Slagging off cyclists article.

In article <[email hidden]>, Sir
Jeremy

Quoted message said:

Paul Smith is a widely quoted and well respected road safety
campaigner and you are an anonymous lunatic who posts anti-motorist
hate and drivel on cycling websites.

Oh the irony. Get back in my killfile.

spindrift said:

Quote:
...

"We all know that exceeding the speed limit isn't automatically
dangerous."

Classic schoolboy howler...

Whether observing the speed limit ensures safety, or not, depends upon
how closely the arbitrary speed limit in force at the given time in the
given place matches all the other relevant factors to do with /safety/
at that time and place. Amongst the relevant factors are: the vehicle's
condition and handling characteristics, the driver's skill, experience,
and alertness, the weather and visibility, the road surface and its
condition, the road geometry and sight-lines, the presence of other road
users and their relevant characteristics, the proximity of schools,
houses, playgrounds, etc., and the likelihood of a other road users
being on the same bit of road that the the driver in question would like
to use.

So what we certainly /can/ say is that observing the speed limit doesn't
automatically ensure safety.

Surely we can /also/ say the opposite.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

spindrift said:

Quote:
...

"We all know that exceeding the speed limit isn't automatically
dangerous."

Classic schoolboy howler...

Whether observing the speed limit ensures safety, or not, depends upon
how closely the arbitrary speed limit in force at the given time in the
given place matches all the other relevant factors to do with /safety/
at that time and place. Amongst the relevant factors are: the vehicle's
condition and handling characteristics, the driver's skill, experience,
and alertness, the weather and visibility, the road surface and its
condition, the road geometry and sight-lines, the presence of other road
users and their relevant characteristics, the proximity of schools,
houses, playgrounds, etc., and the likelihood of a other road users
being on the same bit of road that the the driver in question would like
to use.

So what we certainly /can/ say is that observing the speed limit doesn't
automatically ensure safety.

Surely we can /also/ say the opposite.

In any case, aren't the decisions about what speed limits go where made
by roughly the same bunch of clueless morons who design cycle
facilities?

Cycle facilities are not compulsory, but I would ignore many of them
even if they were. Speed limits are no different in principle. In
practice more of them are sensible, and that influences how you weigh
the information content they provide, but there's nothing to be gained
from obeying the letter of every single one except perhaps an elevated
sense of sanctimoniousness.

Ben C said:

Matt B said:

spindrift wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quote:
...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"We all know that exceeding the speed limit isn't automatically
dangerous."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Classic schoolboy howler...

Quoted message said:

Whether observing the speed limit ensures safety, or not, depends upon
how closely the arbitrary speed limit in force at the given time in the
given place matches all the other relevant factors to do with /safety/
at that time and place. Amongst the relevant factors are: the vehicle's
condition and handling characteristics, the driver's skill, experience,
and alertness, the weather and visibility, the road surface and its
condition, the road geometry and sight-lines, the presence of other road
users and their relevant characteristics, the proximity of schools,
houses, playgrounds, etc., and the likelihood of a other road users
being on the same bit of road that the the driver in question would like
to use.

Quoted message said:

So what we certainly /can/ say is that observing the speed limit doesn't
automatically ensure safety.

Quoted message said:

Surely we can /also/ say the opposite.

In any case, aren't the decisions about what speed limits go where made
by roughly the same bunch of clueless morons who design cycle
facilities?

Cycle facilities are not compulsory, but I would ignore many of them
even if they were. Speed limits are no different in principle. In
practice more of them are sensible, and that influences how you weigh
the information content they provide, but there's nothing to be gained
from obeying the letter of every single one except perhaps an elevated
sense of sanctimoniousness.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"there's nothing to be gained
from obeying the letter of every single one except perhaps an
elevated
sense of sanctimoniousness. "

Other road users or residents' concerns don't bother you?

You agree with Smith that KSI rates are the only reliable yardstick to
monitor the impact of speeding?

Noise, aggression and terrifying other road users doesn't count?

This is the blind self-centred nature of that silly campaign, Smith
admits it is car-centric so no other opinions count.

CRASHES ARE NOT THE ONLY NEGATIVE ASPECT OF SPEEDING.

spindrift said:

[Quoting Ben C <[email hidden]>]

Quoted message said:

"there's nothing to be gained
from obeying the letter of every single one except perhaps an
elevated
sense of sanctimoniousness. "

Other road users or residents' concerns don't bother you?

It depends what their basis is. If they are concerned about road
safety, then we know that disobeying speed limits is a factor in very
few collisions, and that a drivers choice of speed is based largely on
what the road situation "says", rather than what the speed limit is, so
concerns about speed limits are probably misguided if that /is/ the concern.

If the concern /is/ road safety then the request should be for _safer
roads_, not for a particular discredited measure.

Quoted message said:

You agree with [[censored]] that KSI rates are the only reliable yardstick to
monitor the impact of speeding?

Given that they are the yardstick used to introduce them, what do you
suggest as a suitable measure to monitor whether they have been
effective at tackling their reason for being???

Quoted message said:

Noise, aggression and terrifying other road users doesn't count?

If they are the issues, then the request should be to tackle those, and
then, perhaps, appropriate measures might be contemplated.

Quoted message said:

CRASHES ARE NOT THE ONLY NEGATIVE ASPECT OF SPEEDING.

In fact, crashes are rarely caused by speeding. Crashes are more often
caused by the inappropriate use of speed, a problem *exacerbated* by the
presence of speed limits.

--
Matt B

In article <[email hidden]>, Matt B
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In fact, crashes are rarely caused by speeding. Crashes are more often
caused by the inappropriate use of speed, a problem *exacerbated* by the
presence of speed limits.

I'm inclined to agree with that, except that if speed limits were
removed there would be a tendency for more people to go faster, with the
result that they would be more likely to exceed their abilities, with
the obvious unfortunate consequences.

spindrift said:

Quoted message said:

Other road users or residents' concerns don't bother you?

No , just so long as they keep out of my way

Quoted message said:

Noise, aggression and terrifying other road users doesn't count?

No, hold Mummys hand a bit tighter if you're worried

Quoted message said:

CRASHES ARE NOT THE ONLY NEGATIVE ASPECT OF SPEEDING.-

Well, some people can get travel sickness, so slowing down a bit on
the bends can help that.

Nick said:

Sir Jeremy said:

Paul Smith is a widely quoted and well respected road safety
campaigner and you are an anonymous lunatic who posts anti-motorist
hate and drivel on cycling websites.

Curious, Paul has always appeared to be a total idiot to me. Do you have
any references to any academics or road safety professionals respecting
him?

Well respected by ordinary people, eg long article in the Telegraph
last Saturday, for exposing the lies and distortions of the
politicians, academics and road safety "professionals" whatever they
are.

Ben C said:

Matt B said:

spindrift wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quote:
...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"We all know that exceeding the speed limit isn't automatically
dangerous."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Classic schoolboy howler...

Quoted message said:

Whether observing the speed limit ensures safety, or not, depends upon
how closely the arbitrary speed limit in force at the given time in the
given place matches all the other relevant factors to do with /safety/
at that time and place. Amongst the relevant factors are: the vehicle's
condition and handling characteristics, the driver's skill, experience,
and alertness, the weather and visibility, the road surface and its
condition, the road geometry and sight-lines, the presence of other road
users and their relevant characteristics, the proximity of schools,
houses, playgrounds, etc., and the likelihood of a other road users
being on the same bit of road that the the driver in question would like
to use.

Quoted message said:

So what we certainly /can/ say is that observing the speed limit doesn't
automatically ensure safety.

Quoted message said:

Surely we can /also/ say the opposite.

In any case, aren't the decisions about what speed limits go where made
by roughly the same bunch of clueless morons who design cycle
facilities?

Cycle facilities are not compulsory, but I would ignore many of them
even if they were. Speed limits are no different in principle. In
practice more of them are sensible, and that influences how you weigh
the information content they provide, but there's nothing to be gained
from obeying the letter of every single one except perhaps an elevated
sense of sanctimoniousness.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

which is shown by many people on this ng

Sir Jeremy said:

Nick said:

Sir Jeremy said:

Paul Smith is a widely quoted and well respected road safety
campaigner and you are an anonymous lunatic who posts anti-motorist
hate and drivel on cycling websites.

Curious, Paul has always appeared to be a total idiot to me. Do you have
any references to any academics or road safety professionals respecting
him?

Well respected by ordinary people, eg long article in the Telegraph
last Saturday, for exposing the lies and distortions of the
politicians, academics and road safety "professionals" whatever they
are.

So what you are saying is that Paul Smith is a self appointed religious
leader who denies the arguments of scientists and engineers who have
training and qualifications in road safety.

This is shown in his website where the ex computer engineer surrounds
himself with people who praise and worship him, and he won't allow any
dissent.

Are you one of his disciples?

Sir Jeremy said:

spindrift said:

Other road users or residents' concerns don't bother you?

No , just so long as they keep out of my way

Thank you. That says everything about you I need to know.

--
Dave...

Sir Jeremy said:

Nick said:

Sir Jeremy said:

Paul Smith is a widely quoted and well respected road safety
campaigner and you are an anonymous lunatic who posts anti-motorist
hate and drivel on cycling websites.

Curious, Paul has always appeared to be a total idiot to me. Do you have
any references to any academics or road safety professionals respecting
him?

Well respected by ordinary people, eg long article in the Telegraph
last Saturday, for exposing the lies and distortions of the
politicians, academics and road safety "professionals" whatever they
are.

What I was looking for was someone with a professional reputation at
stake endorsing Paul's views. Not a hack knocking out some [censored] for the
Sunday paper.

Paul clearly has no knowledge of statistics and he plays to an audience
that is equally as prejudiced and ignorant.

dkahn400 said:

Thank you. That says everything about you I need to know.

As if you didn't already know ...

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the
behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope,
haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures." (T.S.Eliot)

Don Whybrow said:

dkahn400 said:

Thank you. That says everything about you I need to know.

As if you didn't already know ...

True enough, but no harm in spelling it out.

--
Dave...

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Matt B
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In fact, crashes are rarely caused by speeding. Crashes are more often
caused by the inappropriate use of speed, a problem *exacerbated* by the
presence of speed limits.

I'm inclined to agree with that, except that if speed limits were
removed there would be a tendency for more people to go faster, with the
result that they would be more likely to exceed their abilities, with
the obvious unfortunate consequences.

probably yes, though the narrow lanes that are nr my folks are 60 limit,
but most folks keep to 20/30 at most, little bit faster at night but not
much. it's rare to meet any one going too fast, most tend to be slower
than faster, worried the walls and trees will damadge their cars i
guess.

but the lanes are untypical in that it's allmost all ways local traffic,
though the work of sustrans means that the new danger of sustrans
cyclist is there.

last "oh [censored]" moment was when i met a family coming down though the
lanes who very nearly hit my stationary car, coming down way to fast for
their abilty to stop. had i been moving the son could well of been dead.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Tony Raven said:

In article <1i7cs42.vd36yp1094s7uN%
[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

You need to order another 10 pigs.

Like Tony, I set my cruise control on the motorway to 70 mph. Even so, I
still end up spending a lot of time in lanes 2 and 3, not just because
of lorries but also because I overtake a lot of slower moving cars.

I find that too but I find the situation reverses if there is e.g. a
50mph section for roadworks (top of the M3 at present) or the variable
speed section of the M25. I set the cruise control at 50mph and
everything overtakes me.

i tend to drive at 45/50 ish at that part of the M3, the cars that pass
are doing a fair bit more, they seem to brake past the cameras to my
speed but then speed up, even though their average speed...

probably are speedo's are out enought that they don't get done, but it's
bloody silly driving any way.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com