Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Feb 16, 2020 19:30

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 09:49 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Rigpig wrote:
You are engaged in a points scoring pissing contest which is ultimately meaningless.


Thanks for bringing me to my senses, there, Rigpig. I'm was having a bit of fun, exploring human morals and thinking. Yet, it is a Darwinian instinct to prize the lives of children more highly than adults, so I still think that is a good trade-off. Also, heavy bollards are often used for risk adjustment, shifting risk from pedestrians to drivers, especially near schools, so these kind of trade-offs are being made in the real world. In fact, the two sides in these 'SafeSpeed' discussions could be summarised as those who wish to control drivers and those who want to drive unencumbered by controls, so this is an area where we should roam.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
basingwerk wrote:
In fact, the two sides in these 'SafeSpeed' discussions could be summarised as those who wish to control drivers and those who want to drive unencumbered by controls, so this is an area where we should roam.


That's not right about my perspective. I'd readily accept high degrees of control where ever I could believe in a genuine safety benefit. I happily accept (for example) tough action against impaired drivers.

The perception that I advocate "driving unencumbered by controls" is a result of a "bad control" being applied. I do advocate driving unencumbered by controls that have an overall negative effect. I'm quite sure you understand that this is a very different thing.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:48 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Rigpig wrote:
Do either of you actually think the decisions to build traffic calming measures ever get down into the weeds to the extent you are both arguing to, old life vs young life


Just a note to say that I have by chance found a reference to the very thing in the Stone Report.

STONE REPORT wrote:
For instance, there would be a case for replacing numbers of lives saved by the expectation of years of life saved: ambulances & fire-engines save mostly the elderly but humps save lives too, particularly of children.


So there is at least one emeritus professor of statistics who has independently considered the same issue, so it looks like (some people) do think of these things.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 13:26 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Pete317 wrote:
If you don't believe that people take more chances and liberties when they believe their surroundings to be safe, then give a reasoned argument in support of your contention


Drivers dotake more chances and liberties when they are safe from speed and red-light cameras (OK, and cops!) - that is why I want more of all of them.

I agree that people alter their behaviour according to risks to themselves, paying less regard to others, so cameras are, in a sense, a way to raise the risk to speeders (who endanger others) without raising the risk to the lawful drivers with whom speeders interact dangerously. The distinction is not quite so cut and dried with humps and narrowing bollards, but they do tame speeders very well in some cases where the maximum should be 20 mph.

Pete317 wrote:
Ad hominem attacks don't count as debate


Sorry for that. I don't agree with your assumption that safety measures are futile because people will raise their risk accordingly because I don't believe the correlations cancel out - there is residual benefit in most cases which you had not considered.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 16:53 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
basingwerk wrote:
Just a note to say that I have by chance found a reference to the very thing in the Stone Report.

STONE REPORT wrote:
For instance, there would be a case for replacing numbers of lives saved by the expectation of years of life saved: ambulances & fire-engines save mostly the elderly but humps save lives too, particularly of children.




Just by chance eh? Didn't go looking for it between 9:49 and 12:48 then? :wink:

Actually, I retract what I originally said unequivacolly (did I spell that right?). If this board didn't have at least one intelligent voice of reasoned opposition it really would be a pissing contest between:

"Speed camera opponents are just whingers....etc etc"
"No we aren't.....etc etc"

Or...

"Speed cameras are a means of oppression"
"Yes they are"
"Agree"
"So do I...etc etc"

Argue away sir, argue away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 18:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 19:41
Posts: 201
Location: North East Wales
basingwerk wrote:
Quote:
Drivers dotake more chances and liberties when they are safe from speed and red-light cameras (OK, and cops!) - that is why I want more of all of them.


May be you would basingwerk - I and many others here do not. More Chances implies greater risk or carelessness -Safe experienced drivers would not agree that we need cameras to drive safer - on the contrary ! arbitrary enforcement by numbers inhibits safe driving


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 19:20 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
basingwerk wrote:
Drivers dotake more chances and liberties when they are safe from speed and red-light cameras (OK, and cops!) - that is why I want more of all of them.

I agree that people alter their behaviour according to risks to themselves, paying less regard to others, so cameras are, in a sense, a way to raise the risk to speeders (who endanger others) without raising the risk to the lawful drivers with whom speeders interact dangerously. The distinction is not quite so cut and dried with humps and narrowing bollards, but they do tame speeders very well in some cases where the maximum should be 20 mph.

Pete317 wrote:
Ad hominem attacks don't count as debate


Sorry for that. I don't agree with your assumption that safety measures are futile because people will raise their risk accordingly because I don't believe the correlations cancel out - there is residual benefit in most cases which you had not considered.


What you have apparently not considered is that pedestrians also take extra risks when they feel safe, not just drivers. I was, in fact, referring to pedestrians.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 23:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 19:54
Posts: 55
Location: Shropshire
Getting back to the initial subject of unsafe cycle ways. I am willing to bet that one of the achievements to be flagged up by John Prescott in the run up to the next election will be, labours record on encouraging grean transport policies. This will be demonstrated by the thousands of miles of extra cycle ways that have been created under labour. When translated, this actally means white paint has been sprayed on busy roads defining a narrow path on which those brave enough to pedal in town traffic are invited to weave in and out of vehicles parked on those pathways thus ensuring the disparity in speed between bikes and vehicles will guarantee cyclists get killed.
What is needed are true safe discrete traffic free cycle ways where we can allow our children to ride, confident that they will not come into contact with traffic. We have to stop the authorities playing with our roads, stop them exercising their petty prejudices on systems they don't understand force them to remove these ridiculous hazards and return the roads to the proper widths for safe fluid flow for the benefit of all.

_________________
Too much of our money is being wasted on supposed road safety improvements that are actually making driving more dangerous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Well Said Rod!
PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:54
Posts: 11
Location: Bristol/Bath
I recently had a look at the ridiculous 'traffic calming' measures inflicted on the good people of Yate in South Gloucestershire by the car hating Nazis on S. Glos. council. These included narrowing two lane dual carriage ways to one lane each way with a cycle lane painted beside the verge. In places the lane tapered down to about 18 inches wide and in other cases vanished altogether. Wherever there was a bus stop this was used to interrupt the cycle lane. (A council spokes person had told a friend of mine that it was perfectly safe for cyclists to overtake a static bus - meaning it was Ok for a child or elderly person to wobble into the already restricted remaining lane amongst the passing traffic). The lunacy of this is highlighted by the fact that all the time there are amply wide grass verges on which the cycle lane should have been constructed and into which the bus standing space should have been cut.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:08 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Richard C wrote:
basingwerk wrote:
Quote:
Drivers dotake more chances and liberties when they are safe from speed and red-light cameras (OK, and cops!) - that is why I want more of all of them.


May be you would basingwerk - I and many others here do not.


I don't know how you can tell that. Drivers always think they are ace, when they are mostly pretty bad drivers. As far as we know, you're Mr Average Driver, and how can I (or you, for that matter) be sure that you are not an attrocious driver?

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 21:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 19:54
Posts: 55
Location: Shropshire
I don't know how you can tell that. Drivers always think they are ace, when they are mostly pretty bad drivers. As far as we know, you're Mr Average Driver, and how can I (or you, for that matter) be sure that you are not an attrocious driver?[/quote]
As a relatively new comer to this board,I am not aware of the background of other postees. Perhaps basingwerk can help me here. Who are the "we" you refer to in the above phrase "As far as WE know" and what constitutes a "good" driver in your view.
I am intrigued by your statement most are pretty bad drivers?
RJ

_________________
Too much of our money is being wasted on supposed road safety improvements that are actually making driving more dangerous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 22:37 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 23:27
Posts: 92
basingwerk wrote:
Richard C wrote:
basingwerk wrote:
Quote:
Drivers dotake more chances and liberties when they are safe from speed and red-light cameras (OK, and cops!) - that is why I want more of all of them.


May be you would basingwerk - I and many others here do not.


I don't know how you can tell that. Drivers always think they are ace, when they are mostly pretty bad drivers. As far as we know, you're Mr Average Driver, and how can I (or you, for that matter) be sure that you are not an attrocious driver?


This is why you should drive defensively. If you have followed or been followed by a driver for a few minutes, you should have some idea (even a vague idea) of their capabilities but it should never be taken for granted that they are a safe driver. Defensive driving is survival, so is observation, and concerntration.

_________________
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:27
Posts: 56
Getting back to the dangerous cycle lane thing.
What about stupid central islands that are appearing all over the roads. Because of this phenomena I had to take a rather stark choice the other day.

1, brake hard because a cyclist jumped off the pavement just before one of these islands in front of me, thus being potentially being shunted by Mr Fiat Punto Boy Racered Up And Going Quickly

2, Try and squeeze between the island and cyclist without taking him off.

These islands do not leave enough space to allow cyclists and cars to co-exist at the same time and so causes the car to brake in order to avoid a collision. At best this can start to cause a bit of congestion, at worst you end up with a concertina crash of several cars.
I dare anybody to prove this is wrong. I bet crashes have occured because of this very phenomena.
Who gets the blame for this, not the cyclist i bet because he is just going about his business as he is rightly allowed to. In the good old days most cyclists would try and use a footpath to avoid such obstacles but now that is a finable offence they are forced to conflict with traffic!

_________________
The police ARE the law, not ABOVE it!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 21:38 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
basingwerk wrote:
The most obvious is prospective length of life saved. Ceteris paribus, saving the life of a child of 10 saves approximately 65 years of life, whereas saving a driver saves less.

Can I take it that you are anti-abortion then. Since this kills one in 5 infants.... :?

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 21:42 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Pug205GRD wrote:
Who gets the blame for this, not the cyclist i bet because he is just going about his business as he is rightly allowed to. In the good old days most cyclists would try and use a footpath to avoid such obstacles but now that is a finable offence they are forced to conflict with traffic!

I don't think the fear of fines deters cyclists from riding on the pavement, at least not round Manchester...

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.733s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]