Re: baffling

(Steve Firth) said:

Brimstone said:

A woman who suffers a clinical fear of driving was yesterday facing a ban
after police caught her crawling down a motorway at - 10mph.

But spindrift and Crispin assure us that the slower one drives the safer
it is for everyone. The court must have it wrong considering a driving
ban for a safe driver like this.

She ought to go to the A27 and drive at 10mph to improve the standard of
road safety there.

Motorways, who cares, raise the limit, there's no cyclists or peds
there.

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
casualties a year.

The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target (about a sixth of the
overall speed related casualty figure) is a 'reasonable minimum' to
aim for.

http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1.html

spindrift said:

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
casualties a year.

You haven't thought about this one, have you?
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

SteveH ([email hidden] (SteveH)) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
casualties a year.

Quoted message said:

You haven't thought about this one, have you?

There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of accidents
as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious action'"

http://www.newspress.co.uk/np-protected/releases/
arc_dec_2007/211207racf.htm

Adrian (Adrian <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of accidents
as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious action'"

<notices embargo>
Ooops. Please don't click on the link until Monday. Thanks.

Adrian said:

Adrian (Adrian <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of accidents
as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious action'"

<notices embargo>
Ooops. Please don't click on the link until Monday. Thanks.

For every 1% reduction in average traffic speed, crashes reduce by an
average of 5% (Taylor et al, TRL 421, 2000).

Most drivers think they are both safer and more skilful than the
average driver, yet in 95% of accidents human error, mainly unsafe
driving practices, is the major cause.

http://www.rospa.com/drivertraining/courses/advanced_tests/car.htm

Drivers like to blame the weather, the road, speed cameras, bra
adverts, anything and everything but the idiot driver who takes stupid
risks by speeding or whatever. Cyclists being exposed to this danger
have a greater desire to remove it, hence the scorn and derision
heaped upon Paul "road safety expert" Smith.

spindrift said:

Adrian said:

Adrian (Adrian <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of accidents
as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious action'"

<notices embargo>
Ooops. Please don't click on the link until Monday. Thanks.

For every 1% reduction in average traffic speed, crashes reduce by an
average of 5% (Taylor et al, TRL 421, 2000).

That's manipulating the statistics to make them say what you want them
to say.

Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than driving at
30mph?
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

SteveH said:

spindrift said:

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction
in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500
serious casualties a year.

You haven't thought about this one, have you?

He never does.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record sprint mongrel
Huissoon project bike (in bits, natch)

mb said:

SteveH said:

spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction
in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500
serious casualties a year.

Quoted message said:

You haven't thought about this one, have you?

He never does.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record sprint mongrel
Huissoon project bike (in bits, natch)

The results, when speed limits are enforced, are tremendously
encouraging:

The first three 20 mph zones in the UK were implemented in January
1991. Five years later, the Transport Research Laboratory reviewed the
results from 250 zones in England, Wales and Scotland. The average
speed in these areas was reduced by 9 mph. The total number of crashes
fell by 60 per cent., and the number of accidents involving children
fell by 67 per cent. The number of crashes involving cyclists also
fell, by 27 per cent. In 2003, the Health Development Agency called
for a reduction in the speed limit to 20 mph on residential streets.
It estimated that that would reduce child deaths and injuries by a
massive 67 per cent.--or 13,000 children--each year.

One council that has led the way is Hull city council, which has
introduced 20 mph zones on a quarter of its roads. There has been a 74
per cent. reduction in the number of crashes involving child
pedestrians, and a 69 per cent. reduction in child cycle collisions in
the three years since the zones' introduction, compared with the three
before the speed limit changed.

The overall number of collisions in Hull has been reduced by 56 per
cent., and there has been a 90 per cent. reduction in serious or fatal
injury collisions.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070227/debtext/70227-0004.htm

It also discourages driving, more people walk and cycle, the benefits
spiral outwards.

SteveH said:

spindrift said:

Adrian said:

Adrian (Adrian <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of
> accidents as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious action'"

<notices embargo>
Ooops. Please don't click on the link until Monday. Thanks.

For every 1% reduction in average traffic speed, crashes reduce by an
average of 5% (Taylor et al, TRL 421, 2000).

That's manipulating the statistics to make them say what you want them
to say.

Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than driving at
30mph?

All other things being equal, certainly yes. How could it be otherwise?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.

SteveH said:

Quoted message said:

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
casualties a year.

You haven't thought about this one, have you?

So a 20mph reduction in speed would eliminate all death from the roads,
eh? And this woman driving at 10mph is obviously dedicated to saving as
many lives as possible.

Heck those pesky magistrates got it all wrong again.

(SteveH) said:

spindrift said:

Adrian said:

Adrian (Adrian <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of accidents
> as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious action'"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<notices embargo>
Ooops. Please don't click on the link until Monday. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

For every 1% reduction in average traffic speed, crashes reduce by an
average of 5% (Taylor et al, TRL 421, 2000).

That's manipulating the statistics to make them say what you want them
to say.

Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than driving at
30mph?
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'www..italiancar.co.uk- Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Of course.

You understand basic physics:

Force (N) = mass (kg) × acceleration (m/s2)

spindrift said:

Quoted message said:

Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than driving at
30mph?

Quoted message said:

Of course.

You understand basic physics:

Force (N) = mass (kg) â—Š acceleration (m/s2)

Go-on, then.

If you're so clever, please tell us all what difference there will be in
the acceleration rate of a person hit by a car doing 29mph rather than
30mph.

Obviously, you've failed to take into account the error tolerances in
all these calculations, which mean that a 1mph decrease in speed isn't
actually a measurable difference.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

SteveH said:

spindrift said:

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
casualties a year.

You haven't thought about this one, have you?

He hasn't thought about anything. Ever.

--
"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
and presumptuous desire for a second one."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

(SteveH) said:

spindrift said:

Quoted message said:

Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than driving at
30mph?

Of course.

Quoted message said:

You understand basic physics:

Quoted message said:

Force (N) = mass (kg) â—Š acceleration (m/s2)

Go-on, then.

If you're so clever, please tell us all what difference there will be in
the acceleration rate of a person hit by a car doing 29mph rather than
30mph.

Obviously, you've failed to take into account the error tolerances in
all these calculations, which mean that a 1mph decrease in speed isn't
actually a measurable difference.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'www..italiancar.co.uk- Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Mass?

Use the formula.

spindrift said:

(SteveH) said:

spindrift said:

> Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than driving at
> 30mph?
Of course.

Quoted message said:

You understand basic physics:

Quoted message said:

Force (N) = mass (kg) â—Š acceleration (m/s2)

Go-on, then.

If you're so clever, please tell us all what difference there will be in
the acceleration rate of a person hit by a car doing 29mph rather than
30mph.

Obviously, you've failed to take into account the error tolerances in
all these calculations, which mean that a 1mph decrease in speed isn't
actually a measurable difference.

Mass?

Use the formula.

The formula doesn't really help.

If you can find a way to show a significant difference using the
formula, please enlighten us.

However, the 1mph difference in the speed of the car could easily be
compensated for by the difference in speed of other objects hit.

--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

spindrift (spindrift <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than
> driving at 30mph?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course.

You understand basic physics:

Force (N) = mass (kg) â—Š acceleration (m/s2)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Go-on, then.

If you're so clever, please tell us all what difference there will be
in the acceleration rate of a person hit by a car doing 29mph rather
than 30mph.

Obviously, you've failed to take into account the error tolerances in
all these calculations, which mean that a 1mph decrease in speed isn't
actually a measurable difference.

Quoted message said:

Mass?

Use the formula.

This gets funnier by the post.

(SteveH) said:

spindrift said:

(SteveH) said:

spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than driving at
> > 30mph?
> Of course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You understand basic physics:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Force (N) = mass (kg) â—Š acceleration (m/s2)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Go-on, then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're so clever, please tell us all what difference there will be in
the acceleration rate of a person hit by a car doing 29mph rather than
30mph.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Obviously, you've failed to take into account the error tolerances in
all these calculations, which mean that a 1mph decrease in speed isn't
actually a measurable difference.

Quoted message said:

Mass?

Quoted message said:

Use the formula.

The formula doesn't really help.

If you can find a way to show a significant difference using the
formula, please enlighten us.

However, the 1mph difference in the speed of the car could easily be
compensated for by the difference in speed of other objects hit.

--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'www..italiancar.co.uk- Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Someone send out for a 16 year old school pupil:

You need to understand the science behind why the impact of a car
travelling at 40mph upon a pedestrian is about four times more likely
to kill the pedestrian than an impact with the same cart at 30mph.

To do this pupils need to become familiar and confident in their
application of the equation 1/2 mv2

http://www.upd8.org.uk/activity.php?actid=164&action=rev

spindrift (spindrift <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

To do this pupils need to become familiar and confident in their
application of the equation 1/2 mv2

Finally, we get to a different - and this time correct - equation.

Shame it assumes neither driver or pedestrian are paying any attention,
and that therefore the collision is inevitable.

ITYF that Paul Smith was completely in agreement with the majority of
u.r.d in saying that the focus, shared by you, on speed instead of
attention is what causes collisions.

(Steve Firth) said:

SteveH said:

Quoted message said:

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
casualties a year.

Quoted message said:

You haven't thought about this one, have you?

So a 20mph reduction in speed would eliminate all death from the roads,
eh? And this woman driving at 10mph is obviously dedicated to saving as
many lives as possible.

Heck those pesky magistrates got it all wrong again.

No to both. You run out of road behaviour to check. 5% of RTAs aren't
the driver's fault.

Eliminating all deaths from the roads is what Sweden are attempting
though, with astounding success:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/635/