Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Jun 21, 2026 15:57

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 575 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 29  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:24 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 13:18
Posts: 191
Location: London
SafeSpeed wrote:

ALL road deaths are 'freak accidents'...

We have about 30 million near misses each year
We have about 3 million damage onlys each year
... about 200,000 injury crashes
....about 25,000 serious injury crashes
... about 3,000 fatal crashes

So the chance of a crash being fatal is about 1 in 1,000.

Also note the 'log' severity scale. You can't get that out of any 'physics model'. Believe me, I've tried.


Can you imagine any parent saying to their children "The roads are perfectly safe dears, now run outside and play"?
You obviously don't think the roads are safe enough, or you wouldn't be campaigning so hard to make them safer.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dondare wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Ru88ell wrote:
johnsher wrote:
one doesn't need a magic number to be able to drive/ride/walk safely.


Correct. But society demands that an upper limit is in place for reasons of safety and consideration for others. Of course we all vary our speeds constantly either on a bike or in a motor vehicle. The limit is just that. Just live with it.


We wuldn't be here if I didn't believe that thousands have died because of it.

So 'live with it' takes on a really sickly hue.

I know you think you've explained this, but it's still not making sense to me, how can speed limits have been responsible for thousands of deaths?
Would these people still be alive if speed limits hadn't been invented?


First things first. Speed limits are definitely a good thing. They serve a useful purpose, but they are only a weak proxy for the desired behaviour.

Modern policy based on "speed kills" has had a number of effects:

- All too often we (national we) we promote 'slower is safer' in a random way, damaging the vital link between speed and hazards

- We have expended far too many resources at every level getting a strong focus on the proxy and forgetting all about the desired behaviour.

- As a result of this driver skills are on average deteriorating.

- It's like we're all watching the referee rather than the ball

- As a result we're losing ground fast. The once reliable fall in road risk values has flatlined. If it hadn't flatlined we'd be over 1,200 lives per year better off than we are.

- And we shouldn't be surprised because in truth road safety is a complex matter of human behaviour centred around skills, attitudes and responsibilities.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dondare wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:

ALL road deaths are 'freak accidents'...

We have about 30 million near misses each year
We have about 3 million damage onlys each year
... about 200,000 injury crashes
....about 25,000 serious injury crashes
... about 3,000 fatal crashes

So the chance of a crash being fatal is about 1 in 1,000.

Also note the 'log' severity scale. You can't get that out of any 'physics model'. Believe me, I've tried.


Can you imagine any parent saying to their children "The roads are perfectly safe dears, now run outside and play"?


There are all sorts of dangers that children need to be protected from. When we were cavemen it was probably bears, cliffs and rivers. Now it's kettles, bleach and traffic.

Dondare wrote:
You obviously don't think the roads are safe enough, or you wouldn't be campaigning so hard to make them safer.


More than anything else I'm campaigning to stop the government making the roads more dangerous.

Before policy went wrong I was proud of the country - I sat back and watched excellent progress as we extended our would lead.

For me it's mostly about 'how it's changing', rather than 'the level it is at'. That's logical because the only route to safer roads is through incremental improvement. Presently the increments are in the wrong direction - it's getting worse out there.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 13:18
Posts: 191
Location: London
smeggy wrote:
Dondare wrote:
Deaths caused by cyclists fall into the freak accident catagory, more people are killed by the type of battery used in smoke detectors. Unless WVM is actually bringing people back to life he's a bigger menace than the cyclist.

“A cyclist going flat out does not have the same capacity to injure or kill that a car does”

Your above sentence clearly refers to the danger from a single unit of each, it does not account for overall exposure. The sentence is technically correct but meaningless as it is clear that the overall risk (generally accepted as ‘probability x severity’) from a single unit of the former is greater than one from the latter – probability is the key!

By your definition, walking down the stairs is a bigger menace than WVM and cyclists summed together (the former claiming 1500 lives in the UK per annum).

Getting to the point: if there were as many cyclists as vehicles, using today’s trends as a reference, cyclists would require the most regulation of all. Don’t think I’m kidding - this has already been discussed by ministers (as highlighted earlier in this thread).


The accident figures for bicycles/motor vehicles are skewed in many ways. For instance, motor vehicles have motorways which only they can use. These have virtually every hazard removed from them and accidents are very rare indeed, and there are no pedestrian fatalities at all because it is illegal to walk on a motorway. Motorists clock up millions of miles on these safe roads.
Cyclists have "cycle tracks" built for them which are so poorly designed as to be criminal. Every cycle track is used by pedestrians as well and the accident rate on them is 12 times higher than on the real roads. The highway code actually recommends that cyclists use these "facilities".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:39 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 13:18
Posts: 191
Location: London
SafeSpeed wrote:
Dondare wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:

ALL road deaths are 'freak accidents'...

We have about 30 million near misses each year
We have about 3 million damage onlys each year
... about 200,000 injury crashes
....about 25,000 serious injury crashes
... about 3,000 fatal crashes

So the chance of a crash being fatal is about 1 in 1,000.

Also note the 'log' severity scale. You can't get that out of any 'physics model'. Believe me, I've tried.


Can you imagine any parent saying to their children "The roads are perfectly safe dears, now run outside and play"?


There are all sorts of dangers that children need to be protected from. When we were cavemen it was probably bears, cliffs and rivers. Now it's kettles, bleach and traffic.

Dondare wrote:
You obviously don't think the roads are safe enough, or you wouldn't be campaigning so hard to make them safer.


More than anything else I'm campaigning to stop the government making the roads more dangerous.

Before policy went wrong I was proud of the country - I sat back and watched excellent progress as we extended our would lead.

For me it's mostly about 'how it's changing', rather than 'the level it is at'. That's logical because the only route to safer roads is through incremental improvement. Presently the increments are in the wrong direction - it's getting worse out there.


If speed limits were introduced in the 30's, at what point did it all start to go wrong and how did that cause thousands of extra deaths?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:41 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
Dondare wrote:
For instance, motor vehicles have motorways which only they can use. These have virtually every hazard removed from them and accidents are very rare indeed, and there are no pedestrian fatalities at all because it is illegal to walk on a motorway.

You're wrong. Unfortunately, legality or otherwise notwithstanding, there are pedestrian fatalities on motorways... IIRC, of the number of fatalities used to "justify" the use of cameras on the M6 through Cumbria, over half of them were "drunk pedestrians".

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Dondare wrote:
If speed limits were introduced in the 30's, at what point did it all start to go wrong and how did that cause thousands of extra deaths?

it's not the limits that are the problem as such, it's the mindless automated enforcement of them to the exclusion of all else.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Ru88ell wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:

We wuldn't be here if I didn't believe that thousands have died because of it.

So 'live with it' takes on a really sickly hue.


Of course you wuld. Crocodile tears. I can remember seeing the smug delight in your face when you presented to the ABD in Gaydon. You implied that you had found some holy grail that would be the end of speed cameras, and perhaps limits.

I've left the ABD too, as you know. It's libertairianism gone mad. ABD and SS both seeking to use mind numbingly boring stats as a tool to grant them the liberty to drive wherever, whenever, and at whatever speed they see fit - regardless of any wider damage to society. I've no idea why I'm even over here posting again. Please do me a favour and and ban me.

And as for 'sickly hue'......... If you want sick, there was once a guy who suggested that people provide the name of someone recently deceased as being the driver of their car should they ever receive a NIP.

See y'all. Ich bin weg. :neko:


I'm quite sure you know that that ugly outpouring is a travesty of the truth.

- I've yet to hear anyone offer any plausible explanation as to why this massive effort I'm making is worth doing except to save lives. There's no money in it. I certainly don't crave attention (I don't even like it, actually).

- Yes - I have found fatal flaws in government road safety policy. And I am proud to have done so.

- Safe Speed is not even remotely libertarian. We'd crack down hard on sources of danger on our roads.

I don't know what's happened to you Russell. You're spitting bile, when a few days ago you posted on C+ that you agreed with the fundamentals of the Safe Speed case.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:46 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
Dondare wrote:
If speed limits were introduced in the 30's, at what point did it all start to go wrong and how did that cause thousands of extra deaths?

You've, intentially or otherwise, got hold of totally the wrong end of the stick... It's not speed limits that are the problem, it's the concentration on their automated enforcement, to the virtual exclusion of all other methods of road safety, that's the problem!

That's why drink/drive deaths are up, along with no reduction in many other causes. Cameras don't catch drunks, stolen cars, unlicensed drivers, etc... Policemen do!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:48 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 13:18
Posts: 191
Location: London
SafeSpeed wrote:

First things first. Speed limits are definitely a good thing. They serve a useful purpose, but they are only a weak proxy for the desired behaviour.

Modern policy based on "speed kills" has had a number of effects:

- All too often we (national we) we promote 'slower is safer' in a random way, damaging the vital link between speed and hazards

- We have expended far too many resources at every level getting a strong focus on the proxy and forgetting all about the desired behaviour.

- As a result of this driver skills are on average deteriorating.

- It's like we're all watching the referee rather than the ball

- As a result we're losing ground fast. The once reliable fall in road risk values has flatlined. If it hadn't flatlined we'd be over 1,200 lives per year better off than we are.

- And we shouldn't be surprised because in truth road safety is a complex matter of human behaviour centred around skills, attitudes and responsibilities.


"Traffic calming" is the theory that deliberately introducing hazards causes drivers to slow down and therefore makes the roads safer. What are your veiws on this?
(Mine are that its complete bollocks.)

There are millions more people and millions more cars, the roads could be getting safer and more people dying.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Dondare wrote:
The accident figures for bicycles/motor vehicles are skewed in many ways.

Regardless, the overall figures, accounting for exposure revealing the risk per unit ‘mode of transport’, are proof of the pudding!

Dondare wrote:
Cyclists have "cycle tracks" built for them which are so poorly designed as to be criminal.

Hey, let’s do something about it. If this genuinely is the case then perhaps :ss: can take this up as another method to increase overall road safety.

What’s the cost of a length of decent cycle track against a speed camera?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:51 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 13:18
Posts: 191
Location: London
pogo wrote:
Dondare wrote:
If speed limits were introduced in the 30's, at what point did it all start to go wrong and how did that cause thousands of extra deaths?

You've, intentially or otherwise, got hold of totally the wrong end of the stick... It's not speed limits that are the problem, it's the concentration on their automated enforcement, to the virtual exclusion of all other methods of road safety, that's the problem!

That's why drink/drive deaths are up, along with no reduction in many other causes. Cameras don't catch drunks, stolen cars, unlicensed drivers, etc... Policemen do!


My ideal: more cameras and more policemen.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:52 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Dondare wrote:
There are millions more people and millions more cars, the roads could be getting safer and more people dying.

The number of cars is irrelevant. IIRC, there has been an 8% increase of the total distance travelled on roads (all modes) in the last 5 years; the increase is less than 1% from last year!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dondare wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Dondare wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:

ALL road deaths are 'freak accidents'...

We have about 30 million near misses each year
We have about 3 million damage onlys each year
... about 200,000 injury crashes
....about 25,000 serious injury crashes
... about 3,000 fatal crashes

So the chance of a crash being fatal is about 1 in 1,000.

Also note the 'log' severity scale. You can't get that out of any 'physics model'. Believe me, I've tried.


Can you imagine any parent saying to their children "The roads are perfectly safe dears, now run outside and play"?


There are all sorts of dangers that children need to be protected from. When we were cavemen it was probably bears, cliffs and rivers. Now it's kettles, bleach and traffic.

Dondare wrote:
You obviously don't think the roads are safe enough, or you wouldn't be campaigning so hard to make them safer.


More than anything else I'm campaigning to stop the government making the roads more dangerous.

Before policy went wrong I was proud of the country - I sat back and watched excellent progress as we extended our would lead.

For me it's mostly about 'how it's changing', rather than 'the level it is at'. That's logical because the only route to safer roads is through incremental improvement. Presently the increments are in the wrong direction - it's getting worse out there.


If speed limits were introduced in the 30's, at what point did it all start to go wrong and how did that cause thousands of extra deaths?


It started to go wrong in about 1991. The trend failure is visible from 1994 when new policies started to affect the roads.

Here's one example:

Image

The extra deaths are due to declining driver quality. TRL published as much last year, although I'd been highlighting the fact for some years before. Declining driver quality is due to 'bad policy'.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
Dondare wrote:
My ideal: more cameras and more policemen.

However, government doesn't seem to see it that way... Cameras are so effective that traffic policemen are no longer needed. (Irony BTW!)

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dondare wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:

First things first. Speed limits are definitely a good thing. They serve a useful purpose, but they are only a weak proxy for the desired behaviour.

Modern policy based on "speed kills" has had a number of effects:

- All too often we (national we) we promote 'slower is safer' in a random way, damaging the vital link between speed and hazards

- We have expended far too many resources at every level getting a strong focus on the proxy and forgetting all about the desired behaviour.

- As a result of this driver skills are on average deteriorating.

- It's like we're all watching the referee rather than the ball

- As a result we're losing ground fast. The once reliable fall in road risk values has flatlined. If it hadn't flatlined we'd be over 1,200 lives per year better off than we are.

- And we shouldn't be surprised because in truth road safety is a complex matter of human behaviour centred around skills, attitudes and responsibilities.


"Traffic calming" is the theory that deliberately introducing hazards causes drivers to slow down and therefore makes the roads safer. What are your veiws on this?
(Mine are that its complete bollocks.)


It's probably another useless artefact of the same mindset that gave us speed cameras. I haven't studied traffic calming in great detail. However, I expect it's 'complete bollocks' too.

Dondare wrote:
There are millions more people and millions more cars, the roads could be getting safer and more people dying.


Yes they could. That's why my work in the area is based on 'risk values' not absolute numbers. The basic unit of road risk is 'deaths per billion vehicle km'

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dondare wrote:
pogo wrote:
Dondare wrote:
If speed limits were introduced in the 30's, at what point did it all start to go wrong and how did that cause thousands of extra deaths?

You've, intentially or otherwise, got hold of totally the wrong end of the stick... It's not speed limits that are the problem, it's the concentration on their automated enforcement, to the virtual exclusion of all other methods of road safety, that's the problem!

That's why drink/drive deaths are up, along with no reduction in many other causes. Cameras don't catch drunks, stolen cars, unlicensed drivers, etc... Policemen do!


My ideal: more cameras and more policemen.


What makes you think cameras are helping? (serious question)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 13:18
Posts: 191
Location: London
smeggy wrote:
Dondare wrote:
The accident figures for bicycles/motor vehicles are skewed in many ways.

Regardless, the overall figures, accounting for exposure revealing the risk per unit ‘mode of transport’, are proof of the pudding!

Dondare wrote:
Cyclists have "cycle tracks" built for them which are so poorly designed as to be criminal.

Hey, let’s do something about it. If this genuinely is the case then perhaps :ss: can take this up as another method to increase overall road safety.

What’s the cost of a length of decent cycle track against a speed camera?

Even the best cycle track would be effectively a shared use footpath, you can't keep pedestrians off them.
Cycle tracks create conflict points between cyclists and motorists at junctions and there is no way round this. Cyclists should use the road and feel safe there.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:09 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 23:56
Posts: 252
Location: Manchester
Dondare wrote:
Cyclists have "cycle tracks" built for them which are so poorly designed as to be criminal. Every cycle track is used by pedestrians as well and the accident rate on them is 12 times higher than on the real roads. The highway code actually recommends that cyclists use these "facilities".


Agree completely. There are few that I would use. There are many NSL roads around the NW where theres ample room to remove the grassy kerb and install a cycle path.

Unfortunately, cyclists don't contribute £50bn or so per year to the treasury as a result of their cycling. But thats another argument.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dondare wrote:
Cycle tracks create conflict points between cyclists and motorists at junctions and there is no way round this. Cyclists should use the road and feel safe there.


I agree. There's no reason that adult cyclists shouldn't use the roads. I'm a bit more worried about the under 12s. What about them?

And btw, Dondare, congratulations for keeping up with the onslaught. It's great to discuss different views in a civilised atmosphere. :thumbsup:

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 575 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.069s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]