Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

That's a bit of spin.

From the article:

<quote>
Hospitals must improve recording of medical errors which may contribute to
72,000 deaths a year, say researchers.
</quote>

Note it "may contribute" to the deaths. Not an expression you would use about
a death happening after being hit by a ton of metal travelling at speed, is
it?

 

Paul Weaver opined the following...

Except that in most cases, providing greater capacity simply increases
the number of cars to fill the void. It's rare that building a new road
(Or enlarging an existing one) will do anything to reduce congestion.

Jon

 

As you might guess, the urc members here are rather attuned to cases
where cyclists have been killed. The two cases I cited are the more
extreme examples of bad driving lightly punished but the going rate for
fault seems to be about a £200 fine. If you want to murder someone, the
car is the weapon of choice for getting off lightly if caught.

Tony

 

What, roads build cars? I thought they were made in factories.

Even were this not bunk, how come building more hospitals is a good thing and
building more roads is a bad thing?

I suggest that you go and talk to the people who live near where the M25
runs about what life was like before they built it.

 

You mean like the M25 and most new road schemes. Experience is if you
build them, then traffic levels increase to congest them (1).

Tony

(1)New roads generate new traffic

World Transport Policy and Practice 1 January 1995, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 29-31(3)

Pfleiderer R.H.H.; Dieterich M.

Abstract:
Road traffic accounts for about one-fifth of fossil energy consumption
worldwide. It is one of the major causes of global environmental
pollution and contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect. There
is widespread ignorance concerning the mechanisms which underly the
generation of additional traffic. In particular the construction or
improvement of roads is neglected by conservative traffic experts.
Travelling time, saved as a result of faster vehicles, is not shifted
from transportation to other activities. Rather, average travel time
budgets remain constant thus allowing for longer distances to be
covered. This results in traffic induced by improved infrastructure.
Induced traffic is considered to be one of the main causes of traffic
increase in general.

 

Me I tolerate all

Cept fuckwits

 

RFID in the tax disk.. far more sensible. Then you not only have to nick the
number plates, you have to nick the tax disk too, which would be reported,
logged and the stolen car identified.

...d

 

Even were this not bunk, how come building more hospitals is a good

Leave you to wrk that one out.

Yebbut is the road less congested. We're not talking about whether
building a road a Long Way Away makes things quieter.

 

You are looking at things with a different pair of rose-tinted spectacles


Wha I mean is, all other things being equal, a car which is travelling
faster poses more risk than a car which is travelling slower.

The Septics love to point to the Autobahns as an argument for speed
derestriction - but our motorways are twice as safe, even though the Germans
are renowned for their disciplined driving.

Yes, I picked my words carelessly.

Really? So the laws of physics don't apply? Excellent news.

So stop and rest until you can drive without your mind wandering. I never
find any shortage of things to concentrate on when driving.

I take it you are not advocating driving at high speed as a solution to
tiredness?

It comes from numerous TRL reports, including the ones which ABD
misrepresent as saying something else. What proportion below the limit? No
idea.

As I have said many times before, I don't find the speed limit to be an
unacceptable constraint. Driving within the limit makes a barely
perceptible difference to the times of my frequent journeys, maybe a couple
of minutes between St Albans and Reading, and driving is more relaxing as a
result. Keeping to the limit around town means I notice many more hazards
than I did before.

So subvert the system by obeying the law and paying no fines. There are no
losers in this scenario

Catching people speeding stops people speeding. The main reason people
break traffic laws is because there is a negligible probability of being
caught.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Like I said, hairsplitting.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

In most cases you can't increase the capacity of the roads, largely because
of property boundaries. And even if you do the result tends to be that
people use the opportunity to move further out and traffic increases to
match.

It always amuses me, though, that the solution is always for "them" to do
"something".

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

I was that man. The A405 was busy all day and a pig to cross. As it still
is. What was your point again?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Damn you're smart! ;-)

Because building more hospitals does not encourage more people to injure
themselves, while building more roads does encourage more people to
drive. Simple really.

Then I suggest that you try talking to the people who live near the A14
and ask them what the expansion on that road and the A1(M) have done for
them.

Building a bypass to route traffic out of a city tends to reduce
congestion in the city. It also encourages people to drive that route
since they now no longer have to go through the city. Expanding that
road when it becomes congested itself very rarely has a long term
effect.

Jon

 

I don't think the points can be refuted. We merely disagree, and I don't
think we will ever agree.

Yes, unusually good-natured for an x-posted thread. Thanks, and I did learn
some things, and pick up a couple of new points to ponder along the way.
So, unusually, it was a productive thread about traffic enforcement.
Mirabile dictu!

Cheerio,

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Now hold on there just a minute!

What do you two think you're playing at? This is no way to end a thread.
Where are the insults and name calling? The playground-like taunting?
Not even one death threat?

I'm ashamed of the pair of you. Really.

 

Until the A605 was rebuilt and the A14 opened our village was awash
with traffic trying to get to Peterborough. Now it's lovely - not only
do we have nearby access to fast decent roads, but our local roads are
quiet.

More new roads seems to be the answer.

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message

Driving without wearing a seatbelt?

 

I have every confidence that the Nugentoid of Cager IV will be along in a
moment to address your concerns ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

It has one very _big_ flaw. The number plate on a car is transient. I/you
can put any number on your car. I can copy one from someone else's car, I
could put a foreign one on. They mean nothing. They rely on the "keeper"
admitting to being there.

If ANPR becomes widespread you can bet that more and more plates will be
cloned and the identification will become less and less reliable.

What, protecting privacy?

Retrospectively? You would have to continuously monitor everywhere. Is
that what you visualise?

No, the house of some unsuspecting, law abiding motorist whose plate has
been cloned.

There were 2,781,000 violent crimes reported in 2002/2003, against these,
the number of "careless motorists" are almost insignificant. How can you
justify your claim "Other criminals pose less risk to society than careless
motorists"?

You think it better to catch than to prevent?

So even after 10 years the system still won't be in place to catch errant
motorists. Doesn't sound too promising then does it?

Matt
--

 

And that is generally safer why?

...d