Nuxx:6u0l351kn05n7iqv5tirr18ce9djt6hpfr@4ax.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <6u0l351kn05n7iqv5tirr18ce9djt6hpfr@4ax.com> From: "Just zis Guy, you know?"  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: IAM Cycle Safety presentations Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:25:55 +0100 References:      <8m6i35tsroolbv1ueoajob644rl2c26iij@4ax.com>    Lines: 68 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:25:58 -0500 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090617-0, 17/06/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser X-Trace: sv3-yXeo5K22nE+kQU1LOvhWCkKw6775kv5n6fuxFnfc81U1ofGvxxhX4r8noxs+R4jL6xV9mWvyHKMpcFf!JP1R0UZ9ezhIaMQz7wyQe9BL9WFecOy0FXIK0YlZiug0UXX3wy1R412nvVwolHpRFCxlqAFSb+Cw!essv X-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.39 Bytes: 5143 X-Original-Bytes: 5100 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:710576

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:41 +0100, "MrBitsy"  wrote:

>"Simon Brooke"  wrote in message >news:a9f0c001-f355-4f44-8bf5-4157193d441a@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... >On 17 June, 23:10, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  >wrote: >>> Ace wrote: >>>> You're only making the same mistake of confusing the consequences of >>>> an accident with the inherent safety. No-one would argue that the >>>>former are not generally more severe at higher speeds, but you leap to >>>> the conclusion that faster==more likely to have an accident, which is >>>> something entirely different. >>> >>> Indeed. But handily we are mostly aware here that TRL research shows >>> faster >>> = more likely to crash (or "have an accident" as you seem to prefer). So >>> that clears that one up nicely. > >>Also, even given the probability of crash being invariant with speed, >>the amount of physical damage done increases with the second power of >>the closing speed, and the probability of injury to human beings >>increases with the fourth power of the closing speed. So even, as I >>say, if the probability of a crash were the same, the probability of >>serious injury or fatality goes up sharply, and therefore 'inherent >>safety' declines equally sharply. > >>To put it in numerical terms, an increase of ten miles per hour from >>thirty mph to forty mph increases the probability of a death by more >>than 300%, even if the probability of a crash is unchanged. > > > >Yes, I will agree to statement, but only if road conditions stay exactly the >same. A good driver will not increase speed if conditions stay the same, >only if they improve. So, for a quick example, 30mph through a village will >be as safe as 60mph on an open road with perfect visibility.

That is irrelevant. Motorists, on the whole, cannot be trusted. They have chosen to indulge in a dangerous, selfish and unnecessary activity by driving, and therefore need to be treated like the reckless idiots that most of them are.

One way of accomplishing this is by implementing very low speed limits, which are far below the safe speed for the conditions, thereby providing a buffer which means that when the driver inevitably and selfishly exceeds the speed limit by a wide margin, they are still going at a relatively safe speed.

Another benefit of very low speed limits is that the vast majority of drivers will be travelling at an illegal speed, meaning that fining and eventually banning large numbers of drivers through automated means is easy and cost-effective. This cannot fail to be a good thing: studies have shown time and time again that the fewer drivers there are, the safer cycling and walking is. Since no-one truly needs to drive (public transport and cycling are always entirely adequate), everyone wins when large numbers of motorists are banned, even the whinging cagers themselves, who are being prevented from performing a dangerous activity partially for their own good.

Motorists show continued contempt for all other road users, through driving at all, through their "me me me" attitude, and through thinking that they're good drivers when they're not. They therefore need to be treated with similar contempt at all times. That is how it should be in a civilised society, and that is how it will remain until driving is officially banned altogether. Get used to it.

Guy