Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

Yep - traffic duties now use up about 5% of policing resources,
compared to about 15% in the early 90's.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:33:16 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

Lane discipline in German drivers /is/ very strong. Driving from the
Dutch side of the Dutch/German border to the other is a study in
opposites.

Mind you, I suspect the lack of Dutch-style lane indiscipline is due
to a Darwinian thinning of the German driver pool...

And a much sadder one.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

I used 6 sets of traffic lights today.

On two occasions a car sped through while my toddler and I were
crossing with the green man.

No lynching occurred. Although I do wish I had had a video camera
running so I could have handed in some footage to the local plod,
complete with reg. no. and the driver's face showing.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Would you not agree that it is better for someone to do 60mph down a

I think I understand what you're saying, but not why :-/ I guess you're
arguning for a holistic approach to traffic clalming? It's a good idea. I
think the problem with driving dangerously is that it isn't all that
dangerous, it's just that it's done loads of times. I think this is the
ultimate problem that we face with reducing road deaths - those that cause
them, even if they were driving really quite badly, were probably driving
at what they consider to be a pretty safe level. I guess we need to remove
from our calculations the likelyhood of someone being round that
corner/behind that parked car and take it as a given. Might add 30-60
seconds to the average journey tho.

 

I think it is interesting that since we invaded Iraq around 5000

<hand goes up at back of class>

I think it's the 65 _and_ the tens of thousands of Iraqis. Having spoken
to some of the protesters they didn't seem too bothered about the American
servicemen :-/

 

<Warning : This post may contain traces of smilies>

I think better and worse cause more problems that moral and immoral. For
example, it might be worse for you that I knock you down and kill you, but
much better for me that I'm allowed to get away with doing whatever speed I
like whenever I like.

I guess the problem that I have is that a lot of people who support "better"
or even what we have now sound as if they're on some crusade and that
anybody who doesn't agree with them is automatically evil when, in fact,
they're just horse-trading what's acceptable with what's practical.

Every argument against speeding in the existing limits could be applied
equally well to proposing a blanket 20mph speed limit on every road in the
country, yet nobody proposes that. Why not, eh? They're so concerned about
all of these people being killed, wouldn't far fewer be killed if every
single vehicle was limited to 20mph?

Next time you hear somebody preaching about how speed limits should be
rigorously enforced to save lives just remind yourself that what they're
really saying is, "We could save 50 lives by driving the way I do" and what
they're not saying is, "We could save 150 lives if I could put up with the
inconvenience of changing my ways".


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

What's the difference? Both are viewable from public property. If he lived
in the town center his house would be under surveilance.

 

When I bought a bike I took the opposite approach. Or at least that's
the way it turned out as low price was the real criterion. Nonetheless
I ended up with a heavy steel-framed bike which was great as I was
buying the bike to get fit. I reasoned that on a given journey my
heavy bike would provide me with more exercise than one of these new
fangled over priced carbon fibre nonsenses.

I can see they're right for some though.

 

The point is that councils reducing the limit and instlling "calming" on
roads with no pedestrians are increasing the risk to pedestrians.

The question we should ask is WHY are people driving through residential
areas, and why are there no speed cameras there? They didn't used to. It's
the same as asking WHY do people sit in cars on the M25 for an hour every
morning? Because it's the best option.

Now, surely it's better to improve alternative options and make life better
for everyone?

 

Depends on what you use it for. A heavy steel framed bike is fine on
the road. Try off-road racing over a bunch of mountains in Wales with
it and you'll soon wish it was lighter, stronger and suspended.

 

False assumption. How many people would actually die if everybody
drove carefully, attentively and legally? Bear in mind that police
figures suggest that over 90% of crashes are the result of driver
error. Or are you saying that because nobody can driver perfectly all
the time, then there is no point trying to encourage more careful
driving at all?

The simple truth is, most drivers accept a level of risk. That level
of risk is skewed by inaccurate perception, and the victims of that
risk may well be others. When seat belts were made compulsory fewer
drivers died - but that was offset by the largets recorded rises in
pedestrian, cyclist and rear passenger deaths. The balance of risk
shifted away from the driver. So if drivers can be educated to accept
lower levels of risk, there is strong evidence to suggest that the
roads will be safer for everybody, without necessarily undermining the
fabric of society. Very few reps will actually die if they don't
speed on the way to to their customer meeting, after all.

False logic. Few road crashes are the result of deliberate action.
Is a man whose negligence leads to one death more or less
reprehensible than the man whose negligence leads to multiple deaths
every year, is closer to the mark.

Road traffic crashes are caused, in the main, not by ther taking of
large risks, but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of
times. Reduce the risks and the numbers of crashes will decline

Yes. A negligent driver who endangers others is putting his perosnal
convenience ahead of the good of society. That is no more acceptable
than any other form of antisocial behaviour; less so, if anything, as
most types of antisocial behaviour do not lead to significant numbers
of deaths.

False dichotomy. The evidence says that the slower driver is less
likely to hit the pedestrian in the first place, and less likely to
kill the pedestrian if they do hit them.

I don't think you'll find me in denial about tha appalling nature of
the carnage on our roads. You will, however, find me doing my bit to
minimise that by not "requiring" transportation of that nature.
Because, in the end, it is not a requirement, it is a convenience.

Namely reckless, drunken or careless driving. You go to the heart of
one of the core problems with road safety: far too many drivers define
"safe" as "that which I got away with last tinme I tried it". Of
course, there is a ratchet effect, and they will continue to believe
themselves to be safe drivers right up to the point where they plough
into a school bus while speeding on the wrong side of a blind bend.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. I have reduced the amount of blood on my
hands by drastically reducing the amount of driving I do, and ensuring
that what driving remains, ios both safe and legal. Strangely, I have
not starved as a result.

It is 3,000+ now, of course.

That is letting the best be the enemy of the good, though. Few people
would be unable to drive with a bit more care given the right
incentive. It's noticeable that home zones, traffic calming schemes,
cameras in villages and 20 zones past schools, all exist as a result
of public demand - everybody knows the source of the problem, maybe
they just care a bit less when it's not their community or children
they are endangering.

Guy

 

True. I'd be much happier if the previous levels of policing by human
were reintroduced to supplement our current policing by robot.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Actually, this is not true. Most children are killed and injured in
road traffic accidents. These usually involve strangers.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

As many as ever. But fewer of them would survive to do it again.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Actually, we demand the rail industry spends 2 million pounds per
death prevented. Often local authority road safety expenditure
amounts to less than £10 thousand pounds per death prevented.



....


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Apparently 70% of people think the Government should do something to
reduce traffic. Evidently they think "traffic" is defined as /other
people's/ cars.

Guy

 

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:15:53 +0100, "Paul Weaver"

You saying the annual death and serous injury rates today are as high
as they were before cameras were introduced in '92?

That's an interesting assertion - but not one that's supported by the
records of numbers of deaths and serious injuries each year.



--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

The 1.6 was not EFi. The 'EFi' was 2.0.

And yes, I was talking about the EFi.

Thankfully, the talking dashboard had gone by the time of the EFi.

True. Of course, neither of mine never got towed by the AA in over
100,000 miles of use, so doesn't affect the figures.

I also got over 55mpg for a London to Edinburgh trip, escorting an old
banger of a mini at a near constant 55mph.



--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

A pal of mine hammerited his Fiat 127 hatchback black. I always
wondered what effect lumpy paint would have on the fuel consumption...


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

No problem at all - although of course a speed camera only takes
pictures of people who are actually committing an offence, so they are
less intrusive than CCTV.

Probably not a traffic matter, though.

I have seen plenty on residential streets where I am amazed that
anybody would be so crass as to drive at more than 30; clearly
somebody is doing so or the camera would not be there.

I first heard the term "rat-runner" used to describe excessively fast
traffic passing through residential streets in, I think, 1986.
Certainly the term, and therefore the practice, predates speed
cameras, reduced limits, traffic calming and the rest.

What they are actually doing is trying to get around the problem of
insufficient road space for the number of people seeking to use it.
And that is mainly caused, in towns at least, by the constraints
placed on the road network by property boundaries. This wa sa
problemd for Robert Hooke in 1667, so can hardly be blamed on speed
cameras.

But reducing the danger is better than doing nothing. Many of the
changes made to thoroughfares are designed to reduce danger, if only
by deterring the source of danger from entering the area. As stated,
there is simply not room for an ever increasing number of poeple to
take ever more and shorter journies by car. Private cars are just
about the least space-efficient mode of urban transport, and the
traffic problem is not caused only by other people in their cars, as
I'm sure you must realise.

Guy