Unlikely Ally

W K said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be lessened if the speed of cars
is reduced, something he is against.

Actually for the last year on record (2001) it was 107.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Death and injury would certainly be lessened if the speed of traffic was reduced in exactly the
right places.

Quoted message said:

Like at the precise place a kid steps out?

Yes. A places of danger. Each year about 75,000 child pedestrians are involved in incidents with
cars. 107 died in the last year on record. Many of those who dies were killed by lawless drivers,
escaping criminals, drunks and reckless folk.

The rest of us do a pretty fair job of making incidents survivable. I take the fact that we do a
"pretty fair job" as excellent evidence of where to make the improvements to do an even better job.

To get fewer dead child pedestrians we must look at what we're doing right and do more of it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speed cameras and speed enforcement generally appear to reduce the speeds of traffic in exactly
the wrong places.

Quoted message said:

How would you know. You don't drive in places with speed cameras apart from on holiday.

I know because I study it.

Quoted message said:

The nearest one to me probably stops the odd shunt but saves no lives. At least it saves on
insurance, congestion and police time.

It's more complex.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that should
be encouraged and nurtured.

Quoted message said:

rubbish. People avoid accidents they expect. If they cannot avoid accidents they expect then its
not an accident its recklessness.

The average driver would go about 7 years between accidents. 100 years between injury accidents.
1,000 years between serious injury accidents and 10,000 years between fatalities. That's a fair
score we can improve on. After all the UK roads are the safest in the world.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

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

Quoted message said:

Your description of the use of a road does not match any traffic surveys I've ever read.

In general we get at least 85% of vehicles travelling at "safe speeds" which leads to traffic
engineers using the "85th percentile rule" as an important design guide.

That's not to say that we don't have a percentage of drivers exceeding safe limits. We do, and
they need to be dealt with. But the percentage is pretty small.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

I'd point out that surveys only reflect the roads they are conducted on. To my knowledge there's
never been a survey done on this particular road, but the other point about surveys is that they
show a broad picture, not reality in a single location. Thus, whilst the survey may show the drivers
that speed are a 'pretty small' percentage, that will not hold true on every road. Some will have a
far greater proportion of drivers speeding, others will have far fewer.

Just because my description of the use of this road doesn't match with the surveys you have read,
doesn't make the use any less valid. A safe speed down a road such as I described would be anything
from 15-25mph at the most. Oddly enough, the majority choose to ignore this, and drive above the
current speed limit (which is 30), let alone *at* the speed limit. This I know first hand, after
making the policemen parked up by my house a coffee when they were checking speeds down it (many
years ago, now). The speeds haven't declined in those years, they have increased. They clocked one
car doing over 60, down the road, just as I described it.

Oh, and another road local to me is a 30mph for a long long stretch, but I would say 80% of the
people drive as if it were a 40mph limit. There's possibly 10% that drive at the limit, and easily
10% that drive over 40mph (usually up to about 50, I would guess). Again, that doesn't fit with your
survey, but that's what happens along it.

What I think would be a far better solution to speeding, rather than the speed cameras that everyone
seems to hate (but which I think are a good idea, and the more well hidden they are, the better!),
maybe every car should have a gps device fitted, which overlays the position onto a map containing
data such as the speed limit in force at that point. That could link to a mechanism to restrict the
speed of the vehicle such that it is then impossible to break the speed limit. Of course, that will
be universally hated by the majority of drivers, since it will then highlight to each and every one
of them just how often they used to speed, once they're not able to bend the rules to suit
themselves any more.

Velvet

In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:

Quoted message said:

What I think would be a far better solution to speeding, rather than the speed cameras that
everyone seems to hate (but which I think are a good idea, and the more well hidden they are, the
better!), maybe every car should have a gps device fitted, which overlays the position onto a map
containing data such as the speed limit in force at that point. That could link to a mechanism to
restrict the speed of the vehicle such that it is then impossible to break the speed
limit. Of course, that will be universally hated by the majority of drivers, since it will then
highlight to each and every one of them just how often they used to speed, once they're
not able to bend the rules to suit themselves any more.

What happens at, say, 'Spaghetti Junction' where a motorway (70 limit) crosses another motorway at
the (exact acc. to GPS) same spot as it crosses both a 40 limit road and a 30 limit road, all on
different vertical levels ?

Or where motorways cross normal roads and vice versa, or, like many places, 30 limit roads run
parallel, but underneath, urban motorways ?

It's a great idea, but I think unworkable in real life .. 😉

--

Completed 1581 Seti work units in 12041 hours setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edusetiathome.ssl.berkeley.eduOpen ↗

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:

Quoted message said:

What I think would be a far better solution to speeding, rather than the speed cameras that
everyone seems to hate (but which I think are a good idea, and the more well hidden they
are, the better!), maybe every car should have a gps device fitted, which overlays the
position onto a map containing data such as the speed limit in force at that point. That
could link to a mechanism to restrict the speed of the vehicle such that it is then
impossible to break the speed
limit. Of course, that will be universally hated by the majority of drivers, since it will then
highlight to each and every one of them just how often they used to speed, once they're
not able to bend the rules to suit themselves any more.

What happens at, say, 'Spaghetti Junction' where a motorway (70 limit) crosses another motorway at
the (exact acc. to GPS) same spot as it crosses both a 40 limit road and a 30 limit road, all on
different vertical levels ?

Or where motorways cross normal roads and vice versa, or, like many places, 30 limit roads run
parallel, but underneath, urban motorways ?

It's a great idea, but I think unworkable in real life .. 😉

--

Quoted message said:

Completed 1581 Seti work units in 12041 hours setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edusetiathome.ssl.berkeley.eduOpen ↗

In that instance, perhaps it could switch to road-side transponders - that would also allow for
adjustment of the limit (take priority over the gps info) locally, say, for roadworks. The
transponders could have a fixed range, and/or be directional. You wouldn't necessarily need to be
within reach of the signal of one constantly anyway, if you opted for the 'no change until told'
option, so you could have a blank area on the gps system, with speed set by transponders on the
approach to, and exit from, such an area...

Velvet

In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:

Quoted message said:

What I think would be a far better solution to speeding, rather than the speed cameras that
everyone seems to hate (but which I think are a good idea, and the more well hidden they
are, the better!), maybe every car should have a gps device fitted, which overlays the
position onto a map containing data such as the speed limit in force at that point. That
could link to a mechanism to restrict the speed of the vehicle such that it is then
impossible to break the speed
limit. Of course, that will be universally hated by the majority of drivers, since it will then
highlight to each and every one of them just how often they used to speed, once they're
not able to bend the rules to suit themselves any more.

What happens at, say, 'Spaghetti Junction' where a motorway (70
limit) crosses another motorway at the (exact acc. to GPS) same spot as it crosses both a 40
limit road and a 30 limit road, all on different vertical levels ?

Or where motorways cross normal roads and vice versa, or, like many places, 30 limit roads run
parallel, but underneath, urban motorways ?

It's a great idea, but I think unworkable in real life .. 😉

In that instance, perhaps it could switch to road-side transponders - that would also allow for
adjustment of the limit (take priority over the gps info) locally, say, for roadworks. The
transponders could have a fixed range, and/or be directional. You wouldn't necessarily need to be
within reach of the signal of one constantly anyway, if you opted for the 'no change until told'
option, so you could have a blank area on the gps system, with speed set by transponders on the
approach to, and exit from, such an area...

Getting a tad complicated .. Do you know of anywhere where this type of system already works ?

--

Completed 1581 Seti work units in 12041 hours setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edusetiathome.ssl.berkeley.eduOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:03:53 +0000 (UTC), "W K"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How would you know. You don't drive in places with speed cameras apart

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on holiday.

I know because I study it.

Aha, so actually Sherylin has about as much practical experience on the subject as you do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The nearest one to me probably stops the odd shunt but saves no lives.

At

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

least it saves on insurance, congestion and police time.

It's more complex.

Name one way in whichit is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that should
be encouraged and nurtured.

Quoted message said:

rubbish. People avoid accidents they expect. If they cannot avoid

accidents

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they expect then its not an accident its recklessness.

The average driver would go about 7 years between accidents. 100 years between injury accidents.
1,000 years between serious injury accidents and 10,000 years between fatalities. That's a fair
score we can improve on. After all the UK roads are the safest in the world.

So UK drivers are very good at missing most accidents. And you think you can squeeze improvements
out of them, then [censored] the advantage away by going faster.

W K said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How would you know. You don't drive in places with speed cameras apart from on holiday.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know because I study it.

Quoted message said:

Aha, so actually Sherylin has about as much practical experience on the subject as you do.

Hahahahaha!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The nearest one to me probably stops the odd shunt but saves no lives. At least it saves on
insurance, congestion and police time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's more complex.

Quoted message said:

Name one way in whichit is.

Effect on driver priorities.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that
> should be encouraged and nurtured.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rubbish. People avoid accidents they expect. If they cannot avoid accidents they expect then its
not an accident its recklessness.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The average driver would go about 7 years between accidents. 100 years between injury accidents.
1,000 years between serious injury accidents and 10,000 years between fatalities. That's a fair
score we can improve on. After all the UK roads are the safest in the world.

Quoted message said:

So UK drivers are very good at missing most accidents. And you think you can squeeze improvements
out of them, then [censored] the advantage away by going faster.

What make you think I want to "go faster"? I want to legitimise current safe practice, and start
real improvements in standards from here forwards.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

Simon Mason said:

In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage driver
Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:

Why should he be seen as a "Unlikely Ally"? If you regard the case as simply one of, assault with a
deadly weapon on a small child , then every person in the UK would no doubt be an ally.

--
Marc Tabards, banners and signs for fundraising events and charities
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

In message <[email hidden]>, Jon <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

But that was because he was a cretin, not because he was a motorist, or a petrol-head or whatever.

Well, it was because he was a motorist because he couldn't have done it unless he'd been in a car.
This doesn't stop him being a cretin, too.

I know what you meant ;-).
--
Michael MacClancy

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage
driver Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:

Why should he be seen as a "Unlikely Ally"? If you regard the case as simply one of, assault with
a deadly weapon on a small child , then every person in the UK would no doubt be an ally.

Mr Mason was probably expecting, even hoping, that the average motorist's response would be to side
with Carl Baxter, and say: "Yeah? So? F-cking cyclists. Shouldn't be on the road." It would have
made him feel superior.

I've been fortunate in that I've never had a significant collision with a car. The only near-miss
I've had was when some cretin gave me a rather sore arm with his wing mirror. But that was because
he was a cretin, not because he was a motorist, or a petrol-head or whatever.

Incidentally, why not dieselhead? Or are diesel cars safer because they're more practical and not
as much fun?

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

Quoted message said:

Mr Mason was probably expecting, even hoping, that the average motorist's response would be to
side with Carl Baxter, and say: "Yeah? So? F-cking cyclists. Shouldn't be on the road." It would
have made him feel

superior.

Then I suspect you have not read Simon's posts over a reasonable length of time. He is a regular and
respected poster here. I somehow doubt your senario has any merit.

Quoted message said:

I've been fortunate in that I've never had a significant collision with a car. The only near-miss
I've had was when some cretin gave me a rather

sore

Quoted message said:

arm with his wing mirror. But that was because he was a cretin, not

because

Quoted message said:

he was a motorist, or a petrol-head or whatever.

That has been the general drift of contributions here.

Quoted message said:

Incidentally, why not dieselhead? Or are diesel cars safer because

they're

Quoted message said:

more practical and not as much fun?

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:

> What I think would be a far better solution to speeding, rather than the speed cameras that
> everyone seems to hate (but which I think are a good idea, and the more well hidden they are,
> the better!), maybe every car should have a gps device fitted, which overlays the position
> onto a map containing data such as the speed limit in force at that point. That could link to
> a mechanism to restrict the speed of the vehicle such that it is then impossible to break the
> speed
> limit. Of course, that will be universally hated by the majority of drivers, since it will
> then highlight to each and every one of them just how often they used to speed, once
> they're not able to bend the rules to suit themselves any more.

What happens at, say, 'Spaghetti Junction' where a motorway (70
limit) crosses another motorway at the (exact acc. to GPS) same spot as it crosses both a 40
limit road and a 30 limit road, all on different vertical levels ?

Or where motorways cross normal roads and vice versa, or, like many places, 30 limit roads run
parallel, but underneath, urban motorways ?

It's a great idea, but I think unworkable in real life .. 😉

In that instance, perhaps it could switch to road-side transponders - that would also allow for
adjustment of the limit (take priority over the gps info) locally, say, for roadworks. The
transponders could have a fixed range, and/or be directional. You wouldn't necessarily need to
be within reach of the signal of one constantly anyway, if you opted for the 'no change until
told' option, so you could have a blank area on the gps system, with speed set by transponders
on the approach to, and exit from, such an area...

Getting a tad complicated .. Do you know of anywhere where this type of system already works ?

--

Quoted message said:

Completed 1581 Seti work units in 12041 hours setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edusetiathome.ssl.berkeley.eduOpen ↗

Oh, no, and I'd imagine it'd be quite complicated to put in, tbh. I just offered it as a potential
alternative to the problem of speeding and the rather (in my opinion) misplaced hatred most
motorists hold gatso cameras
in....

Velvet

In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...
> In a brief moment of lucidity Velvet scribbled:
>
>> What I think would be a far better solution to speeding, rather than the speed cameras that
>> everyone seems to hate (but which I think are a good idea, and the more well hidden they are,
>> the better!), maybe every car should have a gps device fitted, which overlays the position
>> onto a map containing data such as the speed limit in force at that point. That could link to
>> a mechanism to restrict the speed of the vehicle such that it is then impossible to break the
>> speed limit. Of course, that will be universally hated by the majority of drivers, since it
>> will then highlight to each and every one of them just how often they used to speed, once
>> they're not able to bend the rules to suit themselves any more.
>
> What happens at, say, 'Spaghetti Junction' where a motorway (70
> limit) crosses another motorway at the (exact acc. to GPS) same spot as it crosses both a 40
> limit road and a 30 limit road, all on different vertical levels ?
>
> Or where motorways cross normal roads and vice versa, or, like many places, 30 limit roads run
> parallel, but underneath, urban motorways ?
>
> It's a great idea, but I think unworkable in real life .. 😉

In that instance, perhaps it could switch to road-side transponders
- that would also allow for adjustment of the limit (take priority over the gps info) locally,
say, for roadworks. The transponders could have a fixed range, and/or be directional. You
wouldn't necessarily need to be within reach of the signal of one constantly anyway, if you
opted for the 'no change until told' option, so you could have a blank area on the gps system,
with speed set by transponders on the approach to, and exit from, such an area...

Getting a tad complicated .. Do you know of anywhere where this type of system already works ?

Oh, no, and I'd imagine it'd be quite complicated to put in, tbh. I just offered it as a potential
alternative to the problem of speeding and the rather (in my opinion) misplaced hatred most
motorists hold gatso cameras in....

Heheheh, no worries. I must admit to not being a total stranger to Gatso's and hand-held police
radar .. 🙁

--

Completed 1581 Seti work units in 12041 hours setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edusetiathome.ssl.berkeley.eduOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage
driver Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:

Why should he be seen as a "Unlikely Ally"? If you regard the case as simply one of, assault
with a deadly weapon on a small child , then every person in the UK would no doubt be an ally.

Mr Mason was probably expecting, even hoping, that the average motorist's response would be to
side with Carl Baxter, and say: "Yeah? So? F-cking cyclists. Shouldn't be on the road." It would
have made him feel superior.

My analogy was admittedly rather clumsy. Of course, every right thinking person would agree with
Mike Rutherford's column and my intention was not to provoke the response you describe, indeed I
would have posted it to a *motorist* NG if I'd wanted such comments from drivers wouldn't I? There
is no such post to uk.rec.driving.

My point was that if Mr Rutherford had been in charge of our local council then 25% of the city
streets would not be 20 mph. There would be no traffic calming or cameras and generally everything
would be geared to the car driver's progress at the expense of other road users.

Dozens of young kids like in the Baxter case would now be dead or badly injured, all because Mr
Rutherford and his like believe that as they are being fleeced already as drivers then any anti car
measures must be opposed.

He was rightly indignant at someone *deliberately* driving at a child, but seems to have blinkers on
when it comes to drivers hitting children accidentally at too high speeds every day.

Simon Mason

On 9 Apr 2003 12:55:31 -0700, Simon Mason scrawled: ) My analogy was admittedly rather clumsy. Of
course, every right ) thinking person would agree with Mike Rutherford's column

I'm not sure about that. His blanket statements about prison working, prison working, prison working
come straight from the Blunkettista manifesto. He seems to be using a tragic case where a custodial
sentence is reasonable to prop up prison as a cure-all in his last, badly written paragraph; or
possibly the underlying reasonableness of his case is just being obscured by his Evening-Standard
rhetoric. I'm surprised he stopped at "naive do-gooders" and didn't say "wishy-washy liberals."

As a driver, his anti-Baxter opinion does give us hope. As a human being, his lock-em-up stance
makes him a bit second rate. All very Daily Mail.

J-P
--
Came to a public meeting; the speaker got up and said; "If we let them in, they will steal our daily
bread": He was talking of you and me, my dear, he was talking of you and me.