Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
'Get Britain Cycling' parliamentary group report
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Ian Jackson
May 8, 2013, 11:52:00 AM5/8/13
to
I don't seem to have seen this reported here, although it's been in
various other channels.
As the Cambridge Cycling Campaign wrote on the 24th of April:
The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group publishes its report
today. It calls for a new priority for investing public funds,
redesigning roads, extending lower speed limits, better training
and better political leadership - more below.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign gave evidence to the committee (see
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/107/article17.html ) and Martin is
in London today for the launch of the committee's report.
At the same time The Times' cyclesafe campaign
(http://thetim.es/11NeZLw , and see their editorial this morning:
http://thetim.es/11NeSQa ) has launched an online petition to 'call on the
Prime Minister to pledge that the Government will implement the
recommendations.' They are aiming at over 100,000 signatures to trigger a
debate in parliament.
Please add your support to the petition by visiting
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196
Please forgive me if we've done this and I missed it.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
various other channels.
As the Cambridge Cycling Campaign wrote on the 24th of April:
The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group publishes its report
today. It calls for a new priority for investing public funds,
redesigning roads, extending lower speed limits, better training
and better political leadership - more below.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign gave evidence to the committee (see
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/107/article17.html ) and Martin is
in London today for the launch of the committee's report.
At the same time The Times' cyclesafe campaign
(http://thetim.es/11NeZLw , and see their editorial this morning:
http://thetim.es/11NeSQa ) has launched an online petition to 'call on the
Prime Minister to pledge that the Government will implement the
recommendations.' They are aiming at over 100,000 signatures to trigger a
debate in parliament.
Please add your support to the petition by visiting
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196
Please forgive me if we've done this and I missed it.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 8, 2013, 1:24:32 PM5/8/13
to
In article <Bkq*ks...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
recommendations are the usual wishy-washy rhetoric that is used
as an excuse for substituting real action with vague statements
of intent and damn-fool farcilities. And, of the few that are
definite, most are more likely to cause increased aggression
against cyclists than any safety benefit.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>I don't seem to have seen this reported here, although it's been in
>various other channels.
I can't remember having seen it. I shan't be signing it, as I
>
>I don't seem to have seen this reported here, although it's been in
>various other channels.
recommendations are the usual wishy-washy rhetoric that is used
as an excuse for substituting real action with vague statements
of intent and damn-fool farcilities. And, of the few that are
definite, most are more likely to cause increased aggression
against cyclists than any safety benefit.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch
May 9, 2013, 5:55:02 AM5/9/13
to
leadership, spending and, above all, prioritising cycle provision as
useful transport rather than "afterthought".
I can't see that the likes of "Create a cycling budget of �10 per person
per year, increasing to �20" is "vague", and having acknowledged that
piecemeal afterthoughts are no use the whole point of the
recommendations on provision is it should start with bikes being
considered properly from the start of the process. And the
/requirement/ stated for political leadership from the top is as far
from wishy-washy as it gets.
If you want to argue that that's not necessarily what we'd get then (a)
fair point, but (b) your chances of not getting what it says go up if
you write it off straight away.
I signed the petition the day it came out.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Mark
May 9, 2013, 6:16:50 AM5/9/13
to
I have added my signature.
In particular I'd like to see action about pavement parking, useless
cycle facilities, urban speed limits etc....
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 7:24:21 AM5/9/13
to
In article <av195u...@mid.individual.net>,
and apple pie of UK non-motorised transport policy. 25 years of
them has had a marginal negative effect, so why should more of them
improve anything?
>I can't see that the likes of "Create a cycling budget of �10 per person
>per year, increasing to \xa320" is "vague",
It's vague, because it doesn't say what it should be spent on, and
it's harmful, because the policy of pushing cyclists off the road
and (failing that) out of the main carriageways is precisely why
cycling is not getting anywhere as a replacement for driving.
> and having acknowledged that
>piecemeal afterthoughts are no use the whole point of the
>recommendations on provision is it should start with bikes being
>considered properly from the start of the process. And the
>/requirement/ stated for political leadership from the top is as far
>from wishy-washy as it gets.
It's uselessly vague, because it doesn't place the requirement ON
anyone in a position to actually deliver.
>If you want to argue that that's not necessarily what we'd get then (a)
>fair point, but (b) your chances of not getting what it says go up if
>you write it off straight away.
Be careful what you wish for - you may get it. This report is
essentially saying that we need more of the existing policies,
and I am saying that the policies are one of the main causes of
the failure. So I regard it as BETTER not to get it. OK?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>> I can't remember having seen it. I shan't be signing it, as I
>> recommendations are the usual wishy-washy rhetoric that is used
>> as an excuse for substituting real action with vague statements
>> of intent and damn-fool farcilities. And, of the few that are
>> definite, most are more likely to cause increased aggression
>> against cyclists than any safety benefit.
>
>I really can't agree with that. What it calls for is a vast increase in
>leadership, spending and, above all, prioritising cycle provision as
>useful transport rather than "afterthought".
The first and last are worse than vague - they are the motherhood
>>>
>> I can't remember having seen it. I shan't be signing it, as I
>> recommendations are the usual wishy-washy rhetoric that is used
>> as an excuse for substituting real action with vague statements
>> of intent and damn-fool farcilities. And, of the few that are
>> definite, most are more likely to cause increased aggression
>> against cyclists than any safety benefit.
>
>I really can't agree with that. What it calls for is a vast increase in
>leadership, spending and, above all, prioritising cycle provision as
>useful transport rather than "afterthought".
and apple pie of UK non-motorised transport policy. 25 years of
them has had a marginal negative effect, so why should more of them
improve anything?
>I can't see that the likes of "Create a cycling budget of �10 per person
It's vague, because it doesn't say what it should be spent on, and
it's harmful, because the policy of pushing cyclists off the road
and (failing that) out of the main carriageways is precisely why
cycling is not getting anywhere as a replacement for driving.
> and having acknowledged that
>piecemeal afterthoughts are no use the whole point of the
>recommendations on provision is it should start with bikes being
>considered properly from the start of the process. And the
>/requirement/ stated for political leadership from the top is as far
>from wishy-washy as it gets.
anyone in a position to actually deliver.
>If you want to argue that that's not necessarily what we'd get then (a)
>fair point, but (b) your chances of not getting what it says go up if
>you write it off straight away.
essentially saying that we need more of the existing policies,
and I am saying that the policies are one of the main causes of
the failure. So I regard it as BETTER not to get it. OK?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch
May 9, 2013, 8:13:50 AM5/9/13
to
On 09/05/2013 12:24, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <av195u...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I can't remember having seen it. I shan't be signing it, as I
>>> recommendations are the usual wishy-washy rhetoric that is used
>>> as an excuse for substituting real action with vague statements
>>> of intent and damn-fool farcilities. And, of the few that are
>>> definite, most are more likely to cause increased aggression
>>> against cyclists than any safety benefit.
>>
>> I really can't agree with that. What it calls for is a vast increase in
>> leadership, spending and, above all, prioritising cycle provision as
>> useful transport rather than "afterthought".
>
> The first and last are worse than vague - they are the motherhood
> and apple pie of UK non-motorised transport policy. 25 years of
> them has had a marginal negative effect, so why should more of them
> improve anything?
25 years of "them"... You call what we've had in the last 25 years
> In article <av195u...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I can't remember having seen it. I shan't be signing it, as I
>>> recommendations are the usual wishy-washy rhetoric that is used
>>> as an excuse for substituting real action with vague statements
>>> of intent and damn-fool farcilities. And, of the few that are
>>> definite, most are more likely to cause increased aggression
>>> against cyclists than any safety benefit.
>>
>> I really can't agree with that. What it calls for is a vast increase in
>> leadership, spending and, above all, prioritising cycle provision as
>> useful transport rather than "afterthought".
>
> The first and last are worse than vague - they are the motherhood
> and apple pie of UK non-motorised transport policy. 25 years of
> them has had a marginal negative effect, so why should more of them
> improve anything?
anything /like/ leadership or prioritising?
More of them to the point of getting them to be useful could improve a lot.
> It's vague, because it doesn't say what it should be spent on, and
> it's harmful, because the policy of pushing cyclists off the road
> and (failing that) out of the main carriageways is precisely why
> cycling is not getting anywhere as a replacement for driving.
The highest modal share in the developed world for cycling is somewhere
cyclists are "pushed off the road". Having spent a few weeks being
"pushed off the road", if it's done that well I'm all in favour. As
will very probably be a great number of /potential/ cyclists who are too
scared to be on the main carriageway of a main road.
>> and having acknowledged that
>> piecemeal afterthoughts are no use the whole point of the
>> recommendations on provision is it should start with bikes being
>> considered properly from the start of the process. And the
>> /requirement/ stated for political leadership from the top is as far
>>from wishy-washy as it gets.
>
> It's uselessly vague, because it doesn't place the requirement ON
> anyone in a position to actually deliver.
> Be careful what you wish for - you may get it. This report is
> essentially saying that we need more of the existing policies,
arguing for a sea-change in how the government (national and local)
perceives and acts on cycling, nothing like more of what we have already.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 8:35:39 AM5/9/13
to
In article <av1i5t...@mid.individual.net>,
think what is. Don't expect useful action.
>> Be careful what you wish for - you may get it. This report is
>> essentially saying that we need more of the existing policies,
>
>We appear to have read entirely different reports. The one I read is
>arguing for a sea-change in how the government (national and local)
>perceives and acts on cycling, nothing like more of what we have already.
I have read the summary and recommendations, which is all that showed
up, all we were pointed to and all that The Powers That Be will read.
Here are my comments on the recommendations - please note that
Motherhood and Apple Pie is shorthand for a public commitment to
well-meaning principles but with no intent to actually do anything
about them.
Create a cycling budget of at least ?10 per person per year,
increasing to ?20.
Hopelessly vague and probably harmful when it is spent on yet more
psychle farcilities and bureaucracy.
Ensure local and national bodies, such as the Highways Agency,
Department for Transport, and local government allocate funds to
cycling of at least the local proportion of journeys done by bike.
Ditto.
Cycle spending that makes a tangible contribution to other government
departments, such as Health, Education, Sport and Business, should be
funded from those budgets, not just the DfT.
Oh, good, so the DfT is no absolved from any responsibility for
funding any cycle facilities (even on trunk roads).
A statutory requirement that cyclists' and pedestrians' needs are
considered at an early stage of all new development schemes,
including housing and business developments as well as traffic and
transport schemes, including funding through the planning system
Idiots. One already exists, though it's indirect. Exactly why making
it direct will change anything, God alone knows.
Revise existing design guidance, to include more secure cycle
parking, continental best practice for cycle-friendly planning and
design, and an audit process to help planners, engineers and
architects to think bike in all their work.
Idiots. The second already exists. The third is ridiculous, because
the Planning Act does not enable such powers. The first is, I agree,
vaguely plausible.
The Highways Agency should draw up a programme to remove the barriers
to cycle journeys parallel to or across trunk roads and motorway
corridors, starting with the places where the potential for increased
cycle use is greatest.
Motherhood and Apple Pie.
Local authorities should seek to deliver cycle-friendly improvements
across their existing roads, including small improvements, segregated
routes, and road reallocation.
Ditto.
The Department for Transport should approve and update necessary new
regulations, such as allowing separate traffic lights for cyclists
and implementing Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. The
objective of good design is to create a safe and comfortable cycling
experience for the entire end to end journey.
Ditto.
Extend 20 mph speed limits in towns, and consider 40mph limits on
many rural lanes.
Almost certain to increase hostility against cyclists, and very
dubiously of any safety benefit. The more people drive to speed
limits, the less they consider the conditions.
Improve HGV safety by vehicle design, driver training, and mutual
awareness with cyclists; promote rail freight and limit use of HGVs
on the busiest urban streets at the busiest times, and use public
sector projects to drive fleet improvements.
Idiots. Driver training? Why not PSVs? By whom, anyway? And who
has the powers to enforce it on those that most need it? Limiting
HGVs under such conditions is already policy. And what the hell do
they mean by the last? Indeed, 25 years of Tory government has made
most such possibilities illegal.
Strengthen the enforcement of road traffic law, including speed
limits, and ensuring that driving offences - especially those
resulting in death or injury - are treated sufficiently seriously by
police, prosecutors and judges.
Motherhood and Apple Pie.
Provide cycle training at all primary and secondary schools Offer
widespread affordable (or free) cycle training and other programmes
to encourage people of all ages and backgrounds to give cycling a
try, as evidenced by NICE.
Hopelessly vague and Motherhood and Apple Pie. Who would provide such
training, and who would pay for it?
Promote cycling as a safe and normal activity for people of all ages
and backgrounds.
Motherhood and Apple Pie.
The Government should produce a cross-departmental Cycling Action
Plan, with annual progress reports.
Have you ever seen such Action Plans and their Progress Reports?
The Government should appoint a national Cycling Champion, an expert
from outside the Department for Transport.
Yeah, right. All that is needed is a front man.
The government should set national targets to increase cycle use from
less than 2% of journeys in 2011, to 10% of all journeys in 2025, and
25% by 2050
Motherhood and Thorn Apple Pie. We have seen the effect of such
schemes in Cambridge, where cycling has expanded at the expense of
walking, which both increases congestion and reduces exercise.
Central and local government and devolved authorities should each
appoint a lead politician responsible for cycling.
I am sure that they all have someone suitably ineffective or
petrolheaded.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
>> It's uselessly vague, because it doesn't place the requirement ON
>> anyone in a position to actually deliver.
>
>"The top" is the PM.
And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
>> anyone in a position to actually deliver.
>
>"The top" is the PM.
think what is. Don't expect useful action.
>> Be careful what you wish for - you may get it. This report is
>> essentially saying that we need more of the existing policies,
>
>We appear to have read entirely different reports. The one I read is
>arguing for a sea-change in how the government (national and local)
>perceives and acts on cycling, nothing like more of what we have already.
up, all we were pointed to and all that The Powers That Be will read.
Here are my comments on the recommendations - please note that
Motherhood and Apple Pie is shorthand for a public commitment to
well-meaning principles but with no intent to actually do anything
about them.
Create a cycling budget of at least ?10 per person per year,
increasing to ?20.
Hopelessly vague and probably harmful when it is spent on yet more
psychle farcilities and bureaucracy.
Ensure local and national bodies, such as the Highways Agency,
Department for Transport, and local government allocate funds to
cycling of at least the local proportion of journeys done by bike.
Ditto.
Cycle spending that makes a tangible contribution to other government
departments, such as Health, Education, Sport and Business, should be
funded from those budgets, not just the DfT.
Oh, good, so the DfT is no absolved from any responsibility for
funding any cycle facilities (even on trunk roads).
A statutory requirement that cyclists' and pedestrians' needs are
considered at an early stage of all new development schemes,
including housing and business developments as well as traffic and
transport schemes, including funding through the planning system
Idiots. One already exists, though it's indirect. Exactly why making
it direct will change anything, God alone knows.
Revise existing design guidance, to include more secure cycle
parking, continental best practice for cycle-friendly planning and
design, and an audit process to help planners, engineers and
architects to think bike in all their work.
Idiots. The second already exists. The third is ridiculous, because
the Planning Act does not enable such powers. The first is, I agree,
vaguely plausible.
The Highways Agency should draw up a programme to remove the barriers
to cycle journeys parallel to or across trunk roads and motorway
corridors, starting with the places where the potential for increased
cycle use is greatest.
Motherhood and Apple Pie.
Local authorities should seek to deliver cycle-friendly improvements
across their existing roads, including small improvements, segregated
routes, and road reallocation.
Ditto.
The Department for Transport should approve and update necessary new
regulations, such as allowing separate traffic lights for cyclists
and implementing Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. The
objective of good design is to create a safe and comfortable cycling
experience for the entire end to end journey.
Ditto.
Extend 20 mph speed limits in towns, and consider 40mph limits on
many rural lanes.
Almost certain to increase hostility against cyclists, and very
dubiously of any safety benefit. The more people drive to speed
limits, the less they consider the conditions.
Improve HGV safety by vehicle design, driver training, and mutual
awareness with cyclists; promote rail freight and limit use of HGVs
on the busiest urban streets at the busiest times, and use public
sector projects to drive fleet improvements.
Idiots. Driver training? Why not PSVs? By whom, anyway? And who
has the powers to enforce it on those that most need it? Limiting
HGVs under such conditions is already policy. And what the hell do
they mean by the last? Indeed, 25 years of Tory government has made
most such possibilities illegal.
Strengthen the enforcement of road traffic law, including speed
limits, and ensuring that driving offences - especially those
resulting in death or injury - are treated sufficiently seriously by
police, prosecutors and judges.
Motherhood and Apple Pie.
Provide cycle training at all primary and secondary schools Offer
widespread affordable (or free) cycle training and other programmes
to encourage people of all ages and backgrounds to give cycling a
try, as evidenced by NICE.
Hopelessly vague and Motherhood and Apple Pie. Who would provide such
training, and who would pay for it?
Promote cycling as a safe and normal activity for people of all ages
and backgrounds.
Motherhood and Apple Pie.
The Government should produce a cross-departmental Cycling Action
Plan, with annual progress reports.
Have you ever seen such Action Plans and their Progress Reports?
The Government should appoint a national Cycling Champion, an expert
from outside the Department for Transport.
Yeah, right. All that is needed is a front man.
The government should set national targets to increase cycle use from
less than 2% of journeys in 2011, to 10% of all journeys in 2025, and
25% by 2050
Motherhood and Thorn Apple Pie. We have seen the effect of such
schemes in Cambridge, where cycling has expanded at the expense of
walking, which both increases congestion and reduces exercise.
Central and local government and devolved authorities should each
appoint a lead politician responsible for cycling.
I am sure that they all have someone suitably ineffective or
petrolheaded.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Tom Gardner
May 9, 2013, 11:50:23 AM5/9/13
to
nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <av1i5t...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "The top" is the PM.
>
> And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
> think what is. Don't expect useful action.
I think he is extremely positive and direct (for someone
> In article <av1i5t...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "The top" is the PM.
>
> And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
> think what is. Don't expect useful action.
that thinks "Director of Corporate Affairs" at Carlton
Communications is a useful job).
But then again maybe, just maybe, Obama's summary of a
2008 meeting is appropriate; "What a lightweight".
> Cycle spending that makes a tangible contribution to other government
> departments, such as Health, Education, Sport and Business, should be
> funded from those budgets, not just the DfT.
>
> Oh, good, so the DfT is no absolved from any responsibility for
> funding any cycle facilities (even on trunk roads).
accountability for the NHS has been removed from ministers
and "given" to the NHS Commissioning Board and Clinical
Commissioning Groups.
Expect to see more of that king of thing.
Peter Clinch
May 9, 2013, 11:50:40 AM5/9/13
to
On 09/05/2013 13:35, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
> think what is. Don't expect useful action.
If every possibility is ruled out as hopeless at this point then I
> And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
> think what is. Don't expect useful action.
wouldn't expect any useful action. Which is why it's important not to
dismiss it as hopeless at this point IMHO. I'm not optimistic, but I'm
not going to go out of my way to ensure pessimism comes to pass.
<snip dismissals>
The report suggests the kind of path that led NL from being similarly
car-centric to the UK in the 70s to where it is today. The obvious
gross failure of their plan is clear from NL being the "land of cars"
where the pervasive motoring culture reviles cycles and cyclists and
ensures they're sidelined in to farcical ghettos and unconsidered in
transport planning. Or not...
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 12:56:04 PM5/9/13
to
In article <av1s4k...@mid.individual.net>,
few of which even overlap with anything in those recommendations.
>The report suggests the kind of path that led NL from being similarly
>car-centric to the UK in the 70s to where it is today. The obvious
>gross failure of their plan is clear from NL being the "land of cars"
>where the pervasive motoring culture reviles cycles and cyclists and
>ensures they're sidelined in to farcical ghettos and unconsidered in
>transport planning. Or not...
Your optimism is touching. Do you have any actual evidence for your
first sentence?
Indeed, I doubt very much that you could provide any hard evidence
that the Netherlands was as car-centric as the UK was in the 1970s,
let alone today. In any case, a solution that might have worked
40 years ago is most unlikely to work today.
My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
>> think what is. Don't expect useful action.
>
>If every possibility is ruled out as hopeless at this point then I
>wouldn't expect any useful action. Which is why it's important not to
>dismiss it as hopeless at this point IMHO. I'm not optimistic, but I'm
>not going to go out of my way to ensure pessimism comes to pass.
Please don't be a complete clot. There are many possibilities,
>
>> And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
>> think what is. Don't expect useful action.
>
>If every possibility is ruled out as hopeless at this point then I
>wouldn't expect any useful action. Which is why it's important not to
>dismiss it as hopeless at this point IMHO. I'm not optimistic, but I'm
>not going to go out of my way to ensure pessimism comes to pass.
few of which even overlap with anything in those recommendations.
>The report suggests the kind of path that led NL from being similarly
>car-centric to the UK in the 70s to where it is today. The obvious
>gross failure of their plan is clear from NL being the "land of cars"
>where the pervasive motoring culture reviles cycles and cyclists and
>ensures they're sidelined in to farcical ghettos and unconsidered in
>transport planning. Or not...
first sentence?
Indeed, I doubt very much that you could provide any hard evidence
that the Netherlands was as car-centric as the UK was in the 1970s,
let alone today. In any case, a solution that might have worked
40 years ago is most unlikely to work today.
My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 1:07:17 PM5/9/13
to
In message <kmgo27$j5p$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk>
nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
[snip]
narrative of one outcome. Re-running the same experiment, or even
dividing the experiment into parallel universes and testing the outcome
multiple times is not something that can be achieved.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
[snip]
>
> My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
> that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
> but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
>
Unfortunately history doesn't provide that kind of "proof", merely a
> My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
> that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
> but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
>
narrative of one outcome. Re-running the same experiment, or even
dividing the experiment into parallel universes and testing the outcome
multiple times is not something that can be achieved.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
David Damerell
May 9, 2013, 1:51:11 PM5/9/13
to
Quoting <nm...@cam.ac.uk>:
>Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>I can't see that the likes of "Create a cycling budget of �10 per person
>>per year, increasing to \xa320" is "vague",
>It's vague, because it doesn't say what it should be spent on
For example, http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/107/article6.html -
>Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>I can't see that the likes of "Create a cycling budget of �10 per person
>>per year, increasing to \xa320" is "vague",
>It's vague, because it doesn't say what it should be spent on
that's L450,000 of "cycling money", with the actual cycling content being
a bit of paint.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, May.
Tomorrow will be Second Tuesday, May.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 2:08:32 PM5/9/13
to
In article <deab394953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
a testable prediction, and having the result come out as predicted,
and that is the meaning used in that well-known and standard
expression. I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable
sciences are incapable of any form of proof :-)
I accept that is a very weak form of proof, but it's a damn sight
more than the proponents of the actions in that report can show
for the claimed benefits of them.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
>> that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
>> but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
>
>Unfortunately history doesn't provide that kind of "proof", merely a
>narrative of one outcome. Re-running the same experiment, or even
>dividing the experiment into parallel universes and testing the outcome
>multiple times is not something that can be achieved.
There is more than one kind of proof in science. One is making
>
>> My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
>> that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
>> but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
>
>Unfortunately history doesn't provide that kind of "proof", merely a
>narrative of one outcome. Re-running the same experiment, or even
>dividing the experiment into parallel universes and testing the outcome
>multiple times is not something that can be achieved.
a testable prediction, and having the result come out as predicted,
and that is the meaning used in that well-known and standard
expression. I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable
sciences are incapable of any form of proof :-)
I accept that is a very weak form of proof, but it's a damn sight
more than the proponents of the actions in that report can show
for the claimed benefits of them.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 2:26:00 PM5/9/13
to
In message <kmgsa8$jfs$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Yes but merely pointing to a single data point observational outcome and
then claiming proof of causation is very very very weak. I could for
example claim that I can predict the future outcome of the single
tossing of a single coin and I have an approximately 50% chance of my
prediction being proved right when tested.
As for what political activists like to claim, they'll always claim
their actions led to the successful outcomes, and their opponents
actions led to the failures.
I think the problem with the current debate surrounding cycle
transport provision and about the best way to get to our desired
destination is that the opening gambit is "ideally you don't want to
start from here".
then claiming proof of causation is very very very weak. I could for
example claim that I can predict the future outcome of the single
tossing of a single coin and I have an approximately 50% chance of my
prediction being proved right when tested.
As for what political activists like to claim, they'll always claim
their actions led to the successful outcomes, and their opponents
actions led to the failures.
I think the problem with the current debate surrounding cycle
transport provision and about the best way to get to our desired
destination is that the opening gambit is "ideally you don't want to
start from here".
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 3:07:02 PM5/9/13
to
In article <52df404953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
fact that I used a standard English expression, which you seem
to have misinterpreted, and deal with some testable assertions.
I predicted c. 1995 that the policies being adopted in Cambridge,
and supported by the Campaign, would lead to cyclists being forced
off the road and increased aggression against cyclists. Virtually
every campaigner said that neither would happen. Well, the data
support me.
>As for what political activists like to claim, they'll always claim
>their actions led to the successful outcomes, and their opponents
>actions led to the failures.
Well, yes, but I am not one such. I admit my failures of prediction,
some of which have been impressive :-)
>I think the problem with the current debate surrounding cycle
>transport provision and about the best way to get to our desired
>destination is that the opening gambit is "ideally you don't want to
>start from here".
Not at all. That's merely obvious. There are far worse problems,
which are the utterly woolly thinking and, even worse, the dogmas
which are equally likely to be converse of the truth. As with the
damn helmet claims.
As an example of the first, which runs through the current policies
and these recommendations is that all cycling is equally useful.
Well, I assert that replacing walking by cycling doesn't help at
all with traffic problems and that cycling on the flat, no wind etc.
at below 7.5 MPH doesn't help with health issues. Both at a national
level, of course.
The point here is that neither the traffic nor the health issues will be
helped until and unless cycling is restored to the sort of purpose that
it had up until the 1970s - i.e. as a popular method of personal
transport as an alternative to driving, which implies for ranges of 2-10
miles and at speeds of 10-20 MPH. I am predicting that following these
recommendations will not help with this.
As an example of the dogmas assumed in these recommendations are that
lack of money is discouraging cycling, that lower speed limits of
themselves encourage cycling, and that segregated routes and road
reallocation necessarily encourage cycling. There is no evidence for
any of those that doesn't have opposing evidence. In particular, the
last ignores the fact that we simply do not have the space to do them
properly in most locations needed and therefore they will be psychle
farcilities.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Yes but merely pointing to a single data point observational outcome and
>then claiming proof of causation is very very very weak. I could for
>example claim that I can predict the future outcome of the single
>tossing of a single coin and I have an approximately 50% chance of my
>prediction being proved right when tested.
You are maligning me. That is not what I do. Let's ignore the
>
>Yes but merely pointing to a single data point observational outcome and
>then claiming proof of causation is very very very weak. I could for
>example claim that I can predict the future outcome of the single
>tossing of a single coin and I have an approximately 50% chance of my
>prediction being proved right when tested.
fact that I used a standard English expression, which you seem
to have misinterpreted, and deal with some testable assertions.
I predicted c. 1995 that the policies being adopted in Cambridge,
and supported by the Campaign, would lead to cyclists being forced
off the road and increased aggression against cyclists. Virtually
every campaigner said that neither would happen. Well, the data
support me.
>As for what political activists like to claim, they'll always claim
>their actions led to the successful outcomes, and their opponents
>actions led to the failures.
some of which have been impressive :-)
>I think the problem with the current debate surrounding cycle
>transport provision and about the best way to get to our desired
>destination is that the opening gambit is "ideally you don't want to
>start from here".
which are the utterly woolly thinking and, even worse, the dogmas
which are equally likely to be converse of the truth. As with the
damn helmet claims.
As an example of the first, which runs through the current policies
and these recommendations is that all cycling is equally useful.
Well, I assert that replacing walking by cycling doesn't help at
all with traffic problems and that cycling on the flat, no wind etc.
at below 7.5 MPH doesn't help with health issues. Both at a national
level, of course.
The point here is that neither the traffic nor the health issues will be
helped until and unless cycling is restored to the sort of purpose that
it had up until the 1970s - i.e. as a popular method of personal
transport as an alternative to driving, which implies for ranges of 2-10
miles and at speeds of 10-20 MPH. I am predicting that following these
recommendations will not help with this.
As an example of the dogmas assumed in these recommendations are that
lack of money is discouraging cycling, that lower speed limits of
themselves encourage cycling, and that segregated routes and road
reallocation necessarily encourage cycling. There is no evidence for
any of those that doesn't have opposing evidence. In particular, the
last ignores the fact that we simply do not have the space to do them
properly in most locations needed and therefore they will be psychle
farcilities.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch
May 9, 2013, 3:07:48 PM5/9/13
to
On 09/05/2013 17:56, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <av1s4k...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
>>> think what is. Don't expect useful action.
>>
>> If every possibility is ruled out as hopeless at this point then I
>> wouldn't expect any useful action. Which is why it's important not to
>> dismiss it as hopeless at this point IMHO. I'm not optimistic, but I'm
>> not going to go out of my way to ensure pessimism comes to pass.
>
> Please don't be a complete clot. There are many possibilities,
> few of which even overlap with anything in those recommendations.
>
>> The report suggests the kind of path that led NL from being similarly
>> car-centric to the UK in the 70s to where it is today. The obvious
>> gross failure of their plan is clear from NL being the "land of cars"
>> where the pervasive motoring culture reviles cycles and cyclists and
>> ensures they're sidelined in to farcical ghettos and unconsidered in
>> transport planning. Or not...
>
> Your optimism is touching. Do you have any actual evidence for your
> first sentence?
A sample is http://lcc.org.uk/pages/holland-in-the-1970s
> In article <av1s4k...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> And, if whatsisname's not the epitome of "hopelessly vague", I can't
>>> think what is. Don't expect useful action.
>>
>> If every possibility is ruled out as hopeless at this point then I
>> wouldn't expect any useful action. Which is why it's important not to
>> dismiss it as hopeless at this point IMHO. I'm not optimistic, but I'm
>> not going to go out of my way to ensure pessimism comes to pass.
>
> Please don't be a complete clot. There are many possibilities,
> few of which even overlap with anything in those recommendations.
>
>> The report suggests the kind of path that led NL from being similarly
>> car-centric to the UK in the 70s to where it is today. The obvious
>> gross failure of their plan is clear from NL being the "land of cars"
>> where the pervasive motoring culture reviles cycles and cyclists and
>> ensures they're sidelined in to farcical ghettos and unconsidered in
>> transport planning. Or not...
>
> Your optimism is touching. Do you have any actual evidence for your
> first sentence?
As for my optimism being touching, I did say "I'm not optimistic". I
might be a "complete clot", but that is pretty clear.
> Indeed, I doubt very much that you could provide any hard evidence
> that the Netherlands was as car-centric as the UK was in the 1970s,
> let alone today. In any case, a solution that might have worked
> 40 years ago is most unlikely to work today.
about it, and that is one of the very fundamental points Goodwin makes.
If you don't have that then whatever magic solution might be is never
going to get in place. Signing a petition that may force further
consideration has some chance of pushing the basic will, writing it off
as rubbish has none.
> My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
> that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
> but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
hampered by not being bothered to read the report. For example, while
the Goodwin Report is quite openly hostile to the idiotic piecemeal
motion-going-through of providing lip-service farcilities and zero depth
of planning thought that leads to them, you have quite clearly suggested
that following what it says will lead to more of the same. More of the
same is not an inevitable consequence of a document pointing out a need
for fundamental change to planning, funding and implementation.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 9, 2013, 3:25:10 PM5/9/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:07:02 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>I predicted c. 1995 that the policies being adopted in Cambridge,
>and supported by the Campaign, would lead to cyclists being forced
>off the road and increased aggression against cyclists. Virtually
>every campaigner said that neither would happen. Well, the data
>support me.
Even if it does, that doesn't mean you were right with the reasons you
>I predicted c. 1995 that the policies being adopted in Cambridge,
>and supported by the Campaign, would lead to cyclists being forced
>off the road and increased aggression against cyclists. Virtually
>every campaigner said that neither would happen. Well, the data
>support me.
have stated. Correlation does not mean causation. Enhanced aggression
etc may be down to extra vehicular traffic, grumpy traffic due to
further commutes, or phase of the moon.
Predicting that a well-meaning but ill-educated effort will not
produce the miraculous effects that its proponents always hope for is
not exactly tricky. I do it myself all the time, and I too am usually
right. So are taxi drivers and those horrible negative people in the
pub who hate everything.
The trick is to produce verified/verifiable methods that *will* lead
to positive effects. And there's not a lot of that about, and what
evidence there is tends to get ignored or poo-poohed by the likes of
us (and taxi drivers and t.h.b.i.t.p.w.h.e).
Case in point: The dutch roundabout. "Oh, it'll never work here"
everyone pipes up with, and as soon as one cyclist inevitably gets
knocked over those voices are all vindicated.
Except they're not, because perhaps if that hadn't been done there
would have been more people bashed. *You don't know*.
And from your previous post,
>I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable
>sciences are incapable of any form of proof :-)
data to construct a theory around, which may be proven incorrect by
the next emperically observed event.
If it can't make testable predictions, it ain't science. At best it's
wishful thinking, at worst just delusional.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Ambiguity Man Strikes Again! (...or /does/ he?)
-- Eric Schwartz, asr
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 4:12:55 PM5/9/13
to
In article <eitno89dpllieemj7...@4ax.com>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
> *You don't know*.
Sigh. No, and I never claimed that I do :-( What has been proved
right are my predictions, which are backed up by a causal chain.
That is what is meant by the expression "proved/n right by history".
What I cannot understand is those people who are proved wrong,
and STILL claim that the people who were proved must must be in
the wrong because the dogma cannot be at fault.
>>I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable
>>sciences are incapable of any form of proof :-)
>
>That's exactly what is being said. Anything non-repeatable is merely
>data to construct a theory around, which may be proven incorrect by
>the next emperically observed event.
Bye, bye, evolution :-) And a zillion other areas of science.
No, sorry, there is a gradation of proof. Even the most repeatable
of theories cannot be proved by experiment, because there is always
a chance that the one in a zillion occurrence happened.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
> *You don't know*.
Sigh. No, and I never claimed that I do :-( What has been proved
right are my predictions, which are backed up by a causal chain.
That is what is meant by the expression "proved/n right by history".
What I cannot understand is those people who are proved wrong,
and STILL claim that the people who were proved must must be in
the wrong because the dogma cannot be at fault.
>>I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable
>>sciences are incapable of any form of proof :-)
>
>That's exactly what is being said. Anything non-repeatable is merely
>data to construct a theory around, which may be proven incorrect by
>the next emperically observed event.
No, sorry, there is a gradation of proof. Even the most repeatable
of theories cannot be proved by experiment, because there is always
a chance that the one in a zillion occurrence happened.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 4:35:52 PM5/9/13
to
In article <av27pb...@mid.individual.net>,
case, we are not starting in the 1970s, and there is no reason to
believe that an approach that would have worked then will still
work - indeed, there are very good reasons to believe that it won't.
>As for my optimism being touching, I did say "I'm not optimistic". I
>might be a "complete clot", but that is pretty clear.
That was a polite way of pointing out that you had misrepresented
me, which I did not appreciate.
>A solution, whatever it may be, requires the basic will to do something
>about it, and that is one of the very fundamental points Goodwin makes.
> If you don't have that then whatever magic solution might be is never
>going to get in place. Signing a petition that may force further
>consideration has some chance of pushing the basic will, writing it off
>as rubbish has none.
Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must
be done. Are you seriously saying that it is better to support
something that you believe will do more harm than good, if you
are not in a position to stop it, rather than opposing it?
>> My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
>> that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
>> but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
>
>You seem to have a very mutable idea of what the path is though, perhaps
>hampered by not being bothered to read the report. ...
As I pointed out, I did what The Powers That Be will do, because
the Web page providing the actual report was broken. On the other
hand, you appear not to have read the Epetition, which specifically
refers to the recommendations, and it is them that I was damning.
It is completely irrelevant how good a background report is, if
the proposals for action leave so much scope for evasion.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Your optimism is touching. Do you have any actual evidence for your
>> first sentence?
>
>A sample is http://lcc.org.uk/pages/holland-in-the-1970s
Which points out some rather critical differences as well. In any
>>
>> Your optimism is touching. Do you have any actual evidence for your
>> first sentence?
>
>A sample is http://lcc.org.uk/pages/holland-in-the-1970s
case, we are not starting in the 1970s, and there is no reason to
believe that an approach that would have worked then will still
work - indeed, there are very good reasons to believe that it won't.
>As for my optimism being touching, I did say "I'm not optimistic". I
>might be a "complete clot", but that is pretty clear.
me, which I did not appreciate.
>A solution, whatever it may be, requires the basic will to do something
>about it, and that is one of the very fundamental points Goodwin makes.
> If you don't have that then whatever magic solution might be is never
>going to get in place. Signing a petition that may force further
>consideration has some chance of pushing the basic will, writing it off
>as rubbish has none.
be done. Are you seriously saying that it is better to support
something that you believe will do more harm than good, if you
are not in a position to stop it, rather than opposing it?
>> My point is that following this path will actively prevent changes
>> that might help to reverse the damage. I don't expect you to agree,
>> but I do expect to be proved right by history :-(
>
>You seem to have a very mutable idea of what the path is though, perhaps
As I pointed out, I did what The Powers That Be will do, because
the Web page providing the actual report was broken. On the other
hand, you appear not to have read the Epetition, which specifically
refers to the recommendations, and it is them that I was damning.
It is completely irrelevant how good a background report is, if
the proposals for action leave so much scope for evasion.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch
May 9, 2013, 4:41:24 PM5/9/13
to
On 09/05/2013 20:07, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> As an example of the dogmas assumed in these recommendations are that
> lack of money is discouraging cycling, that lower speed limits of
> themselves encourage cycling, and that segregated routes and road
> reallocation necessarily encourage cycling. There is no evidence for
> any of those that doesn't have opposing evidence. In particular, the
> last ignores the fact that we simply do not have the space to do them
> properly in most locations needed and therefore they will be psychle
> farcilities.
Perhaps if you'd spent any amount of time around a "wonerf", that has no
> As an example of the dogmas assumed in these recommendations are that
> lack of money is discouraging cycling, that lower speed limits of
> themselves encourage cycling, and that segregated routes and road
> reallocation necessarily encourage cycling. There is no evidence for
> any of those that doesn't have opposing evidence. In particular, the
> last ignores the fact that we simply do not have the space to do them
> properly in most locations needed and therefore they will be psychle
> farcilities.
"facilities" bar planning of some road ends passable to cycles but not
cars so they're not through-routes, and a low speed limit, you'd realise
(having seen lots of passing bikes and pedestrians, and kids playing in
the street, but cars only going in for direct access to residences) that
there's a lot more to cycle planning and infrastructure than segregated
cycle lanes. Do you think Amsterdam, Den Haag etc. have copious
quantities of free space in their old, narrow streets to give over to
separate lanes everywhere?
Have you spent any time in such a place? My brother-in-law's family
live in one in Den Haag. There is no segregated facility there, but the
planning means little motor traffic (despite most households having a
car parked in front of their house), what there is is slow and the
streets are clearly places for people. There's lots of cycle traffic.
The space issue is a red herring: lots of places in NL don't have it
either, yet they manage to successfully prioritise cycling in spite of that.
thirty-six
May 9, 2013, 6:32:47 PM5/9/13
to
On May 8, 4:52�pm, ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson)
wrote:
> �http://thetim.es/11NeSQa) has launched an online petition to 'call on the
cycling, but to disrupt personal motorized transport as much as it can
in order to remove such transport from the "worthless eaters". Non-
essential transportation will not be permitted come the time of full
regionanialation. Choose your region carefully while you still have
the option, or get out if you have a sailing ship.
wrote:
> I don't seem to have seen this reported here, although it's been in
> various other channels.
>
> As the Cambridge Cycling Campaign wrote on the 24th of April:
>
> � The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group publishes its report
> � today. It calls for a new priority for investing public funds,
> � redesigning roads, extending lower speed limits, better training
> � and better political leadership - more below.
>
> � Cambridge Cycling Campaign gave evidence to the committee (see
> �http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/107/article17.html) and Martin is
> various other channels.
>
> As the Cambridge Cycling Campaign wrote on the 24th of April:
>
> � The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group publishes its report
> � today. It calls for a new priority for investing public funds,
> � redesigning roads, extending lower speed limits, better training
> � and better political leadership - more below.
>
> � Cambridge Cycling Campaign gave evidence to the committee (see
> � in London today for the launch of the committee's report.
>
> � At the same time The Times' cyclesafe campaign
> � (http://thetim.es/11NeZLw, and see their editorial this morning:
>
> � At the same time The Times' cyclesafe campaign
> �http://thetim.es/11NeSQa) has launched an online petition to 'call on the
> � Prime Minister to pledge that the Government will implement the
> � recommendations.' They are aiming at over 100,000 signatures to trigger a
> � debate in parliament.
>
> � Please add your support to the petition by visiting
>
> � � � � �http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196
>
> Please forgive me if we've done this and I missed it.
>
> --
> Ian Jackson � � � � � � � � �personal email: <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> � recommendations.' They are aiming at over 100,000 signatures to trigger a
> � debate in parliament.
>
> � Please add your support to the petition by visiting
>
> � � � � �http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196
>
> Please forgive me if we've done this and I missed it.
>
> --
> These opinions are my own. � � � �http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
> PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, � � fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
the intention of the pro-cycling gubbmint shit is not to encourage
> PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, � � fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
cycling, but to disrupt personal motorized transport as much as it can
in order to remove such transport from the "worthless eaters". Non-
essential transportation will not be permitted come the time of full
regionanialation. Choose your region carefully while you still have
the option, or get out if you have a sailing ship.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 9, 2013, 6:40:09 PM5/9/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 21:12:55 +0100, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>In article <eitno89dpllieemj7...@4ax.com>,
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>> *You don't know*.
>
>Sigh. No, and I never claimed that I do :-( What has been proved
>right are my predictions, which are backed up by a causal chain.
Mmm. Screams "selection bias" to me.
>In article <eitno89dpllieemj7...@4ax.com>,
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>> *You don't know*.
>
>Sigh. No, and I never claimed that I do :-( What has been proved
>right are my predictions, which are backed up by a causal chain.
>That is what is meant by the expression "proved/n right by history".
>
>What I cannot understand is those people who are proved wrong,
>and STILL claim that the people who were proved must must be in
>the wrong because the dogma cannot be at fault.
>>>I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable
>>>sciences are incapable of any form of proof :-)
>>
>>That's exactly what is being said. Anything non-repeatable is merely
>>data to construct a theory around, which may be proven incorrect by
>>the next emperically observed event.
>
>Bye, bye, evolution :-) And a zillion other areas of science.
>No, sorry, there is a gradation of proof. Even the most repeatable
>of theories cannot be proved by experiment, because there is always
>a chance that the one in a zillion occurrence happened.
understand why - and you may also understand why setting up good tests
and choosing your variables is *hard*, and often almost impossible in
real life road traffic situations.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The square root of rope is string. -- Core 3, Valve
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 6:48:59 PM5/9/13
to
In article <av2c08...@mid.individual.net>,
wonerfs are irrelevant to UK problems. Replacing walking by
cycling in residential areas is no solution to anything - the
problem is how to transfer driving to cycling for distances of
2-10 miles. I have also spent some time in Amsterdam and the
Hague from the late 1960s onwards, and have looked carefully to
see the differences, both over time and between there are the UK.
You are guilty of perhaps the worst crime that is possible in
politics: wishful thinking.
I have never denied that it is possible to do a lot better;
what I do deny is that the SELECTION of 'Dutch' actions proposed
in those recommendations is going to help. What the Dutch took
on board, which is still absent in the UK, is that this is a
social engineering issue FAR more than a traffic management one.
Until and unless that is addressed, all UK 'solutions' will
continue to do more harm than good.
>The space issue is a red herring: lots of places in NL don't have it
>either, yet they manage to successfully prioritise cycling in spite of that.
It's not, as you would immediately see if you inspected many of
the problem areas. The problem is that we have 40 years of
building an infrastructure that is dependent on or oriented
towards motor vehicles. Prioritising cyclists necessarily means
either restricting motor vehicles drastically, or reversing the
decades of separating them, on a VERY high proportion of key
routes. And I am NOT talking about residential areas and
similar city centres, but the roads needed to get from one
place to another - e.g. for commuting.
The former will create more conflict, and hence more aggression,
unless the social problems are resolved FIRST.
And the second is what I have been saying should be done for
ages, and is both opposed by most of the pro-cycling pressure
groups and implicitly deprecated by these recommendations.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> As an example of the dogmas assumed in these recommendations are that
>> lack of money is discouraging cycling, that lower speed limits of
>> themselves encourage cycling, and that segregated routes and road
>> reallocation necessarily encourage cycling. There is no evidence for
>> any of those that doesn't have opposing evidence. In particular, the
>> last ignores the fact that we simply do not have the space to do them
>> properly in most locations needed and therefore they will be psychle
>> farcilities.
>
>Perhaps if you'd spent any amount of time around a "wonerf", that has no
>"facilities" bar planning of some road ends passable to cycles but not
>cars so they're not through-routes, and a low speed limit, you'd realise
>(having seen lots of passing bikes and pedestrians, and kids playing in
>the street, but cars only going in for direct access to residences) that
>there's a lot more to cycle planning and infrastructure than segregated
>cycle lanes. Do you think Amsterdam, Den Haag etc. have copious
>quantities of free space in their old, narrow streets to give over to
>separate lanes everywhere?
Please don't be ridiculous. I am familiar with such places, and
>
>> As an example of the dogmas assumed in these recommendations are that
>> lack of money is discouraging cycling, that lower speed limits of
>> themselves encourage cycling, and that segregated routes and road
>> reallocation necessarily encourage cycling. There is no evidence for
>> any of those that doesn't have opposing evidence. In particular, the
>> last ignores the fact that we simply do not have the space to do them
>> properly in most locations needed and therefore they will be psychle
>> farcilities.
>
>Perhaps if you'd spent any amount of time around a "wonerf", that has no
>"facilities" bar planning of some road ends passable to cycles but not
>cars so they're not through-routes, and a low speed limit, you'd realise
>(having seen lots of passing bikes and pedestrians, and kids playing in
>the street, but cars only going in for direct access to residences) that
>there's a lot more to cycle planning and infrastructure than segregated
>cycle lanes. Do you think Amsterdam, Den Haag etc. have copious
>quantities of free space in their old, narrow streets to give over to
>separate lanes everywhere?
wonerfs are irrelevant to UK problems. Replacing walking by
cycling in residential areas is no solution to anything - the
problem is how to transfer driving to cycling for distances of
2-10 miles. I have also spent some time in Amsterdam and the
Hague from the late 1960s onwards, and have looked carefully to
see the differences, both over time and between there are the UK.
You are guilty of perhaps the worst crime that is possible in
politics: wishful thinking.
I have never denied that it is possible to do a lot better;
what I do deny is that the SELECTION of 'Dutch' actions proposed
in those recommendations is going to help. What the Dutch took
on board, which is still absent in the UK, is that this is a
social engineering issue FAR more than a traffic management one.
Until and unless that is addressed, all UK 'solutions' will
continue to do more harm than good.
>The space issue is a red herring: lots of places in NL don't have it
>either, yet they manage to successfully prioritise cycling in spite of that.
the problem areas. The problem is that we have 40 years of
building an infrastructure that is dependent on or oriented
towards motor vehicles. Prioritising cyclists necessarily means
either restricting motor vehicles drastically, or reversing the
decades of separating them, on a VERY high proportion of key
routes. And I am NOT talking about residential areas and
similar city centres, but the roads needed to get from one
place to another - e.g. for commuting.
The former will create more conflict, and hence more aggression,
unless the social problems are resolved FIRST.
And the second is what I have been saying should be done for
ages, and is both opposed by most of the pro-cycling pressure
groups and implicitly deprecated by these recommendations.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 9, 2013, 7:02:17 PM5/9/13
to
In article <s89oo8dnlhqsl8km7...@4ax.com>,
Look, I do know about that. What I was pointing out that things
are not the simple black and white that many posters make them
out to be, and even the concept of "proof" has many meanings.
But, for the third time and for those unfamiliar with English,
the expression "proved/n right by history" is an idiom with a
specific meaning, and that is the one I was using.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>>>I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable
>>>>sciences are incapable of any form of proof :-)
>>>
>>>That's exactly what is being said. Anything non-repeatable is merely
>>>data to construct a theory around, which may be proven incorrect by
>>>the next emperically observed event.
>>
>>Bye, bye, evolution :-) And a zillion other areas of science.
>>No, sorry, there is a gradation of proof. Even the most repeatable
>>of theories cannot be proved by experiment, because there is always
>>a chance that the one in a zillion occurrence happened.
>
>That's... not even wrong. Go look up "theory of science" and you may
>understand why - and you may also understand why setting up good tests
>and choosing your variables is *hard*, and often almost impossible in
>real life road traffic situations.
Yes, it's far worse than wrong - it's heresy!
>
>>>>I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable
>>>>sciences are incapable of any form of proof :-)
>>>
>>>That's exactly what is being said. Anything non-repeatable is merely
>>>data to construct a theory around, which may be proven incorrect by
>>>the next emperically observed event.
>>
>>Bye, bye, evolution :-) And a zillion other areas of science.
>>No, sorry, there is a gradation of proof. Even the most repeatable
>>of theories cannot be proved by experiment, because there is always
>>a chance that the one in a zillion occurrence happened.
>
>That's... not even wrong. Go look up "theory of science" and you may
>understand why - and you may also understand why setting up good tests
>and choosing your variables is *hard*, and often almost impossible in
>real life road traffic situations.
Look, I do know about that. What I was pointing out that things
are not the simple black and white that many posters make them
out to be, and even the concept of "proof" has many meanings.
But, for the third time and for those unfamiliar with English,
the expression "proved/n right by history" is an idiom with a
specific meaning, and that is the one I was using.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
David Damerell
May 10, 2013, 3:32:09 AM5/10/13
to
Quoting <nm...@cam.ac.uk>:
>Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must
>be done. Are you seriously saying that it is better to support
>something that you believe will do more harm than good, if you
>are not in a position to stop it, rather than opposing it?
Also, I suspect thee and me, while we disagree about much, have a better
>Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must
>be done. Are you seriously saying that it is better to support
>something that you believe will do more harm than good, if you
>are not in a position to stop it, rather than opposing it?
idea; we're not just sitting around saying this proposal is no good. Get
the law on our side. Dutch provision works because the law works; you
shoot out into a side road off one of those lanes because you are sure no
idiot will take you out running up to the main road. But... our current
provision might work if the law worked.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Peter Clinch
May 10, 2013, 3:32:46 AM5/10/13
to
On 09/05/2013 23:48, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
[woonerf]
to the question of how they get around.
The comment about replacing walking by cycling misses the point that
while a short trip walked or ridden makes no difference, the next size
of trip up is far more likely to be cycled if someone has a bike, which
they will have if they cycle shorter distances. One of my colleagues
lives just around the corner, he walks the 1 km to work, I cycle. It
doesn't matter if I walk 1km rather than ride, but if I go the 3 miles
in to town I'll ride that and he... doesn't have a bike.
You've also missed that a setup like a woonerf gives continuous
/effective/ cycle infrastructure with nothing more to build than
bollards at some intersections and some 20 mph signs, and if you can
ride through a chain of residential areas without mixing it with fast,
heavy traffic you can do several joined up short neighbourhoods and
that'll make a longer trip.
> You are guilty of perhaps the worst crime that is possible in
> politics: wishful thinking.
And yours is seeing something that works and deciding it won't work
here, *Because*.
> I have never denied that it is possible to do a lot better;
> what I do deny is that the SELECTION of 'Dutch' actions proposed
> in those recommendations is going to help. What the Dutch took
> on board, which is still absent in the UK, is that this is a
> social engineering issue FAR more than a traffic management one.
> Until and unless that is addressed, all UK 'solutions' will
> continue to do more harm than good.
It is still absent in the UK. The report realises that cycling has to
be made normal. Have you actually read it yet?
>> The space issue is a red herring: lots of places in NL don't have it
>> either, yet they manage to successfully prioritise cycling in spite of that.
>
> It's not, as you would immediately see if you inspected many of
> the problem areas. The problem is that we have 40 years of
> building an infrastructure that is dependent on or oriented
> towards motor vehicles. Prioritising cyclists necessarily means
> either restricting motor vehicles drastically, or reversing the
> decades of separating them, on a VERY high proportion of key
> routes. And I am NOT talking about residential areas and
> similar city centres, but the roads needed to get from one
> place to another - e.g. for commuting.
The infrastructure we have typically requires it being easy to get cars
anywhere. If you look around e.g. Den Haag with open eyes rather than
preconceptions you'll see you can still get along to any places by car
but away from thoroughfares it ceases to be easy. And that's where the
bikes have more priority (i.e., two way rather than one way streets),
and that's how they get around in space-limited areas quite successfully
without extra fietspads, for which there is insufficient space.
And if you've a network of those streets alongside thoroughfares they
make an excellent alternative route, including for commuting.
> The former will create more conflict, and hence more aggression,
> unless the social problems are resolved FIRST.
But the above doesn't create conflict, it removes it.
> And the second is what I have been saying should be done for
> ages, and is both opposed by most of the pro-cycling pressure
> groups and implicitly deprecated by these recommendations.
You're so set in your answers you've not actually looked at the
alternatives, what they mean, or indeed the actual report you're
criticising.
[woonerf]
> Please don't be ridiculous. I am familiar with such places, and
> wonerfs are irrelevant to UK problems. Replacing walking by
> cycling in residential areas is no solution to anything - the
> problem is how to transfer driving to cycling for distances of
> 2-10 miles.
You're the one being ridiculous, as if places people live are irrelevant
> wonerfs are irrelevant to UK problems. Replacing walking by
> cycling in residential areas is no solution to anything - the
> problem is how to transfer driving to cycling for distances of
> 2-10 miles.
to the question of how they get around.
The comment about replacing walking by cycling misses the point that
while a short trip walked or ridden makes no difference, the next size
of trip up is far more likely to be cycled if someone has a bike, which
they will have if they cycle shorter distances. One of my colleagues
lives just around the corner, he walks the 1 km to work, I cycle. It
doesn't matter if I walk 1km rather than ride, but if I go the 3 miles
in to town I'll ride that and he... doesn't have a bike.
You've also missed that a setup like a woonerf gives continuous
/effective/ cycle infrastructure with nothing more to build than
bollards at some intersections and some 20 mph signs, and if you can
ride through a chain of residential areas without mixing it with fast,
heavy traffic you can do several joined up short neighbourhoods and
that'll make a longer trip.
> You are guilty of perhaps the worst crime that is possible in
> politics: wishful thinking.
here, *Because*.
> I have never denied that it is possible to do a lot better;
> what I do deny is that the SELECTION of 'Dutch' actions proposed
> in those recommendations is going to help. What the Dutch took
> on board, which is still absent in the UK, is that this is a
> social engineering issue FAR more than a traffic management one.
> Until and unless that is addressed, all UK 'solutions' will
> continue to do more harm than good.
be made normal. Have you actually read it yet?
>> The space issue is a red herring: lots of places in NL don't have it
>> either, yet they manage to successfully prioritise cycling in spite of that.
>
> It's not, as you would immediately see if you inspected many of
> the problem areas. The problem is that we have 40 years of
> building an infrastructure that is dependent on or oriented
> towards motor vehicles. Prioritising cyclists necessarily means
> either restricting motor vehicles drastically, or reversing the
> decades of separating them, on a VERY high proportion of key
> routes. And I am NOT talking about residential areas and
> similar city centres, but the roads needed to get from one
> place to another - e.g. for commuting.
anywhere. If you look around e.g. Den Haag with open eyes rather than
preconceptions you'll see you can still get along to any places by car
but away from thoroughfares it ceases to be easy. And that's where the
bikes have more priority (i.e., two way rather than one way streets),
and that's how they get around in space-limited areas quite successfully
without extra fietspads, for which there is insufficient space.
And if you've a network of those streets alongside thoroughfares they
make an excellent alternative route, including for commuting.
> The former will create more conflict, and hence more aggression,
> unless the social problems are resolved FIRST.
> And the second is what I have been saying should be done for
> ages, and is both opposed by most of the pro-cycling pressure
> groups and implicitly deprecated by these recommendations.
alternatives, what they mean, or indeed the actual report you're
criticising.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 10, 2013, 5:33:39 AM5/10/13
to
In article <bRv*VP...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
law, and the social consensus as being the most critical (and
the hardest to change). There ARE things that could be done,
but the usual constraint applies: quick, effective, cheap,
politically easy - pick any two.
Aside: a peripheral remark here is that increasingly draconian
punishments for a decreasing proportion of offenders simple does
not work, as has been proven many times. Nor does criminalising
a large proportion of the population. Social engineering needs
subtler approaches.
The thing that I find most indicative about this whole shambles
is the way that the report Peter Clinch refers to is downplayed
in the recommendations and on the (not updated) home page for the
inquiry. My suspicions are that the actual recommendations were
written to be acceptable to The Powers That Be, and the whole
shenanigans is going to be used to support the policy "More Of
The Same, But With Pink Lipstick".
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must
>>
>>be done. Are you seriously saying that it is better to support
>>something that you believe will do more harm than good, if you
>>are not in a position to stop it, rather than opposing it?
>
>Also, I suspect thee and me, while we disagree about much, have a better
>idea; we're not just sitting around saying this proposal is no good. Get
>the law on our side. Dutch provision works because the law works; you
>shoot out into a side road off one of those lanes because you are sure no
>idiot will take you out running up to the main road. But... our current
>provision might work if the law worked.
Yes, though I regard enforcement as being the least part of the
>>Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must
>>
>>be done. Are you seriously saying that it is better to support
>>something that you believe will do more harm than good, if you
>>are not in a position to stop it, rather than opposing it?
>
>Also, I suspect thee and me, while we disagree about much, have a better
>idea; we're not just sitting around saying this proposal is no good. Get
>the law on our side. Dutch provision works because the law works; you
>shoot out into a side road off one of those lanes because you are sure no
>idiot will take you out running up to the main road. But... our current
>provision might work if the law worked.
law, and the social consensus as being the most critical (and
the hardest to change). There ARE things that could be done,
but the usual constraint applies: quick, effective, cheap,
politically easy - pick any two.
Aside: a peripheral remark here is that increasingly draconian
punishments for a decreasing proportion of offenders simple does
not work, as has been proven many times. Nor does criminalising
a large proportion of the population. Social engineering needs
subtler approaches.
The thing that I find most indicative about this whole shambles
is the way that the report Peter Clinch refers to is downplayed
in the recommendations and on the (not updated) home page for the
inquiry. My suspicions are that the actual recommendations were
written to be acceptable to The Powers That Be, and the whole
shenanigans is going to be used to support the policy "More Of
The Same, But With Pink Lipstick".
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk
May 10, 2013, 7:22:50 AM5/10/13
to
In message <kmh3j6$k96$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk>
>
> What I cannot understand is those people who are proved wrong, and
> STILL claim that the people who were proved must must be in the wrong
> because the dogma cannot be at fault.
>
Your appear to be just as dogmatic in your assertions as do many of
those who you oppose. The obvious response to the outcome not being what
was predicted is that there were many other factors that were not taken
into account and that they had at least as big an influence over the
outcome as the factors within the policies followed.
> > > I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable sciences are
> > > incapable of any form of proof :-)
> >
> >That's exactly what is being said. Anything non-repeatable is merely
> >data to construct a theory around, which may be proven incorrect by
> >the next emperically observed event.
>
> Bye, bye, evolution :-)
Evolution is a good case in point in that it has taken a long time to
accumulate a lot of well and carefully documented evidence to support
and verify the original theory. For most biologists I think the
strongest supporting evidence has come from predictions that could be
made within genetics and then more recently molecular biology and in
particular DNA sequencing that essentially show the same relationships
between species that Darwin predicted from studies of animal and plant
characteristics and the fossil record alongside the geological
information.
> And a zillion other areas of science. No, sorry, there is a gradation
> of proof. Even the most repeatable of theories cannot be proved by
> experiment, because there is always a chance that the one in a zillion
> occurrence happened.
>
Agreed and the point here is that we don't have much solid evidence
concerning social factors that absolutely pre-determine our attitudes to
transport choices and how to influence those choices in particular
directions.
nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <eitno89dpllieemj7...@4ax.com>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> >
> > *You don't know*.
>
> Sigh. No, and I never claimed that I do :-( What has been proved
> right are my predictions, which are backed up by a causal chain.
> That is what is meant by the expression "proved/n right by history".
The evidence for a causal chain is generally what is weak.
> In article <eitno89dpllieemj7...@4ax.com>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> >
> > *You don't know*.
>
> Sigh. No, and I never claimed that I do :-( What has been proved
> right are my predictions, which are backed up by a causal chain.
> That is what is meant by the expression "proved/n right by history".
>
> What I cannot understand is those people who are proved wrong, and
> STILL claim that the people who were proved must must be in the wrong
> because the dogma cannot be at fault.
>
those who you oppose. The obvious response to the outcome not being what
was predicted is that there were many other factors that were not taken
into account and that they had at least as big an influence over the
outcome as the factors within the policies followed.
> > > I hope that you aren't saying that all non-repeatable sciences are
> > > incapable of any form of proof :-)
> >
> >That's exactly what is being said. Anything non-repeatable is merely
> >data to construct a theory around, which may be proven incorrect by
> >the next emperically observed event.
>
> Bye, bye, evolution :-)
accumulate a lot of well and carefully documented evidence to support
and verify the original theory. For most biologists I think the
strongest supporting evidence has come from predictions that could be
made within genetics and then more recently molecular biology and in
particular DNA sequencing that essentially show the same relationships
between species that Darwin predicted from studies of animal and plant
characteristics and the fossil record alongside the geological
information.
> And a zillion other areas of science. No, sorry, there is a gradation
> of proof. Even the most repeatable of theories cannot be proved by
> experiment, because there is always a chance that the one in a zillion
> occurrence happened.
>
concerning social factors that absolutely pre-determine our attitudes to
transport choices and how to influence those choices in particular
directions.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 10, 2013, 8:10:49 AM5/10/13
to
In article <d9f59d4953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
the evidence is much stronger than the evidence that the proposed
approaches will have the effects that they are claimed to.
>> What I cannot understand is those people who are proved wrong, and
>> STILL claim that the people who were proved must must be in the wrong
>> because the dogma cannot be at fault.
>
>Your appear to be just as dogmatic in your assertions as do many of
>those who you oppose. The obvious response to the outcome not being what
>was predicted is that there were many other factors that were not taken
>into account and that they had at least as big an influence over the
>outcome as the factors within the policies followed.
That is almost certainly because you have not understood my point.
I will accept blame for not explaining it clearly, but it is equally
possible that you have been unduly influenced by the people who have
been misrepresenting me. PLEASE NOTE: I am not accusing anyone of
doing that deliberately.
Your later sentences almost prove that. It is PRECISELY some of
those factors that I pointed out would have a much greater effect
than the ones the wishful thinkers claimed would. But, despite
the evidence of the result, their conclusion still is "What we need
is more of the same, but with pink lipstick on".
I am doing the same here, though probably not expressing it well.
Let's assume that the Godwin report is as good and as likely to
work as Peter Clinch (I still haven't found a working link to it).
The document that will be considered by the strategic decision-
makers of Whitehall (and, if any exist, Westminster) does NOT do
anything more than imply that the Godwin report is for background.
In particular, it does NOT explicitly and unequivocally recommend
that it be used as a basis for the strategy. At the strategic
level, including the Early Day motion, the recommendations have to
stand or fall by themselves.
If there were good will towards such an approach in Whitehall,
those woolly recommendations might be enough. But we know very
well that there isn't. I can't say whether those recommendations
were produced by a mandarin, committee-compromise or mere woolly-
minded MPs, but they are exactly like all of the others that we
have seen used to evade the issue over the past decades.
My guess is that there is an evens chance that this will sink without
trace, and another that it will be adopted in part as support for the
current approaches (i.e. more of the same, but with pink lipstick).
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> > *You don't know*.
>>
>> Sigh. No, and I never claimed that I do :-( What has been proved
>> right are my predictions, which are backed up by a causal chain.
>> That is what is meant by the expression "proved/n right by history".
>
>The evidence for a causal chain is generally what is weak.
Very true. However, in the cases which I have been referring to,
>
>> > *You don't know*.
>>
>> Sigh. No, and I never claimed that I do :-( What has been proved
>> right are my predictions, which are backed up by a causal chain.
>> That is what is meant by the expression "proved/n right by history".
>
>The evidence for a causal chain is generally what is weak.
the evidence is much stronger than the evidence that the proposed
approaches will have the effects that they are claimed to.
>> What I cannot understand is those people who are proved wrong, and
>> STILL claim that the people who were proved must must be in the wrong
>> because the dogma cannot be at fault.
>
>Your appear to be just as dogmatic in your assertions as do many of
>those who you oppose. The obvious response to the outcome not being what
>was predicted is that there were many other factors that were not taken
>into account and that they had at least as big an influence over the
>outcome as the factors within the policies followed.
I will accept blame for not explaining it clearly, but it is equally
possible that you have been unduly influenced by the people who have
been misrepresenting me. PLEASE NOTE: I am not accusing anyone of
doing that deliberately.
Your later sentences almost prove that. It is PRECISELY some of
those factors that I pointed out would have a much greater effect
than the ones the wishful thinkers claimed would. But, despite
the evidence of the result, their conclusion still is "What we need
is more of the same, but with pink lipstick on".
I am doing the same here, though probably not expressing it well.
Let's assume that the Godwin report is as good and as likely to
work as Peter Clinch (I still haven't found a working link to it).
The document that will be considered by the strategic decision-
makers of Whitehall (and, if any exist, Westminster) does NOT do
anything more than imply that the Godwin report is for background.
In particular, it does NOT explicitly and unequivocally recommend
that it be used as a basis for the strategy. At the strategic
level, including the Early Day motion, the recommendations have to
stand or fall by themselves.
If there were good will towards such an approach in Whitehall,
those woolly recommendations might be enough. But we know very
well that there isn't. I can't say whether those recommendations
were produced by a mandarin, committee-compromise or mere woolly-
minded MPs, but they are exactly like all of the others that we
have seen used to evade the issue over the past decades.
My guess is that there is an evens chance that this will sink without
trace, and another that it will be adopted in part as support for the
current approaches (i.e. more of the same, but with pink lipstick).
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin McKenzie
May 11, 2013, 5:48:15 AM5/11/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 13:35:39 +0100, <nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Strengthen the enforcement of road traffic law, including speed
> limits, and ensuring that driving offences - especially those
> resulting in death or injury - are treated sufficiently seriously by
> police, prosecutors and judges.
> Motherhood and Apple Pie.
If you think that's as uncontroversial as motherhood and apple pie, you
> Strengthen the enforcement of road traffic law, including speed
> limits, and ensuring that driving offences - especially those
> resulting in death or injury - are treated sufficiently seriously by
> police, prosecutors and judges.
> Motherhood and Apple Pie.
need to read the Daily Mail more. Enforcement of traffic law is deeply
controversial, yet it's the most important factor in making cycling less
frightening.
We have allowed a situation to arise in which drivers are allowed to move
heavy vehicles into roadspace they can't see, despite the fact that if
there is someone there, they are very likely to be killed.
We allow drivers of all vehicles to prioritise their speed over other road
users' safety, without condemnation, let alone punishment.
Danish segregated cycle infrastructure works, more or less, because of the
behaviour of Danish drivers at junctions, with turning drivers giving way
to straight-on cyclists. Something similar is in our highway code too, but
has been watered down by custom and practice so that it only applies to
pedestrians who have already started to cross minor side roads.
If we want more cycling, all this has to change, regardless of what
segregated infrastructure is or isn't built.
Colin McKenzie
--
Cycling in the UK is about as safe as walking, and helmets don't make it
safer. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
May 11, 2013, 6:42:29 AM5/11/13
to
In article <op.wwwyu...@11-11-11.mshome.net>,
that is required to be spouted by all politicians, but they have
no intention whatsoever of doing anything about it.
Furthermore, your second statement is dubious and I would say
actually wrong. A huge proportion of traffic management actually
endangers cyclists and stricter enforcement would make that worse.
That includes speed limits under some circumstances, and white
line rules under many circumstances. However, your assertion is
the current Official Dogma, and therefore may not be questioned.
If you think that I am supporting the Daily Wail, you are wrong.
To a small extent, they have the right stick, but they have got
completely the wrong end of it. As usual.
I will support the recommendation to a great extent, and my very
negative comments were about the WAY that it was expressed - i.e.
that it was phrased in such a way to maximise the ease of ticking
the box without doing anything constructive.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin McKenzie <ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Strengthen the enforcement of road traffic law, including speed
>> limits, and ensuring that driving offences - especially those
>> resulting in death or injury - are treated sufficiently seriously by
>> police, prosecutors and judges.
>>
>> Motherhood and Apple Pie.
>
>If you think that's as uncontroversial as motherhood and apple pie, you
>need to read the Daily Mail more. Enforcement of traffic law is deeply
>controversial, yet it's the most important factor in making cycling less
>frightening.
Read what I said is meant by that. It is is the sort of mantra
>
>> Strengthen the enforcement of road traffic law, including speed
>> limits, and ensuring that driving offences - especially those
>> resulting in death or injury - are treated sufficiently seriously by
>> police, prosecutors and judges.
>>
>> Motherhood and Apple Pie.
>
>If you think that's as uncontroversial as motherhood and apple pie, you
>need to read the Daily Mail more. Enforcement of traffic law is deeply
>controversial, yet it's the most important factor in making cycling less
>frightening.
that is required to be spouted by all politicians, but they have
no intention whatsoever of doing anything about it.
Furthermore, your second statement is dubious and I would say
actually wrong. A huge proportion of traffic management actually
endangers cyclists and stricter enforcement would make that worse.
That includes speed limits under some circumstances, and white
line rules under many circumstances. However, your assertion is
the current Official Dogma, and therefore may not be questioned.
If you think that I am supporting the Daily Wail, you are wrong.
To a small extent, they have the right stick, but they have got
completely the wrong end of it. As usual.
I will support the recommendation to a great extent, and my very
negative comments were about the WAY that it was expressed - i.e.
that it was phrased in such a way to maximise the ease of ticking
the box without doing anything constructive.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
0 new messages