painting speed cameras in a high visibilty paint
Jonathan Tracey
that police across the UK have agreed that speed cameras should be painted
in a high visibility paint( An orange colour if memory serves). As this has
been proven to reduce speeding to a greater extent than hiding cameras.
Now without wishing to start a huge flame war I was wondering if anyone knew
if Cambridgeshire county council/Police force had any intentions of doing
this, or is the revenue stream to high to jeopardise ?
Jon
Paul Rudin
Jonathan> After watching the news the other night and also BBC radio
Jonathan> it was mentioned that police across the UK have agreed that
Jonathan> speed cameras should be painted in a high visibility paint(
Jonathan> An orange colour if memory serves). As this has been proven
Jonathan> to reduce speeding to a greater extent than hiding cameras.
It stikes me that hidden cameras would be more effective at reducing
speeding if the level of fines were are real deterrent, say a couple
of thousand quid...
If the intention is really to reduce speeding, it's hard to see how
making them highly visibl really works unless you have cameras
everywhere.
Jonathan> Now without wishing to start a huge flame war I was
Jonathan> wondering if anyone knew if Cambridgeshire county
Jonathan> council/Police force had any intentions of doing this, or
Jonathan> is the revenue stream to high to jeopardise ?
Sorry, no idea. Probably the idea of painting them brightly has been
floated simply to assess public reaction.
dodger
"Jonathan Tracey" <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b6c2c4d$0$8512$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Er..
Doesn't the phrase *police across the UK * include our lot then?
--
dodger
Jonathan Tracey
"Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wk7kwj6...@ntlworld.com...
> >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
> It stikes me that hidden cameras would be more effective at reducing
> speeding if the level of fines were are real deterrent, say a couple
> of thousand quid...
Hmm so you think that speeding is a more serious crime that say burglary or
agravated assault, these crimes seem to carry community service these days
so why should speeding carry such huge fines ?
>
> Sorry, no idea. Probably the idea of painting them brightly has been
> floated simply to assess public reaction.
>
I believe it has been trialed around the country and has been shown to
reduce speeding and also reduce accidents as well.
Jon
Jonathan Tracey
"dodger" <artful.dodger@ntlworldDOTcom> wrote in message
news:fQWa7.2397$3K2.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Jonathan Tracey" <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b6c2c4d$0$8512$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> Doesn't the phrase *police across the UK * include our lot then?
The phrase was "police across the UK agree" that does not equate to action.
I agree with those that say speeding should not be an endorsable offence
just a monetary fine but I dont see that happening.
Colin Rosenstiel
jo...@nospam.hotmail.com (Jonathan Tracey) wrote:
> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:wk7kwj6...@ntlworld.com...
> > >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
> > It stikes me that hidden cameras would be more effective at reducing
> > speeding if the level of fines were are real deterrent, say a couple
> > of thousand quid...
>
> Hmm so you think that speeding is a more serious crime that say
> burglary or agravated assault, these crimes seem to carry community
> service these days so why should speeding carry such huge fines ?
Arguably so as it kills more innocent people.
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
Jonathan> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
Jonathan> news:wk7kwj6...@ntlworld.com...
>> >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com>
>> writes: It stikes me that hidden cameras would be more effective
>> at reducing speeding if the level of fines were are real
>> deterrent, say a couple of thousand quid...
Jonathan> Hmm so you think that speeding is a more serious crime that
Jonathan> say burglary or agravated assault,
Why do you say that? - I merely suggest that if they really want to stop
people speeding this would be an effective way of doing so.
Jonathan> these crimes seem to carry community service these days so
Jonathan> why should speeding carry such huge fines ?
As a deterrent?
>> Sorry, no idea. Probably the idea of painting them brightly has
>> been floated simply to assess public reaction.
>>
Jonathan> I believe it has been trialed around the country and has
Jonathan> been shown to reduce speeding and also reduce accidents as
Jonathan> well.
It may well reduce speeding at the site of the cameras (that's hardly
a surprise) but I very doubt that it reduces speeding elsewhere. In
fact I'd suggest that if it were universally adopted it would be
likely to have the effect of increasing speeding away from camera
sites.
Jonathan Tracey
> >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
> Jonathan> these crimes seem to carry community service these days so
> Jonathan> why should speeding carry such huge fines ?
>
> As a deterrent?
but punishment or the threat of it has never worked as a deterrent for any
crime, if so there would be no murders in the USA in states that carry the
death penalty.
> >> Sorry, no idea. Probably the idea of painting them brightly has
> >> been floated simply to assess public reaction.
> >>
> Jonathan> I believe it has been trialed around the country and has
> Jonathan> been shown to reduce speeding and also reduce accidents as
> Jonathan> well.
>
>
> It may well reduce speeding at the site of the cameras (that's hardly
> a surprise) but I very doubt that it reduces speeding elsewhere. In
> fact I'd suggest that if it were universally adopted it would be
> likely to have the effect of increasing speeding away from camera
> sites.
>
Again the figures disagree with you, in countys where cameras have been
painted in bright colours not only have convictions for speeding dropped but
also the number of speed related accidents. If you scenario were true then
the second figure would not have changed.
Jon
Jonathan Tracey
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20010804...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
large portions of the Autobahn network are unrestricted and they have lower
accident rates
Jon
Colin Rosenstiel
jo...@nospam.hotmail.com (Jonathan Tracey) wrote:
> "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.20010804...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> > In article <3b6c45e3$0$8506$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> > jo...@nospam.hotmail.com (Jonathan Tracey) wrote:
> > > Hmm so you think that speeding is a more serious crime that say
> > > burglary or agravated assault, these crimes seem to carry community
> > > service these days so why should speeding carry such huge fines ?
> >
> > Arguably so as it kills more innocent people.
> >
> I disagree how do you account for the road accident figures in germany
> where large portions of the Autobahn network are unrestricted and they
> have lower accident rates
The most dangerous speeding is on urban roads, mostly with 30 mph limits.
Colin Rosenstiel
Jonathan Tracey
>
> The most dangerous speeding is on urban roads, mostly with 30 mph limits.
>
support them, but most seem to be hidden behind signs on the dual
carridgeways and motorways
Jon
Colin Rosenstiel
jo...@nospam.hotmail.com (Jonathan Tracey) wrote:
Look more carefully. There are quite a few around the City of Cambridge.
Colin Rosenstiel
Jonathan Tracey
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20010805...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
>
>
look at the M25 near heathrow every gantry has them fitted
Jon
Patrick Gosling
Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>but punishment or the threat of it has never worked as a deterrent for any
>crime, if so there would be no murders in the USA in states that carry the
>death penalty.
The fact that it does not deter with 100% effectiveness does not
necessarily mean to say it "doesn't work" . We could always start
what one might call a "Lord Longford" experiment, of not punishing
those who commit murder, and see if the numbers of murders increased
or decreased. Which way would _you_ bet on it going?
-patrick.
Richard Meredith
Gosling) wrote:
>
> The fact that it does not deter with 100% effectiveness does not
> necessarily mean to say it "doesn't work" . We could always start
> what one might call a "Lord Longford" experiment, of not punishing
> those who commit murder, and see if the numbers of murders increased
> or decreased. Which way would _you_ bet on it going?
It would undoubtedly increase, but probably not very much - AIUI murder
is primarily a crime of passion, carried out in the heat of the moment.
It's very different to a premeditated crime like burglary, and different
again to speeding, which is frequently due to inattention. This makes
extrapolating the likely consequences of drastically increasing penalties to
different crimes somewhat doubtful, at least, since the motivation is so
very different.
Laws, and law enforcement, can only work with the majority consent of those
to whom they apply. Trying to enforce laws that are not widely seen as
particularly serious offences with ever more draconian penalties is unlikely
to increase respect for the law in general. Changing perceptions is needed,
and that's a long hard process taking years: there are no quick fixes.
--
This message may contain traces of nuts. Do not refreeze once thawed.
No animals were hurt in the making of this production. Suitable for
vegetarians.
Roland Perry
Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes
There was a man from Thames Valley Police on the TV at lunchtime saying
they were going to paint theirs yellow. And he denied it was a revenue
gathering exercise. (MRD applies, I fear).
--
Meldrew of Meldreth
Patrick Gosling
Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <9kjgme$mef$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick
>Gosling) wrote:
>
>>
>> The fact that it does not deter with 100% effectiveness does not
>> necessarily mean to say it "doesn't work" . We could always start
>> what one might call a "Lord Longford" experiment, of not punishing
>> those who commit murder, and see if the numbers of murders increased
>> or decreased. Which way would _you_ bet on it going?
>
>It would undoubtedly increase, but probably not very much - AIUI murder
>is primarily a crime of passion, carried out in the heat of the moment.
You are making the very strong assumption that murder would remain
"primarily a crime of passion" were there to be no punishment against
those committing it.
Somehow I doubt that would be the case.
Furthermore, I would claim that even in the heat of the moment, many
people are deterred from killing others by the threat of punishment.
I would _not_ like to be involved in a road rage incident if there
were no punishment against murderers ...
-patrick.
Paul Rudin
Jonathan> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
Jonathan> news:wkae1f4...@ntlworld.com...
>> It may well reduce speeding at the site of the cameras (that's
>> hardly a surprise) but I very doubt that it reduces speeding
>> elsewhere. In fact I'd suggest that if it were universally adopted
>> it would be likely to have the effect of increasing speeding away
>> from camera sites.
>>
Jonathan> Again the figures disagree with you, in countys where
Jonathan> cameras have been painted in bright colours not only have
Jonathan> convictions for speeding dropped but also the number of
Jonathan> speed related accidents. If you scenario were true then the
Jonathan> second figure would not have changed.
Whilst your facts might be correct (I've no idea whether they are or
not) your conclusion doesn't follow from them at all. The "facts" you
claim say nothing about the number of speeding offences committed away
from camera sites, do they?
--
ammunition plutonium Ortega Soviet KGB Legion of Doom FBI BATF nuclear
jihad FSF CIA DES Rule Psix South Africa
Richard Meredith
Gosling) wrote:
> In article <memo.2001080...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk>,
> Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <9kjgme$mef$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk
> (Patrick >Gosling) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The fact that it does not deter with 100% effectiveness does not
> >> necessarily mean to say it "doesn't work" . We could always start
> >> what one might call a "Lord Longford" experiment, of not punishing
> >> those who commit murder, and see if the numbers of murders increased
> >> or decreased. Which way would _you_ bet on it going?
> >
> >It would undoubtedly increase, but probably not very much - AIUI murder
> >is primarily a crime of passion, carried out in the heat of the moment.
>
> You are making the very strong assumption that murder would remain
> "primarily a crime of passion" were there to be no punishment against
> those committing it.
Granted.
> Somehow I doubt that would be the case.
>
> Furthermore, I would claim that even in the heat of the moment, many
> people are deterred from killing others by the threat of punishment.
> I would _not_ like to be involved in a road rage incident if there
> were no punishment against murderers ...
I'm assumming the same moral/societal tabus against murder would remain,
even if there were no legal penalties against it.
I wasn't trying to suggest that there would be no increase, just not as big
as increase as there would be if, say, the penalties for mugging or
shoplifting were removed.
I guess what I'm saying is that successful law enforcement is at least as
much due to public attitudes as the vigour with which the offence is pursued
by the police and the penalties imposed. Murder is a crime almost
universally abhorred: there is a not insignificant minority that
thinks crimes like mugging, burglary and shoplifting are OK. Tougher
criminal sanctions are much more likely to be effective in the latter case
than the former, since in the latter case they can be one of the only
discouraging factors.
Chris Peckham
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YExuktMp$Vb7Ew+$@roland.linx.org...
It would be more useful, perhaps, to put a speed limit sign on the camera.
That way you would be instantly reminded of what the limit was, not just
that there is one. Which should be pretty obvious anyway.
Can anyone help me understand why some motorists seem more concerned with
campaigning against speed cameras, rather than the speed limits they are
there to enforce? I can't help feeling that it's all a bit of a red herring.
Chris
Roland Perry
<ch...@pretend.bit.berimbau.co.uk> writes
>Can anyone help me understand why some motorists seem more concerned with
>campaigning against speed cameras, rather than the speed limits they are
>there to enforce? I can't help feeling that it's all a bit of a red herring.
Because people seem not to have thought the process through. When the
Kingston Bypass went from de-restricted to 50mph, I have an idea that
most motorists thought one of the following:
a) I'm there in the rush hour and you can't even get up to 40. So what's
the point in complaining about a 50 limit.
b) I'll just ignore it as it's an empty three lane dual-carriageway and
50's obviously a ridiculously low limit.
Then they installed speed cameras.
--
Meldrew of Meldreth
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
In absolute terms yes; per incident, quite the opposite, by a massive
factor.
*All* incidences of burglary or aggravated assault distress or injure an
innocent person or corporation; 99.9% of incidences of speeding do no harm
to anyone or anything.
- Huge
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
I wrote:
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> > In article <3b6c45e3$0$8506$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> > jo...@nospam.hotmail.com (Jonathan Tracey) wrote:
> > > "Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wk7kwj6...@ntlworld.com...
> > > > >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
> > > > It stikes me that hidden cameras would be more effective at reducing
> > > > speeding if the level of fines were are real deterrent, say a couple
> > > > of thousand quid...
> > >
> > > Hmm so you think that speeding is a more serious crime that say
> > > burglary or agravated assault, these crimes seem to carry community
> > > service these days so why should speeding carry such huge fines ?
> >
> > Arguably so as it kills more innocent people.
(BTW, What was that about not feeding the trolls, Colin?)
> In absolute terms yes; per incident, quite the opposite, by a massive
> factor.
>
> *All* incidences of burglary or aggravated assault distress or injure an
> innocent person or corporation; 99.9% of incidences of speeding do no harm
> to anyone or anything.
And those instances of speeding which do harm someone or something are
prosecuted with offences far more serious than speeding, and with far more
punishment than community service.
Again this boils down to the questions:
Is a lawful punishment supposed to
1a) deter
1b) exact revenge
1c) physically prevent re-offending
and is the severity of the punishment supposed to relate to
2a) actual consequences of that specific illegal action
2b) the worst possible consequences of that action in general
2c) the most likely consequences of that action in general
In reality, it's a mixture of all of these, and of course people will never
agree about what (2c) actually means for speeding.
- Huge
Colin Rosenstiel
> I wrote:
> > rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> > > In article <3b6c45e3$0$8506$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> > > jo...@nospam.hotmail.com (Jonathan Tracey) wrote:
> > > > "Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:wk7kwj6...@ntlworld.com...
> > > > > >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > writes:
> > > > > It stikes me that hidden cameras would be more effective at
> > > > > reducing speeding if the level of fines were are real deterrent,
> > > > > say a couple of thousand quid...
> > > >
> > > > Hmm so you think that speeding is a more serious crime that say
> > > > burglary or agravated assault, these crimes seem to carry
> > > > community service these days so why should speeding carry such
> > > > huge fines ?
> > >
> > > Arguably so as it kills more innocent people.
>
> (BTW, What was that about not feeding the trolls, Colin?)
Road crashes are the biggest cause of accidental death for all children up
to the age of 15.
1999 - 221 children age 15 under and under died on the roads (including
107 pedestrians).
Almost 45,000 children age 15 under and under were injured.
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
> > > > > Hmm so you think that speeding is a more serious crime that say
> > > > > burglary or agravated assault, these crimes seem to carry
> > > > > community service these days so why should speeding carry such
> > > > > huge fines ?
> > > >
> > > > Arguably so as it kills more innocent people.
> >
> > (BTW, What was that about not feeding the trolls, Colin?)
>
> Road crashes are the biggest cause of accidental death for all children up
> to the age of 15.
>
> 1999 - 221 children age 15 under and under died on the roads (including
> 107 pedestrians).
>
> Almost 45,000 children age 15 under and under were injured.
But how many of these deaths and injuries occured in accidents that
would have not happened if one of the drivers involved had not been
exceeding the speed limit?
Mark
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> In article <wwt1ymp...@masala.cambridge.redhat.com>,
> hm...@redxhatx.com (Hugo 'NOx' Tyson) wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> > > > In article <3b6c45e3$0$8506$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> > > > jo...@nospam.hotmail.com (Jonathan Tracey) wrote:
> > > > > "Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:wk7kwj6...@ntlworld.com...
> > > > > > >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > > writes:
> > > > > > It stikes me that hidden cameras would be more effective at
> > > > > > reducing speeding if the level of fines were are real deterrent,
> > > > > > say a couple of thousand quid...
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm so you think that speeding is a more serious crime that say
> > > > > burglary or agravated assault, these crimes seem to carry
> > > > > community service these days so why should speeding carry such
> > > > > huge fines ?
> > > >
> > > > Arguably so as it kills more innocent people.
> >
> > (BTW, What was that about not feeding the trolls, Colin?)
>
> Road crashes are the biggest cause of accidental death for all children
> up to the age of 15.
Why talk about children?
> 1999 - 221 children age 15 under and under died on the roads (including
> 107 pedestrians).
So? What's the relevence to the speed limit?
> Almost 45,000 children age 15 under and under were injured.
And?
We were talking about speeding as in breaking the speed limit aren't we?
So I don't see the relevence of those figures. They refer to a different
set of events.
Road crashes are investigated, prosecuted (if an offence occurred), and
punished by methods quite separate from those used for speeding.
99.9% of individual incidents of breaking the speed limit kill nobody and
harm no-one.
Yet you arguably support treating 100% of individual incidents of breaking
the speed limit as if they did all in fact kill or injure someone.
That makes no sense.
- Huge
Colin Rosenstiel
(Mark Goodge) wrote:
No idea. A significant proportion and a matter requiring serious
attention.
Colin Rosenstiel
G.W. Walker
In article <memo.20010806...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>No idea. A significant proportion and a matter requiring serious
>attention.
Eh? Would you care to explain how that second sentence
follows the first? Via evidence, perhaps?
G.
William Turner
Following on the tradition of short followups:
Do they still teach children how to cross the road, or
has that difficulty been taken off them and the blame placed
100% on the motorist now?
Not that I'm saying the motorist shouldn't take care...
w
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Software Team Leader,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Pace Micro Technology PLC,
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Cambridge, England.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Email: william...@pace.co.uk
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
Thought not.
> A significant proportion and a matter requiring serious attention.
Got any figures for that? Got a definition for "significant"?
OK, but how many of the people who suffer stress and property damage and
injury from burglary or aggravated assault would not have so suffered if
the burglar or assailant had not burgled or assaulted, respectively?
It's 100% isn't it.
Don't you think that's a rather more significant proportion and therefore a
matter requiring rather more serious attention?
- Huge
Mark Goodge
I entirely agree that it is a matter requiring serious attention. But
the problem is that no-one seems to know the answer to my question,
which suggests to me that it isn't being given sufficiently serious
attention by whatever government organisations are responsible for
collating such statistics.
We hear a lot about accidents and injuries caused by excessive speed,
together with figures to back them up. But this always seems to get
weaseled into a call to reduce the speed limit and/or install speed
cameras, without any effort to justify this by relating these
"excessive" speeds to the posted limit and the conditions.
Mark
LNR
>
>Yet you arguably support treating 100% of individual incidents of breaking
>the speed limit as if they did all in fact kill or injure someone.
You exagerate Hugo. I don't think I've seen anyone advocate changing
the penalty for getting caught by a speed camera from the 40 quid to an
unlimited fine and possible imprisonment.
--
l...@lspace.org http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~eleanorb/
dodger
"LNR" <l...@lspace.org> wrote in message
news:KQm*NZ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote:
> >
> >Yet you arguably support treating 100% of individual incidents of
breaking
> >the speed limit as if they did all in fact kill or injure someone.
>
> You exagerate Hugo. I don't think I've seen anyone advocate changing
> the penalty for getting caught by a speed camera from the 40 quid to an
> unlimited fine and possible imprisonment.
>
That wasn't what he said...
--
dodger
"Minds are like parachutes, they only function when they are open."
dodger
C'mon now...get real. You can't blame all these on speeding.
Truth be known, most were probably caused by inattention.
Mark Goodge
>
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
>
> > In article <3B6EA8E3...@good-stuff.co.uk>, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk
> > (Mark Goodge) wrote:
> >
> > > Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Road crashes are the biggest cause of accidental death for all
> > > > children up to the age of 15.
> > > >
> > > > 1999 - 221 children age 15 under and under died on the roads
> > > > (including 107 pedestrians).
> > > >
> > > > Almost 45,000 children age 15 under and under were injured.
> > >
> > > But how many of these deaths and injuries occured in accidents that
> > > would have not happened if one of the drivers involved had not been
> > > exceeding the speed limit?
> >
> > No idea.
>
> Thought not.
>
> > A significant proportion and a matter requiring serious attention.
>
> Got any figures for that? Got a definition for "significant"?
As part of my quest for the tuth in this matter, I've just lookeed at
some government stats (available from http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk).
These are for 1998, as that's all that seems to be available there.
Starting with some headline figures:
206 Children Killed
(6% of All Fatalities)
5,873 Children Seriously Injured
(14% of All Serious Injuries)
37,366 Children Slightly Injured
(13% of All Slight Injuries)
That's quite a lot. But the report I'm reading makes some interesting
comments:
Children (defined to be those aged 15 and under)
account for 20% of Great Britain's population, but
they account for only 13% of all casualties and 6%
of fatalities in road accidents.
Child pedestrian fatalities account for half of all
child casualties, making this the biggest child safety
issue. However, fatalities have fallen by 70%, serious
injuries by 46% and slight injuries by 23% from the
1981 - 85 baseline average.
So, not only are child fatalities falling, but children are less likely
than adults to die as a result of motor accidents. Some more quotes:
Britain's overall road safety record is good; the 1998
fatality rate for children was 1.76 per 100,000 children,
well below the EU average of 3.39.
Whilst the child population has fallen by only 7% since 1979,
the number of child fatalities in injury road accidents has
fallen by 66%. Child deaths peaked in 1971 at 1,016 and since
have fallen to 206 in 1998
Traffic has risen constantly from the 1981-1985 average, but
child fatalities have not risen with it.
About half of all child accidents occurred as occupants of cars, rather
than as pedestrians. The overwhelming majority (90%) of child pedestrian
casualties occurred when the child was crossing the road. It's
reasonable, then, to assume that many or even most of these would have
been prevented if the cars involved were travelling more slowly. Given
that 30mph is pretty much the boundary at which an accident will be
fatal (people generally survive being hit by cars travelling more
slowly), it's also reasonable to assume that many of the child
pedestrian fatalities involved cars exceeding the speed limit.
Plugging that back into the headline figure at the top of the page,
then, we can arrive at a rough estimate that somwhere under 100 children
were probably killed in accidents where the driver was exceeding the
speed limit. With the various instances of "many" and "probably" in
these guestimates, I'd reckon that the actual number is probably around
50 - 60.
This is, obviously, 60 children too many - I don't think there's such a
thing as an "acceptable" number of deaths. But it does demonstrate that
speeding is not causing the carnage that is often assumed.
Mark
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
LNR <l...@lspace.org> writes:
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote:
> >Yet you arguably support treating 100% of individual incidents of
> >breaking the speed limit as if they did all in fact kill or injure
> >someone.
>
> You exagerate Hugo. I don't think I've seen anyone advocate changing
> the penalty for getting caught by a speed camera from the 40 quid to an
> unlimited fine and possible imprisonment.
Perhaps; Colin did however suggest that the penalty for getting caught by a
speed camera "arguably" should be *greater* than that for burglary or
aggravated assault because more people die in circumstances which might in
some way unspecified, and unqualified with figures, be related to breaking
the speed limit, than die of burglary or aggravated assault.
I've no idea whether that would include unlimited fine and possible
imprisonment, but the whole of the underlying logic is nonsense, because
100% of burglaries and aggravated assaults injure a person or their
property, whereas a minute fraction of speeding offences result in injury
to a person or their property.
Suggesting that someone who causes death or serious injury by their driving
- which then becomes by definition dangerous driving - should face
treatment, um, as if they had killed someone, is an entirely reasonable
proposition with which nobody would disagree. Note "causes by their
driving" not the presumption of guilt as in "was driving safely when X
happened". But the law already does that. So why try to equate breaking
the speed limit with that offence?
- Huge
LNR
>"LNR" <l...@lspace.org> wrote:
>> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yet you arguably support treating 100% of individual incidents of
>>>breaking the speed limit as if they did all in fact kill or injure
>>>someone.
>>
>> You exagerate Hugo. I don't think I've seen anyone advocate changing
>> the penalty for getting caught by a speed camera from the 40 quid to an
>> unlimited fine and possible imprisonment.
>
>That wasn't what he said...
Treating people who break the speed limit "as if they did in fact kill
or injure someone" would involve imposing the same penalties as if they
had killed or injured someone. As I point out, I don't think anyone is
advocating any such thing. A 40 quid fixed penalty notice is not at all
the same thing as the penalties usually imposed on those who hae killed
or injured someone through their bad driving.
In other words basically I do not agree with Hugo that Colin appears to
want to treat all speeders as if they have actually caused an accident.
And think Hugo has no real justification for saying such a thing.
--
l...@lspace.org http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~eleanorb/
Patrick Gosling
dodger <artful...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>C'mon now...get real. You can't blame all these on speeding.
>Truth be known, most were probably caused by inattention.
So clearly, we need an equivalent device to a speed camera that gets
triggered by driver inattention rather than speed.
Perhaps there _is_ some point in unconcealed speed cameras, but I'm
sure one could come up with a better inattention-meter than that ...
-patrick.
Roland Perry
<ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>It's
>reasonable, then, to assume that many or even most of these would have
>been prevented if the cars involved were travelling more slowly. Given
>that 30mph is pretty much the boundary at which an accident will be
>fatal (people generally survive being hit by cars travelling more
>slowly), it's also reasonable to assume that many of the child
>pedestrian fatalities involved cars exceeding the speed limit.
Cars doing more than 20 or 30 in a 20 or 30 limit. How many were caused
by cars doing more than 40 in a 40 limit, in circumstances where a child
would have survived if the cars was doing 39.9 mph?
--
Meldrew of Meldreth
G.W. Walker
Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <HGyb7.9900$3K2.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>dodger <artful...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>C'mon now...get real. You can't blame all these on speeding.
>>Truth be known, most were probably caused by inattention.
>
>So clearly, we need an equivalent device to a speed camera that gets
>triggered by driver inattention rather than speed.
Inattention of the *pedestrian*, perchance?
G.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
> As part of my quest for the tuth in this matter, I've just lookeed at
> some government stats (available from http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk).
Useful info, thanks. Glad to know that the arithmetic also says that the
sky is not falling in. ;-)
> These are for 1998, as that's all that seems to be available there.
> About half of all child accidents occurred as occupants of cars, rather
> than as pedestrians. The overwhelming majority (90%) of child pedestrian
> casualties occurred when the child was crossing the road. It's
> reasonable, then, to assume that many or even most of these would have
> been prevented if the cars involved were travelling more slowly. Given
> that 30mph is pretty much the boundary at which an accident will be
> fatal (people generally survive being hit by cars travelling more
(for a simple impact, yes - for going under CamBus's wheels, no)
> slowly), it's also reasonable to assume that many of the child
> pedestrian fatalities involved cars exceeding the speed limit.
That assumes that "many" of the accidents occurred within a 30mph speed
limit - perhaps so, but it *is* an assumption. And in fact that a small
motor vehicle was involved, rather than an HGV or a bus or no motor vehicle
at all.
> Plugging that back into the headline figure at the top of the page,
> then, we can arrive at a rough estimate that somwhere under 100 children
> were probably killed in accidents where the driver was exceeding the
> speed limit. With the various instances of "many" and "probably" in
> these guestimates, I'd reckon that the actual number is probably around
> 50 - 60.
Have you an opinion about how many of those would have been prevented
instead by red-light cameras (or physical barriers!) at pedestrian
crossings? How many were crossing the road at a crossing rather than at
random?
> This is, obviously, 60 children too many - I don't think there's such a
> thing as an "acceptable" number of deaths. But it does demonstrate that
> speeding is not causing the carnage that is often assumed.
Quite.
- Huge
Mark Ayliffe
"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B6EBBDF...@good-stuff.co.uk...
<...>
> Whilst the child population has fallen by only 7% since 1979,
> the number of child fatalities in injury road accidents has
> fallen by 66%. Child deaths peaked in 1971 at 1,016 and since
> have fallen to 206 in 1998
At a wild guess I'd say a large proportion of the change was due to the
introdunction of rear seat belt legislation. I had an acquantance some time
ago who was a fireman. He used to get more os less apopleptic when he saw
kids unrestrained in the back of cars.
> Given
> that 30mph is pretty much the boundary at which an accident will be
> fatal (people generally survive being hit by cars travelling more
> slowly), it's also reasonable to assume that many of the child
> pedestrian fatalities involved cars exceeding the speed limit.
I suspect the impact speed boundary is rather less than 30mph, you can
expect _some_ deceleration before impact usually.
<...>
Mark
Mark Goodge
The majority of child pedestrian casualties occurred where the child was
crossing the road. I think that implies an urban environment with
footpaths by the roadside, then, in most cases - in which case, the
speed limit would have been 30mph (or, occasionally, 20mph). Most urban
40mph limits are on roads where pedestrians are segregated from cars.
Mark
Mark Ayliffe
news:9kmffr$9ra$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
6 inch steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel anyone?
>
> Inattention of the *pedestrian*, perchance?
Bullbars on all vehicles perhaps?
:)
Mark
Patrick Gosling
Indeed, in a few cases, only inattention of the pedestrian.
And in others, both the pedestrian and the driver, and in others, just
the driver.
However, of the two people involved, only one is in control of a half
ton of metal travelling at speed. I know who I believe has more
responsibility to others to maintain their attention on what they are
doing, and who is therefore the more culpable in a situation where both
are exhibiting inattention.
-patrick.
Roland Perry
<ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>> Cars doing more than 20 or 30 in a 20 or 30 limit. How many were caused
>> by cars doing more than 40 in a 40 limit, in circumstances where a child
>> would have survived if the cars was doing 39.9 mph?
>
>The majority of child pedestrian casualties occurred where the child was
>crossing the road. I think that implies an urban environment with
>footpaths by the roadside, then, in most cases - in which case, the
>speed limit would have been 30mph (or, occasionally, 20mph). Most urban
>40mph limits are on roads where pedestrians are segregated from cars.
So, if we are discussing the proposition that adhering to speed limits
saves childrens' lives, then it's only the 30 (and 20) limits that we
need to consider. Therefore let's stop using childrens' lives as a
reason to have Gatsos in 40, 50, 60 and 70 limits.
--
Meldrew of Meldreth
Roland Perry
Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> writes
>That assumes that "many" of the accidents occurred within a 30mph speed
>limit - perhaps so, but it *is* an assumption. And in fact that a small
>motor vehicle was involved, rather than an HGV or a bus
I doubt if I could find the reference in a hurry, but it's three times
as dangerous [1] to be hit by a bus than a car. Fairly obvious if you
look at the size of the vertical metalwork that hits the kid.
[1] Likely to be fatal.
--
Meldrew of Meldreth
st...@poggle.org
> We hear a lot about accidents and injuries caused by excessive speed,
> together with figures to back them up. But this always seems to get
> weaseled into a call to reduce the speed limit and/or install speed
> cameras, without any effort to justify this by relating these
> "excessive" speeds to the posted limit and the conditions.
We were astonished yesterday to see a car screech to a halt on the M11
Northbound just past the A14 junction and proceed to reverse back up
the motorway to take the turning. Had a following car collided with
this idiot, and had that car been exceeding the speed limit by a few
mph, then no doubt this would have gone down in the statistics as "an
accident involving excessive speed", to be forever more
indistinguishable from events where an accident really was *caused* by
excessive speed. This is what I find objectionable about the way
these statistics are being bandied about. How to lie with statistics
in order to propel a political hobby horse.
Of course it was also an offence that would not be caught by a camera
despite being far, far more dangerous and stupid than exceeding the
national speed limit. But do we ever hear anything about "driving
safely" these days from the politicians and police? No - just speed.
-- Steve
st...@poggle.org
> At a wild guess I'd say a large proportion of the change was due to the
> introdunction of rear seat belt legislation. I had an acquantance some time
> ago who was a fireman. He used to get more os less apopleptic when he saw
> kids unrestrained in the back of cars.
I still see quite a lot of kids standing on rear seats of moving cars,
usually with smoking, non-seatbelt-wearing parent driving. Good for
evolution I say.
-- Steve
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Time to bring up my hobby horse:
Q. What is the speed limit in the car park at the Cowley Road
Park and Ride?
A. 60 mph
At the same time, the footpaths in the area are covered with
nettles, spoil and discarded pallets.
But its on the border between two districts, so nobody cares.
There are plans to do something about it, but I presume CHUMMS
has blighted that.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
"Mark Ayliffe" <marka...@my-deja.com> writes:
> "Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3B6EBBDF...@good-stuff.co.uk...
> <...>
> > Whilst the child population has fallen by only 7% since 1979,
> > the number of child fatalities in injury road accidents has
> > fallen by 66%. Child deaths peaked in 1971 at 1,016 and since
> > have fallen to 206 in 1998
> <...>
> At a wild guess I'd say a large proportion of the change was due to the
> introdunction of rear seat belt legislation. I had an acquantance some time
> ago who was a fireman. He used to get more os less apopleptic when he saw
> kids unrestrained in the back of cars.
I still notice lots of loose kids in the back of cars, and it infuriates me
too, because of the danger to the kids, and the greatly increased
likelihood that they'll distract the person that is "in charge of half a
ton of metal travelling at speed" because they don't have the "sit still,
where you are, this is serious" idea in place.
<humour><ageism>
I saw a truly terrifying car window sticker at the weekend:
"Grandchildren on board"
</ageism></humour>
- Huge
Mark Ayliffe
---
Quite. Though my friend's point was that it's rather unfair on those who
have to pull the remains from the mangled wreckage. Where they are at least
alive when removed from the vehicle, there is some hope.
I'm also mildly horrified by cycling non-helmet wearing adults (presumably
parents) with little Johnny (or Jenny) on the back of the bike wearing a
helmet. Scene with dead parent and groggy child wandering around the scene
of the accident...
Mark
I wish I could work out why OE won't quote your messages...
Mark Ayliffe
news:wwtelqp...@masala.cambridge.redhat.com...
>
> I still notice lots of loose kids in the back of cars, and it infuriates
me
> too, because of the danger to the kids, and the greatly increased
> likelihood that they'll distract the person that is "in charge of half a
> ton of metal travelling at speed" because they don't have the "sit still,
> where you are, this is serious" idea in place.
>
> <humour><ageism>
> I saw a truly terrifying car window sticker at the weekend:
> "Grandchildren on board"
> </ageism></humour>
>
I've always preferred the "driver under the influence of children" style of
bumper/rear window sticker to the "Keep back - children on board"
directives. Not that I'd use one myself you understand :) One useful thing
I've transferred from learning to fly: "First, drive the car".
Mark
G.W. Walker
In article <9kmggo$ahc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Indeed, in a few cases, only inattention of the pedestrian.
>
>And in others, both the pedestrian and the driver, and in others, just
>the driver.
>
>However, of the two people involved, only one is in control of a half
>ton of metal travelling at speed.
...or more if they have a Land Rover, and hence should
drive at a proportionally slower speed at all times ;-)
> I know who I believe has more
>responsibility to others to maintain their attention on what they are
>doing, and who is therefore the more culpable in a situation where both
>are exhibiting inattention.
I mostly agree, though I doubt that inattention on the part
of pedestrian children is a small factor. Of the children I
recall being run over when I was at school, all had run
unexpectedly into the road. Fortunately, non of them were
seriously hurt.
G.
G.W. Walker
Mark Ayliffe <marka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"G.W. Walker" <g...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:9kmffr$9ra$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> In article <9kmf3u$9dd$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>> Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >In article <HGyb7.9900$3K2.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>> >dodger <artful...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >>C'mon now...get real. You can't blame all these on speeding.
>> >>Truth be known, most were probably caused by inattention.
>> >
>> >So clearly, we need an equivalent device to a speed camera that gets
>> >triggered by driver inattention rather than speed.
>
>6 inch steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel anyone?
It would certainly focus the mind ;-)
Isn't that a Stirling Moss quote, BTW?
G.
Mark Ayliffe
>
> In article <9kmggo$ahc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Indeed, in a few cases, only inattention of the pedestrian.
> >
> >And in others, both the pedestrian and the driver, and in others, just
> >the driver.
> >
> >However, of the two people involved, only one is in control of a half
> >ton of metal travelling at speed.
>
>
> ...or more if they have a Land Rover, and hence should
> drive at a proportionally slower speed at all times ;-)
And if we extend this to 35 or 40 tonne trucks? They are allowed to drive at
1 mph in built up areas. Well that would certainly save a lot of money being
needlessly spent on traffic calming :)
Mark
Patrick Gosling
Mark Ayliffe <marka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I'm also mildly horrified by cycling non-helmet wearing adults (presumably
>parents) with little Johnny (or Jenny) on the back of the bike wearing a
>helmet. Scene with dead parent and groggy child wandering around the scene
>of the accident...
If I were strapped onto a seat on the back of a bicycle that someone else
was in control of, I suspect I'd be grateful for a bicycle helmet.
-patrick.
Patrick Gosling
The evidence I have available is that the "spike on the steering wheel"
meme was started by John Adams, although it's not conclusive.
-patrick.
Paul Rudin
Mark> "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote in message
Mark> news:wwtelqp...@masala.cambridge.redhat.com...
>> I still notice lots of loose kids in the back of cars, and it
>> infuriates
Yup. True. Vaguely relevant story. I've twice been pulled over by
police whilst perfectly legally (and IMO safely) transporting children
on bicycles. Whilst being lectured by some (apparently) 15 year old PC
on the dangers on my (grudgingly accepted to be legal) activity,
streams of cars with illegal non-seat-belt-wearing sprogs in the back
pass us by.
Mark> I've always preferred the "driver under the influence of
Mark> children" style of bumper/rear window sticker to the "Keep back
Mark> - children on board" directives.
Always been a bit disturbed by the "children on board" type stickers
myself. What's the idea here? It's OK to drive dangerously as long as
there are no children nearby?
G.W. Walker
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Ayliffe <marka...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> Mark> "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote in message
> Mark> news:wwtelqp...@masala.cambridge.redhat.com...
> >> I still notice lots of loose kids in the back of cars, and it
> >> infuriates
>
> Yup. True. Vaguely relevant story. I've twice been pulled over by
> police whilst perfectly legally (and IMO safely) transporting children
> on bicycles. Whilst being lectured by some (apparently) 15 year old PC
> on the dangers on my (grudgingly accepted to be legal) activity,
> streams of cars with illegal non-seat-belt-wearing sprogs in the back
> pass us by.
Astonishing. Letter to the Chief Constable? It would have been good to
take some numbers of those cars and reports PC 2345 for doing nothing.
> Mark> I've always preferred the "driver under the influence of
> Mark> children" style of bumper/rear window sticker to the "Keep back
> Mark> - children on board" directives.
>
> Always been a bit disturbed by the "children on board" type stickers
> myself. What's the idea here? It's OK to drive dangerously as long as
> there are no children nearby?
Not quite; I think it means "it's OK to drive dangerously as long as *my*
children are not nearby."
- Huge
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
Well, reducing accidents in 40+ limits will probably save some of
the lives of the children who are killed as passengers, rather
than pedestrians. But, on the whole, I agree with you. I think
it's just blatant emotionalism to appeal to the the child
fatality statistics as an excuse for speed cameras, other than in
specific situations such as outside schools and playing fields.
Mark
--
More pretentious waffle now at http://www.mark.x.tc
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Plugging that back into the headline figure at the top of the page,
>> then, we can arrive at a rough estimate that somwhere under 100 children
>> were probably killed in accidents where the driver was exceeding the
>> speed limit. With the various instances of "many" and "probably" in
>> these guestimates, I'd reckon that the actual number is probably around
>> 50 - 60.
>
>Have you an opinion about how many of those would have been prevented
>instead by red-light cameras (or physical barriers!) at pedestrian
>crossings? How many were crossing the road at a crossing rather than at
>random?
Good question! According to the stats, most of the child
pedestrian fatalities occurred away from pedestrian crossings.
The actual figures from the website are:
Crossing road on pedestrian crossing: 8%
Crossing road near pedestrian crossing: 5%
Crossing road more than 50m from a pedestrian crossing: 72%
Not crossing road: 10%
Not on road: 5%
Presumably "not crossing road" includes walking along it where
there is no footpath. It doesn't include cyclists.
Of those crossing the road, a third were obscured by a stationary
vehicle.
Unfortunately, the stats don't say how many of those killed other
than at pedestrian crossings were killed at other junctions,
whether or not light controlled. The low number killed near
pedestrian crossings suggests that barriers (to force pedestrians
on to the crossing instad of cutting the corner, so to speak)
probably wouldn't make much difference.
For the rest, it would be interesting to know if there is any set
of circumstances that occurs regularly in cases of child
fatalities, but without such knowledge it would be impossible to
make any sensible recommendations.
Malcolm Gray
> the lives of the children who are killed as passengers, rather
> than pedestrians. But, on the whole, I agree with you. I think
> it's just blatant emotionalism to appeal to the the child
> fatality statistics as an excuse for speed cameras, other than in
> specific situations such as outside schools and playing fields.
I was reminded of this thread when driving down the A1 last night
to see a group of people cross the road from a village to a petrol
station - does the speed limit make much difference to how
insane that looks ?
malcolm
Colin Rosenstiel
(Rupert Moss-Eccardt) wrote:
> Time to bring up my hobby horse:
>
> Q. What is the speed limit in the car park at the Cowley Road
> Park and Ride?
> A. 60 mph
>
> At the same time, the footpaths in the area are covered with
> nettles, spoil and discarded pallets.
>
> But its on the border between two districts, so nobody cares.
> There are plans to do something about it, but I presume CHUMMS
> has blighted that.
Er, it's clearly in the City on City Council owned land. And I'm pretty
sure the speed limit is show, BICBW.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
(Patrick Gosling) wrote:
Precisely. Especially if the cyclist parent is wearing a helmet.
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>Always been a bit disturbed by the "children on board" type stickers
>myself. What's the idea here? It's OK to drive dangerously as long as
>there are no children nearby?
In think you're missing the point. It's not a request for others
not to drive dangerously, it's a warning that the car bearing the
sticker may do so. Basically, it's shorthand for "I'm more
interested in keeping an eye on my children than keeping my eyes
on the road".
Paul Rudin
The idea of a sharpened steel spike fitted to the center of a steering
wheel as safety enhancing device was first floated (partially in jest)
by the American economist Armen Alchian.
(I had a bit of email correspondence with him asking him to confirm
this - IIRC he said the idea arose in a conversation between himself
and a colleague.)
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Yes, there are the 'National Speed Limit' repeater discs on the
lamp posts.
Richard Meredith
Walker) wrote:
Second President of the United States? I think Patrick must mean another
one.
--
This message may contain traces of nuts. Do not refreeze once thawed.
No animals were hurt in the making of this production. Suitable for
vegetarians.
Colin Rosenstiel
(Rupert Moss-Eccardt) wrote:
In which bit of Cowley Road? I'm sure it was 30 or maybe 40 past SJIC when
I worked there.
Colin Rosenstiel
Patrick Gosling
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
[ I wrote ]
>> If I were strapped onto a seat on the back of a bicycle that someone
>> else was in control of, I suspect I'd be grateful for a bicycle helmet.
>
>Precisely. Especially if the cyclist parent is wearing a helmet.
Actually, as far as I can tell, all the factors relating to wearing a
helmet that decrease the parent's safety (perception of increased
safety resulting in less cautious behaviour, decreased head mobility,
obstructed view) are ones that also decrease the child's safety,
whereas most of the factors relating to wearing a helmet that increase
the parent's safety (with the possible exception of the increased
visibility/noticeability of someone wearing a dayglo orange helmet)
have little or no effect on the child's safety.
-patrick.
Patrick Gosling
Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Yup. True. Vaguely relevant story. I've twice been pulled over by
>police whilst perfectly legally (and IMO safely) transporting children
>on bicycles.
Out of interest, what did they object to?
-patrick.
Patrick Gosling
Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <9kml17$e62$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, g...@eng.cam.ac.uk (G.W.
>Walker) wrote:
>
>> In article <9kmkcq$dnj$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>> Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >In article <9kmj9e$cq3$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>> >G.W. Walker <g...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>In article <Utzb7.33$GW.1128@psinet-eu-nl>,
>> >>Mark Ayliffe <marka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>6 inch steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel anyone?
>> >>
>> >>It would certainly focus the mind ;-)
>> >>
>> >>Isn't that a Stirling Moss quote, BTW?
>> >
>> >The evidence I have available is that the "spike on the steering wheel"
>> >meme was started by John Adams, although it's not conclusive.
>>
>> <ignorance>
>> who he?
>> </ignorance>
>
>Second President of the United States? I think Patrick must mean another
>one.
My personal hobby horse: the John Adams I'm referring to is
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/research.htm
and the context for my mention of him is the mention of that meme in
his excellent book "Risk".
-patrick.
Paul Rudin
Patrick> In article <wkd7699...@ntlworld.com>,
Patrick> Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Yup. True. Vaguely relevant story. I've twice been pulled over by
>> police whilst perfectly legally (and IMO safely) transporting
>> children on bicycles.
Patrick> Out of interest, what did they object to?
Nothing very specific. I think they think that it must be dangerous,
because it's not a car - the things they said were along the line of
"you'd be much better protected in a car...". Probably wouldn't happen
hereabouts because it's fairly common activity. This was in London 3
or 4 years ago, I guess.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
>
[snip[
> > Yes, there are the 'National Speed Limit' repeater discs on the
> > lamp posts.
>
> In which bit of Cowley Road? I'm sure it was 30 or maybe 40 past SJIC when
> I worked there.
Shock! Horror! Speed-Camera mad councillor admits he doesn't pay
attention to speed limit indications ! :-)
When you pass over the Guided^H^H^H^H^H^H Railway crossing you
pass some national speed limit signs. There are no further
signs on any part of 'Cowley Road' that used to be Milton Road
(the old A10) other than national limit repeaters. So it is
60 into the Zeus car park.
Malcolm Gray
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2001080...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> In which bit of Cowley Road? I'm sure it was 30 or maybe 40 past SJIC when
> I worked there.
posts
(complete with application for traffic calming and another to lower the
speed
limit)
Malcolm
Malcolm Gray
"Malcolm Gray" <malcol...@jobstream.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EgCb7.44$GW.1188@psinet-eu-nl...
the telgraph poles the notices were on.
Colin Rosenstiel
(Malcolm Gray) wrote:
Time to send off an e-mail I suspect.
Colin Rosenstiel
Jonathan Larmour
Jonathan Tracey <jo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> Look more carefully. There are quite a few around the City of Cambridge.
>>
>Yes but they are every three miles on the A14 towards the M1
>
>look at the M25 near heathrow every gantry has them fitted
I could believe that given the level of traffic there it is an
accident black spot.
Jifl
--
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine
Mark Ayliffe
news:9kmk85$dlm$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> If I were strapped onto a seat on the back of a bicycle that someone else
> was in control of, I suspect I'd be grateful for a bicycle helmet.
Quite so. I was criticising the adult setting a poor example by not wearing
a helmet himself/herself.
Mark
Mark Ayliffe
>
> Actually, as far as I can tell, all the factors relating to wearing a
> helmet that decrease the parent's safety (perception of increased
> safety resulting in less cautious behaviour, decreased head mobility,
> obstructed view) are ones that also decrease the child's safety,
> whereas most of the factors relating to wearing a helmet that increase
> the parent's safety (with the possible exception of the increased
> visibility/noticeability of someone wearing a dayglo orange helmet)
> have little or no effect on the child's safety.
I am a little surprised that otherwise intelligent people fall for this one.
If cyclists wore helmets more like motorcyclists then some of those points
might apply. I honestly don't believe that wearing a helmet makes my cycling
any more likely to cause an accident than not doing so. However if I do have
an accident it just might make the difference between a fractured skull (or
worse) and not.
However I'm very sure that kids are safer wearing helmets on bikes and my
first reason for wearing one is to set an example.
Mark
Mark Ayliffe
news:memo.2001080...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> In article <EgCb7.44$GW.1188@psinet-eu-nl>, malcol...@jobstream.co.uk
> (Malcolm Gray) wrote:
>
> > "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:memo.2001080...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> > > In which bit of Cowley Road? I'm sure it was 30 or maybe 40 past SJIC
> > > when I worked there.
!
I want to know how you got to work with your eyes closed. The signs are
_really_ obvious.
> > The bit outside SJIC has the national speed limit repeaters on the lamp
> > posts (complete with application for traffic calming and another to
> > lower the speed limit)
>
> Time to send off an e-mail I suspect.
Errm, what will that achieve? The application to change it is already in
place according the Malcolm's post. Pretty obvious that it will require
sorting before the new bridge is built, still that gives them plenty of time
yet :(
Mark
Paul Rudin
Mark> "Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
Mark> news:9kmp9p$hbo$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> Actually, as far as I can tell, all the factors relating to
>> wearing a helmet that decrease the parent's safety (perception of
>> increased safety resulting in less cautious behaviour, decreased
>> head mobility, obstructed view) are ones that also decrease the
>> child's safety, whereas most of the factors relating to wearing a
>> helmet that increase the parent's safety (with the possible
>> exception of the increased visibility/noticeability of someone
>> wearing a dayglo orange helmet) have little or no effect on the
>> child's safety.
Mark> I am a little surprised that otherwise intelligent people fall
Mark> for this one. If cyclists wore helmets more like motorcyclists
Mark> then some of those points might apply. I honestly don't believe
Mark> that wearing a helmet makes my cycling any more likely to cause
Mark> an accident than not doing so. However if I do have an accident
Mark> it just might make the difference between a fractured skull (or
Mark> worse) and not.
Mark> However I'm very sure that kids are safer wearing helmets on
Mark> bikes and my first reason for wearing one is to set an example.
I don't wear a helemt becuase it makes me uncomfortably hot when
cycling. Passengers don't have this problem so there's no reason for
them not to wear one...
--
Uzi $400 million in gold bullion quiche Panama Peking security PLO
radar Nazi FBI AK-47 North Korea colonel supercomputer assassination
st...@poggle.org
> The bit outside SJIC has the national speed limit repeaters on the lamp
> posts
> (complete with application for traffic calming and another to lower the
> speed
> limit)
Oh no, this is so, so stupid. They should be forced to lower the
limit and THEN decide if they really, really need to install traffic
calming.
-- Steve
Dave Holland
>In think you're missing the point. It's not a request for others
>not to drive dangerously, it's a warning that the car bearing the
>sticker may do so. Basically, it's shorthand for "I'm more
>interested in keeping an eye on my children than keeping my eyes
>on the road".
While you and Hugo may be independently trolling on this one, I think
you've both missed the point. "Baby on board" can also be read as
"driver may inadvertently be distracted by
vomiting/screaming/missile-throwing child".
Dave
PS. comments along the lines of "just 'cos you chose to have a sprog,
don't inflict your dangerous driving on the rest of us" will be
thoroughly ignored... if I can muster the willpower.
Patrick Gosling
Mark Ayliffe <marka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>However I'm very sure that kids are safer wearing helmets on bikes and my
>first reason for wearing one is to set an example.
That's probably the first good reason I've seen for doing so.
-patrick.
Colin Rosenstiel
Ayliffe) wrote:
This attitude is as stupid as would be a requirement for pedestrians to
wear helmets.
They would also bring safety improvements but at the cost of discouraging
the greener travel mode in favour of motor cars.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
Ayliffe) wrote:
> "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.2001080...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> > In article <EgCb7.44$GW.1188@psinet-eu-nl>,
> > malcol...@jobstream.co.uk
> > (Malcolm Gray) wrote:
> >
> > > "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:memo.2001080...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> > > > In which bit of Cowley Road? I'm sure it was 30 or maybe 40 past
> > > > SJIC when I worked there.
>
> !
> I want to know how you got to work with your eyes closed. The signs are
> _really_ obvious.
Can't say I noticed on a bike, but there you go.
> > > The bit outside SJIC has the national speed limit repeaters on the
> > > lamp posts (complete with application for traffic calming and
> > > another to lower the speed limit)
> >
> > Time to send off an e-mail I suspect.
>
> Errm, what will that achieve? The application to change it is already in
> place according the Malcolm's post. Pretty obvious that it will require
> sorting before the new bridge is built, still that gives them plenty of
> time yet :(
I've asked for a progress report but people are on holiday.
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Ayliffe
news:memo.2001080...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> Ayliffe) wrote:
> >
> > Quite so. I was criticising the adult setting a poor example by not
> > wearing a helmet himself/herself.
>
> This attitude is as stupid as would be a requirement for pedestrians to
> wear helmets.
You're confusing "criticising" with "regulating" I think. And if you think
I'm stupid to think (hold the attitude) that cyclists "on the whole" should
wear helmets then I'd like some justification please. Or an apology.
>
> They would also bring safety improvements but at the cost of discouraging
> the greener travel mode in favour of motor cars.
So we should encourage everyone (or maybe just more people) on to bicycles
because it's greener, but regardless of any safety factor? Colin, that
really _is_ stupid and if it's council policy then my faith in politicians
is restored to its proper place (very low).
I am not in favour of a law requiring cyclists to wear helmets. It's pretty
clear that the safety case is not as strong as (say) motorcyclists wearing
helmets, or car passengers wearing seatbelts. However generally[1], it is
safer for a cyclist to wear a helmet than not and such practice should
therefore be encouraged.
Mark
[1] or rather the safety arguments _usually_ outweigh arguments against
wearing them. Hot heads, messed up expensive hairstyles, whatever.
Diana Galletly
Mark Ayliffe <marka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>However generally[1], it is
>safer for a cyclist to wear a helmet than not and such practice should
>therefore be encouraged.
>
>Mark
>[1] or rather the safety arguments _usually_ outweigh arguments against
>wearing them. Hot heads, messed up expensive hairstyles, whatever.
Straps that rub against ears, causing the cyclist to pay less attention to
the road than would otherwise be the case because they're constantly having
to adjust the helmet to stop it chafing more.
Yes, I do wear a helmet anyway. God knows why. At least this one's light
enough not to give me neck-ache as well as the sore ears.
--
+ Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/ +
Mark Ayliffe
news:9koos4$e86$1...@earthquake.eng.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Straps that rub against ears, causing the cyclist to pay less attention to
> the road than would otherwise be the case because they're constantly
having
> to adjust the helmet to stop it chafing more.
>
> Yes, I do wear a helmet anyway. God knows why. At least this one's light
> enough not to give me neck-ache as well as the sore ears.
Presumably you've tried adjusting it? Sorry if that seems patronising. My
old helmet was a bit prone to the straps slipping, though I didn't have a
problem with it (skin too thick, obviously!). My current one has a clever
little twist lock thingy on the plastic piece which holds the straps
together under the ears. Voila, the straps stay where they're set.
Mark
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Just like all the publicity attempting to justify speed cameras does, by
convincing people who might have walked or cycled that the roads are really
really dangerous, so they'd better not cycle or walk, they'd better drive
because it's the only way they'll be safe.
But then it wouldn't do to admit that the sky isn't in fact falling in.
BTW, from the recently published figures:
76 people per week die in domestic accidents, making 3952.
66 people per week die "on the roads" making 3409.
Perspective? What's that? A type of see-through plastic?
- Huge
Paul Rudin
Hugo> 76 people per week die in domestic accidents, making 3952. 66
Hugo> people per week die "on the roads" making 3409.
So how many deaths per user-minute for each is that? Presuambly most
of us spend much, much more time at home that we do "on the roads"....
--
KGB cracking security Treasury Rule Psix [Hello to all my fans in
domestic surveillance] plutonium Noriega Semtex South Africa Panama
BATF Legion of Doom genetic fissionable
Patrick Gosling
Paul Rudin <Paul_...@scientia.com> wrote:
> Hugo> 76 people per week die in domestic accidents, making 3952. 66
> Hugo> people per week die "on the roads" making 3409.
>
>So how many deaths per user-minute for each is that? Presuambly most
>of us spend much, much more time at home that we do "on the roads"....
Depends if you look at minutes spent on activities with a measurable risk
level (eg cooking, DIY, etc.) or all minutes spent in the home including
asleep ...
-patrick.
Roland Perry
> Hugo> 76 people per week die in domestic accidents, making 3952. 66
> Hugo> people per week die "on the roads" making 3409.
>
>So how many deaths per user-minute for each is that? Presuambly most
>of us spend much, much more time at home that we do "on the roads"....
Not if you take out 8 hours a day asleep. Or are some of these
'accidents' the bedroom ceiling [rather than the sky] falling in?
--
Meldrew of Meldreth
Colin Rosenstiel
Ayliffe) wrote:
> "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.2001080...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> > In article <VjNb7.5$J%2.379@psinet-eu-nl>, marka...@my-deja.com
> > (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
> > >
> > > Quite so. I was criticising the adult setting a poor example by not
> > > wearing a helmet himself/herself.
> >
> > This attitude is as stupid as would be a requirement for pedestrians
> > to wear helmets.
>
> You're confusing "criticising" with "regulating" I think. And if you
> think I'm stupid to think (hold the attitude) that cyclists "on the
> whole" should wear helmets then I'd like some justification please. Or
> an apology.
Makes no difference. It discourages cycling, usually in favour of the
infinitely more dangerous (for cyclists) car driving. People will be
discouraged from cycling because people like you pillory them for not
wearing helmets. Yet helmets would do as much to avoid danger for
pedestrians and very little for either.
It *is* a stupid attitude, mostly expressed by motorists trying to evade
the consequences of their excessive numbers and speeds.
> > They would also bring safety improvements but at the cost of
> > discouraging the greener travel mode in favour of motor cars.
>
> So we should encourage everyone (or maybe just more people) on to
> bicycles because it's greener, but regardless of any safety factor?
Same for pedestrians.
> Colin, that really _is_ stupid and if it's council policy then my faith
> in politicians is restored to its proper place (very low).
Nothing to do with politicians (as a class). The views I expressed were
propagated very well by the Cycling Campaign and I happen to agree with
them. Call them politicians if you want to increase the gratuitous insult
count.
> I am not in favour of a law requiring cyclists to wear helmets. It's
> pretty clear that the safety case is not as strong as (say)
> motorcyclists wearing helmets, or car passengers wearing seatbelts.
> However generally[1], it is safer for a cyclist to wear a helmet than
> not and such practice should therefore be encouraged.
>
> Mark
> [1] or rather the safety arguments _usually_ outweigh arguments against
> wearing them. Hot heads, messed up expensive hairstyles, whatever.
Walking with a helmet can also be demonstrated to be safer than not doing
so. Are you going to pillory pedestrians who don't submit themselves to
the extra hassle and baggage necessary to protect themselves from
motorists in the same way?
Just you wait till the oil runs out!
Colin Rosenstiel
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Paul Rudin <Paul_...@scientia.com> writes:
> >>>>> "Hugo" == Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> writes:
>
> Hugo> 76 people per week die in domestic accidents, making 3952. 66
> Hugo> people per week die "on the roads" making 3409.
>
> So how many deaths per user-minute for each is that? Presuambly most
> of us spend much, much more time at home that we do "on the roads"....
I don't know, but I bet the deaths per passenger-mile are far far worse for
domestic accidents.
- Huge
st...@poggle.org
> wearing helmets. Yet helmets would do as much to avoid danger for
> pedestrians and very little for either.
As a cyclist there is a significant chance of me taking a high speed
tumble and hitting my head hard on something solid and possibly sharp.
As a pedestrian, there is a much smaller chance of either taking a fall
in the first place, or of the impact being as hard.
So your statement appears to be highly questionable.
-- Steve
Patrick Gosling
>rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
>> wearing helmets. Yet helmets would do as much to avoid danger for
>> pedestrians and very little for either.
>
>As a cyclist there is a significant chance of me taking a high speed
>tumble and hitting my head hard on something solid and possibly sharp.
>As a pedestrian, there is a much smaller chance of either taking a fall
>in the first place, or of the impact being as hard.
So, if I'm cycling (when carrying my daughter on the back) slower than
I normally travel as a pedestrian (which happens to be the case), then
criticism of my not wearing a helmet would be less appropriate?
-patrick.