way of putting it would be to say that the level of activity
should be exposed for what it is, rather than "hidden" behind railings,
inside cycle lanes, by "red men" at crossings, etc. Expose the
motorists to the real risks - they will then have to take appropriate care.

The early history of motoring had none of the modern road safety
engineering you describe above.

Traffic lights were in use in London in the 1860s, long before cars were
generally available. Road signs standards existed before 1910. White
lines were first used in the 1920s. The current 30 mph speed limit
system came in the 1930s. Zebra crossings came about in the early 1950s.

Quoted message said:

Yet the carnage was massive. (9200
deaths in 1941) The lack of these devices didn't work then, and it
won't work now.

They have been with us for most of the history of the car. Time to try
something different. Something that works - perhaps?

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Mike Sales

(') said:

"Matt B" wrote

Quoted message said:

Mike Sales wrote:
>>> I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them to
>>> random points on the road network.
>> Why? Move them every day? Every hour - how often? Dig-up the post,
>> the under-road stuff, each move?
> Reductio ad absurdam (?)
No - simply illustrating how absurd the idea is. If they aren't
continuously moved about, everyone will know where they all are again
after a short time.

So you think moving cameras every hour would be necessary to outwit
drivers?

The simplest thing to do would be to do what my local constabulary do: have
the camera mounted in an unmarked white van, which is driven from site to
site. No problems with moving it, no problems with vandalism, no
significant problems with drivers knowing to expect it.

Except if you go to the same site too often (more than twice every three
months, IIRC), then you are required to put a notice up saying that the
law will be enforced.

A

in message <[email hidden]>, Ambrose Nankivell

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Mike Sales

(') said:

"Matt B" wrote
> Mike Sales wrote:
>>>> I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them
>>>> to random points on the road network.
>>> Why? Move them every day? Every hour - how often? Dig-up the
>>> post, the under-road stuff, each move?
>> Reductio ad absurdam (?)
> No - simply illustrating how absurd the idea is. If they aren't
> continuously moved about, everyone will know where they all are again
> after a short time.
So you think moving cameras every hour would be necessary to outwit
drivers?

The simplest thing to do would be to do what my local constabulary do:
have the camera mounted in an unmarked white van, which is driven from
site to site. No problems with moving it, no problems with vandalism, no
significant problems with drivers knowing to expect it.

Except if you go to the same site too often (more than twice every three
months, IIRC), then you are required to put a notice up saying that the
law will be enforced.

That's all right. They have /lots/ of those notices.

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

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Ambrose Nankivell

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Mike Sales
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> "Matt B" wrote
>> Mike Sales wrote:
>>>>> I want to strip that silly yellow paint off them and relocate them
>>>>> to random points on the road network.
>>>> Why? Move them every day? Every hour - how often? Dig-up the
>>>> post, the under-road stuff, each move?
>>> Reductio ad absurdam (?)
>> No - simply illustrating how absurd the idea is. If they aren't
>> continuously moved about, everyone will know where they all are again
>> after a short time.
> So you think moving cameras every hour would be necessary to outwit
> drivers?

The simplest thing to do would be to do what my local constabulary do:
have the camera mounted in an unmarked white van, which is driven from
site to site. No problems with moving it, no problems with vandalism, no
significant problems with drivers knowing to expect it.

Except if you go to the same site too often (more than twice every three
months, IIRC), then you are required to put a notice up saying that the
law will be enforced.

That's all right. They have /lots/ of those notices.

yup they leave the notices up all the time, for the big open dual
carrage ways they have the vans parked up on.

though the ones i see, and i have no points, have markings.

roger

Matt B' wrote Mike Sales said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point I tried to make earlier was that the risk seen by motorists of
an encounter with more vulnerable users is less than the risk seen bu the
VU in the same encounter.

Not necessarily. "Risk" can include, not only risk of injury, but also
risk of loss of "reputation" and loss of respect. Why do strong young men
give-way to weak old women on the pavement and in shop doorways?

Quoted message said:

Realistically and accurately. This does affect their respective behaviour
and the result is that motors clain the available road space first by and
in order to drive faster.

Turn the tables and you'll see exactly the same behaviour from pedestrians
at zebra crossings. This behaviour results from percption of having
priority. Remove the perception of priority and the behaviour will
change.

Quoted message said:

I suggested that exposing them to the real risk they pose to others could
be best acheived by making them equally vulnerable physically.

Not actually necessary, simply remove their actual, and perceived
priority.

Quoted message said:

Failing that we have to inctrease their risk exposure by legal penalties.

No. Try some of the more sustainable measures first. Legal sanctions
should be the very last resort - required only to deal with deliberate and
wanton anti-social acts.

Like driving aggressively?

Mike Sales

Mike Sales wrote on 08/06/2007 19:39 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Matt B' wrote Mike Sales said:

Legal sanctions
should be the very last resort - required only to deal with deliberate and
wanton anti-social acts.

Like driving aggressively?

No like troll wrestling.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:57:16 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett said:

The PM's Highway Code petition, with 18,469 signatures, is now the 9th
most popular petition. Fantastic!

If you expect them to comply with the demands in a petition because it
is at number 9, would you support them complying with the demands of the
petition currently at number 8?

I'm in favour of number 8 now! :-)