Crash: One Fatal Day on the Roads. Watch BBC 1 Now

rothbook · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> is it because the speed camera lobby feels threatened by its influence? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"Speed camera lobby"?

Us?

If you think I accept bribes or something just because I can see thru small pith's beer-mat scribble science or pretty graphs then I've been ripped off, the money never reached me!

Reign in your paranoia mate, you came here to defend that man whose "research" leads him to conclude WVM is less dangerous than cyclists.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

There's nothing at all threatening about the minority campaign.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If it was that unthreatening, you'd just ignore it.
Surely denouncing the 'minority' site on a cycling forum would be preaching to the converted? So why bother?

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> is it because the speed camera lobby feels threatened by its influence? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"Speed camera lobby"?

Us?

If you think I accept bribes or something just because I can see thru small pith's beer-mat scribble science or pretty graphs then I've been ripped off, the money never reached me!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I never said anything about bribes! Why are you mentioning bribes?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Reign in your paranoia mate<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Pot/kettle? If you're so paranoid about the fact that your bribe-taking will be found out that you have to publicly deny it even in the absence of having been accused, then you probably need to think about stop taking bribes.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

you came here to defend that man whose "research" leads him to conclude WVM is less dangerous than cyclists.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm defending nobody, I don't 'support' safespeed in that way. I'm just pointing out the curious way you get hot under the collar and start jumping up and down in a sweaty panic about what safespeed's reaction will be whenever there's anything driving or road-safety related on the news.
You need to chill out, flower.

llanberispass · May 2007

The reason why the existence of SafeSpeed alarms me is the fact that i have to share the roads with people who think they can judge what a safe speed (geddit?) is themselves. OK maybe they can - 95% of the time. I just do not want to be in the way when they get it wrong.

rothbook · May 2007

The roads are full of people who think they know better. Any cyclists knows that a lot of drivers have...overestimated their abilities, crapspeed panders to these idiots. Why on earth would you think this forum is "the speed camera lobby"?

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by llanberispass

The reason why the existence of SafeSpeed alarms me is the fact that i have to share the roads with people who think they can judge what a safe speed (geddit?) is themselves. OK maybe they can - 95% of the time. I just do not want to be in the way when they get it wrong.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But it's unlikely that the SS website encourages people to speed who wouldn't otherwise. It just makes those that do feel more ok about it, it doesn't prevent them from observing the speed limit because they don't anyway. So therefore speeding can't be blamed on that website.

rothbook · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> So therefore speeding can't be blamed on that website.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's not just the website. This man's delusions are carried in the national press by lazy compliant hacks. His crackpot ramblings get an exposure they don't deserve.

Mister Paul · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

There's nothing at all threatening about the minority campaign.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If it was that unthreatening, you'd just ignore it.
Surely denouncing the 'minority' site on a cycling forum would be preaching to the converted? So why bother?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I find nothing at all threatening about you, BonjBenBoss, but I just can't ignore you. You're too much fun.[;)]

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

Mister Paul · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by llanberispass

The reason why the existence of SafeSpeed alarms me is the fact that i have to share the roads with people who think they can judge what a safe speed (geddit?) is themselves. OK maybe they can - 95% of the time. I just do not want to be in the way when they get it wrong.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But it's unlikely that the SS website encourages people to speed who wouldn't otherwise. It just makes those that do feel more ok about it, it doesn't prevent them from observing the speed limit because they don't anyway. So therefore speeding can't be blamed on that website.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Of course it does. Every time there is a story in the press about cameras, there's PS's little nonsensical rant at the end (he wastes so many opportunities to say something worhtwhile). Those looking for justification in their behaviour read the comments, and like it, because it says that what they are doing is ok.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Of course it does. Every time there is a story in the press about cameras, there's PS's little nonsensical rant at the end (he wastes so many opportunities to say something worhtwhile). Those looking for justification in their behaviour read the comments, and like it, because it says that what they are doing is ok.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes exactly, those looking for justification in what they are doing, not what they PLAN on doing or MIGHT do. What they are ALREADY doing.
No-one looks at PS's website or newspaper comments and thinks "well, I don't speed - but hey, you know what? I might, now. Because someone's written in the paper that it's ok."
Therefore it doesn't actually change or affect anyone's behaviour. Yes it provides the justification for those that already do, but speeding is speeding whether you justify it to yourself or not.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

It's not just the website. This man's delusions are carried in the national press by lazy compliant hacks. His crackpot ramblings get an exposure they don't deserve.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes but if they're a lazy compliant hack, if they didn't have him they'd just make something up.

rothbook · May 2007

The paranoia of the pro-speeding brigade. Anyone who supports speed cameras is a fifth columnist.

What a very silly peemis banjo is.

Mister Paul · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Of course it does. Every time there is a story in the press about cameras, there's PS's little nonsensical rant at the end (he wastes so many opportunities to say something worhtwhile). Those looking for justification in their behaviour read the comments, and like it, because it says that what they are doing is ok.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes exactly, those looking for justification in what they are doing, not what they PLAN on doing or MIGHT do. What they are ALREADY doing.
No-one looks at PS's website or newspaper comments and thinks "well, I don't speed - but hey, you know what? I might, now. Because someone's written in the paper that it's ok."
Therefore it doesn't actually change or affect anyone's behaviour. Yes it provides the justification for those that already do, but speeding is speeding whether you justify it to yourself or not.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're rambling again Bonj.

Safety in numbers. If someone wants justification for behaviour that they're unsure about, they'll find someone who will support them.

And PS does. And in doing so he encourages speeding and dangerous and poor driving. But he doesn't care.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

Jaded · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AndyGates

That was a very sad and sobering programme. Too many people die on the roads, hit by motor vehicles.

Do you think we could stop bickering and come up with solutions?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think the solution is two-fold.

1) Zero tolerance on speeding
2) A real assessment of the benefit of regular re-training, and introducing that retraining if necessary.

The retraining would be paid for by drivers. This would get certain lobby groups squealing like stuck pigs.

However, there is a huge cost to the country of the consequences of poor driving. Retraining will reduce that. Even the SS agree with that!
Apparently private transport is single-handedly responsible (sorry, it's one of the SS mantras) for the wealth growth in this country. OK - all you drivers are much richer than you would have been without your car - so pay a bit more for the privilege.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded
Apparently private transport is single-handedly responsible (sorry, it's one of the SS mantras) for the wealth growth in this country.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is that really one of their claims?

How can anyone possibly make that kind of assessment?!

Sorry Jaded, I'm not casting doubt on your post, I'm just shocked that they can come out with that. I remember having a discussion with one of the Swiss about it over there, we ended up agreeing to disagree (sometimes it's possible!) because we thought that the positive and negative aspects of such a claim where pretty much unquantifiable and our own biases where getting in the way of any objective discussion.

Still I guess if WVM aren't as dangerous as cyclists, anything is possible!

Jaded · May 2007

Ok - so 'single handed' is a bit over the top - but the message is that transport essential to the country's economy, therefore we should be doing what we can to ensure its free flow. e.g remove speed cameras.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

Ok - so 'single handed' is a bit over the top - but the message is that transport essential to the country's economy, therefore we should be doing what we can to ensure its free flow. e.g remove speed cameras.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Rather than reducing transport at all levels and making the best use of other forms of transport? Yeah, I can see the motor-centric SS logic there.

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Safety in numbers. If someone wants justification for behaviour that they're unsure about, they'll find someone who will support them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And they'll get it. But you still haven't explained how it'll affect their driving.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

And PS does. And in doing so he encourages speeding and dangerous and poor driving. But he doesn't care.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Like I say, no-one who's a non-speeder looks at that website and things "I don't speed, but hey - he advocates it, so I might now."

The Bosscp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded
Apparently private transport is single-handedly responsible (sorry, it's one of the SS mantras) for the wealth growth in this country.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is that really one of their claims?

How can anyone possibly make that kind of assessment?!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Because buses are unlikely to generate wealth growth because they're always empty, therefore are simply a financial burden to the taxpayer.
Lorries probably do generate some wealth growth though.

Mister Paul · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Safety in numbers. If someone wants justification for behaviour that they're unsure about, they'll find someone who will support them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And they'll get it. But you still haven't explained how it'll affect their driving..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

D'oh!

Think about it Bonjy.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

And PS does. And in doing so he encourages speeding and dangerous and poor driving. But he doesn't care.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Like I say, no-one who's a non-speeder looks at that website and things "I don't speed, but hey - he advocates it, so I might now."

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And PS does. And in doing so he encourages speeding and dangerous and poor driving. But he doesn't care.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Because buses are unlikely to generate wealth growth because they're always empty, therefore are simply a financial burden to the taxpayer.
Lorries probably do generate some wealth growth though.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nope, sorry I don't buy that. If you're going to make a critical analysis it'll have to cover all alternative transport forms, what they transport, why thy transport it, what are the positive effects and what are the negative effects.

Besides none of the buses I've been on have ever been empty and there's rarely anyone other than the driver in lorries!

domd1979 · May 2007

Rubbish.

Most bus services are run commercially (for profit). How's that a burden to the taxpayer then?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Because buses are unlikely to generate wealth growth because they're always empty, therefore are simply a financial burden to the taxpayer.
Lorries probably do generate some wealth growth though.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

BigWomble · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AndyGates

That was a very sad and sobering programme. Too many people die on the roads, hit by motor vehicles.

Do you think we could stop bickering and come up with solutions?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think the solution is two-fold.

1) Zero tolerance on speeding
2) A real assessment of the benefit of regular re-training, and introducing that retraining if necessary.

The retraining would be paid for by drivers. This would get certain lobby groups squealing like stuck pigs.

However, there is a huge cost to the country of the consequences of poor driving. Retraining will reduce that. Even the SS agree with that!
Apparently private transport is single-handedly responsible (sorry, it's one of the SS mantras) for the wealth growth in this country. OK - all you drivers are much richer than you would have been without your car - so pay a bit more for the privilege.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Methods:

Convert heavily used rural single carriageway roads to dual carriageways, with median verge, crash barriers, proper lighting and all that. Convert major junctions to motorway standard (grade separated). This is why motorways are the safest roads in this country (and not because they are the fastest, as ____ _______ would have us believe). Some drivers in the countryside are going like a bat out of hell on road roads which are of a poorer standard than those in town. Muppets.

Fit anti-crush guards to lorries, buses, HGVs, and anything else heavy enough to stand a good chance of crushing people to death, even at a slow speed. Trams have had these features for years, so it is hard to understand why these heavy vehicles don't have them. It's even harder to understand why trains don't have them. [:0]

Fit speed limiters to all vehicles with 3+ wheels. Currently, the speed limit of 30mph is fine in towns and cities. However, car drivers always push their luck, being regular people, and so they do 35mph, 40mph ... in fact, any speed they think they can get away with. This is pure intimidation, just like pointing a loaded shotgun at someone, and should be treated the same. The speed limits should be - 30mph in town, 50mph national speed limit, 70mph dual carriageway. What someone does on a motorway is their business, up to a point, which is exactly how the police see it. Why 3+ wheels? If the speed limiter is a HAL-9000 model, and suffers from paranoid delusions, and so decides to cut the engine off on a car, the car will come to a halt. If the same happens to a motorbike going round the corner, the rider stands a good chance of face-planting the tarmac.

Make all vehicles fail-safe. Cars already are, with airbags and armour plate. Motorscooters can be fail-safe - the BMW C1 was a good start, although BMW was back-stabbed by the incompetent New Labour government of the time. The BMW C1 was, and is, the first motorscooter which can hit a brick wall, and the rider can just walk away from it. The top-heavy feature of this motorscooter could be dealt with, now we have carbon fibre and advanced plastics. Bicycles will never be fail-safe, the closest is a HPV (human powered vehicle) due to the weight, and so all other vehicles need to be designed with the necessary safety measures built in. A car which has 5 (of 5) Euro-NCAP stars for passenger safety and 1 (of 4)Euro-NCAP star for pedestrian safety says so much about the current moral values (or lack thereof).

Improve training. There is no compulsory training for cyclists, nor for mopeds if the candidate is a car driver who passed their test before 1st Feb 2001 (as I recall). This is silly. Mopeds are quite tricky enough (I've ridden one, once, never again - motorbikes are really quite safe by comparison) without not having training, and bicycles are arguably one of the most difficult road vehicles to use well - which is why so many bicycles are ridden so poorly. Mopeds should be banned, the law on 125cc motorscooters relaxed (especially for car drivers, who are not necessarily keen to swap their car for a moped), and a CBC (compulsory basic training) certificate introduced for cyclists. [:I] Training needs to be continuous. I'm an engineer, and that's just part of my job. Why car drivers and others think they know everything, having passed a simple practical test donkey's years ago, I don't know.

Ultimately, computers will take over much of the driving of vehicles, with major gains in safety. How safe I will feel with depend on the speed of the vehicles, and how clever the computer needs to be. If it runs on elevated rails, so the computer has to figure out fast/slow only - I feel safe. If the computer has to dodge pedestrians in torrential rain - I don't feel so safe anymore. This is why car manufacturers are so reluctant to release their computerised cars onto the market place, as after the computer screws up, the manufacturer would be held accountable in a court of law. They're still working on that one.

That's a good start.

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

Cunobelin · June 2007

As always there is a simple soluution, and one with which I fully support Paul Smith and SafeSpeed.

We need more Police on the roads!

However where we differ is that I don not do this on the basis that I am less likely to be caught speeding.

My solution.

Whack up speeding fines to 3 or 4 hundred quid.
Whack up fines for all those transgressing yellow boxes, jumping red lights, illegally using pavements, illegally parking etc to a similar amount.

Use the automated systems that are so efficient and appropriate in these areas to enforce the law.

Now ring fence this and use the money to finance a dedicated traffic police. The revenue from speed cameras alone would be enough to provide a force several times the size of some county forces.

In 2003 - 2004 the income at œ60 per fine was 122.2 million (DfT figures.) at œ400 this would be something like œ800 million pounds. Hampshire Constabulary has a budget of œ265 million. Effectively we could therefore be looking at at a Traffic Police Force something like 3 times the size of Hampshire Constabulary.

Now add a similar amount (conservative estimate I suspect) for the fines for the other offences and we could be looking at a dedicated Traffic Force some 6 times the size of the Hampshire Constabulary, and funded entirely by voluntary contributions!

We maintain the present level of censure for those who cannot or will not drive within the law, and then comply with the SafeSpeed wish for a dedicated Traffic Police Force.

A win for everybody except those breaking the law!

Everyone wins!
m

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cunobelin · June 2007

The other separate issue and an adjunct to training is psychometric testing.

There is evidence that drivers who habitually speed, and drive aggressively are "risk takers" (see note at end)

Some companies already do test their drivers using systems like the Fleet Driver Risk Index to identify drivers prone to aggressive or thrill seeking behaviour.

Would compulsory testing of this type and a ban if unsuitable help make the roads safer?

References:

Deffenbacher, J.L., Deffenbacher, D.M., Lynch, R.S., & Richards, T.L. (2003). Anger, aggression and risky behavior: A comparison of high and low anger drivers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(6), 701-718.

Deffenbacher, J.L., Filetti, L.B., Richards, T.L., Lynch, R.S., & Oetting, E.R. (2003). Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 123-132.

Deffenbacher, J.L., & McKay, M. (in press). Overcoming situational anger and general anger: A protocol for the treatment of anger based on relaxation, cognitive restructuring and coping skills training. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Crash: One Fatal Day on the Roads. Watch BBC 1 Now

Comments

Categories