Now, in best life imitating art fashion, we have human spanners:
Available from Hexhold.com
.
Monday, 30 March 2009
You Spanner!
As the insult goes.
Now, in best life imitating art fashion, we have human spanners:
Available from Hexhold.com
.
Now, in best life imitating art fashion, we have human spanners:
Available from Hexhold.com
.
What the Papers Say
Or the bike magazines.
The latest issue of Superbike magazine has a supplement 'Riding Skills'. Interestingly, bearing in mind the magazine it's bundled with, it's quite a good read, as these sort of things go.
Since I first became involved in teaching 'advanced' riding, there has been an incredible change in the amount of riding articles cropping up in the magazines, Bike's various series in particular.
And, of course, the magazines themselves have even started to run their own training courses.
However, within the content of Superbike's Riding Skills, one particular item caught my attention:
"The Unexpected 3 A Car Pulls Out In Front Of You"
Which includes the advice:
"If you are going to hit the car, then to stack the odds in your favour, think about jumping up and forwards - although your reactions have to be amazing for this to work"
Great that they've publicised this 'trick' or technique. If you want to read more, see moe about The Jump here for a first hand (or head first) article about the technique and its use.
Not so great that they haven't included the 'preparedness and preparation' required.
Preparation, in that it's not something that you'll just 'do' in a situation whwere there are no other options. You need to have mentally rehearsed it beforehand.
Preparedness, bringing the idea to mind if you're approaching a junction with a potentially encroaching car, so you don't have to delve around in your mind asking "What was it I should do?"
However, they do emphasise 'mental' aspects of riding in various sections of the supplement.
Similarly, last week's Motorcycle News had a large article about bikers' brains, and included a mention of visualisation.
MCN also included comments from a sports psychologist - the suitably named Tony Head!
Want to know more about visualisation?
Read this:
http://www.dropzone.com/safety/articles/Visualizing.shtml
.
The latest issue of Superbike magazine has a supplement 'Riding Skills'. Interestingly, bearing in mind the magazine it's bundled with, it's quite a good read, as these sort of things go.
Since I first became involved in teaching 'advanced' riding, there has been an incredible change in the amount of riding articles cropping up in the magazines, Bike's various series in particular.
And, of course, the magazines themselves have even started to run their own training courses.
However, within the content of Superbike's Riding Skills, one particular item caught my attention:
"The Unexpected 3 A Car Pulls Out In Front Of You"
Which includes the advice:
"If you are going to hit the car, then to stack the odds in your favour, think about jumping up and forwards - although your reactions have to be amazing for this to work"
Great that they've publicised this 'trick' or technique. If you want to read more, see moe about The Jump here for a first hand (or head first) article about the technique and its use.
Not so great that they haven't included the 'preparedness and preparation' required.
Preparation, in that it's not something that you'll just 'do' in a situation whwere there are no other options. You need to have mentally rehearsed it beforehand.
Preparedness, bringing the idea to mind if you're approaching a junction with a potentially encroaching car, so you don't have to delve around in your mind asking "What was it I should do?"
However, they do emphasise 'mental' aspects of riding in various sections of the supplement.
Similarly, last week's Motorcycle News had a large article about bikers' brains, and included a mention of visualisation.
MCN also included comments from a sports psychologist - the suitably named Tony Head!
Want to know more about visualisation?
Read this:
http://www.dropzone.com/safety/articles/Visualizing.shtml
.
Friday, 27 March 2009
Video Projection
Building, video projector. Easy? Well, 'No'.
Watch this, it takes the idea into an art form - and follows neatly from the 'LED sheep' video I posted last week.
This technique uses some clever tricks to fool us - check how they don't just project the image of an object, then project its shadow too!
.
Watch this, it takes the idea into an art form - and follows neatly from the 'LED sheep' video I posted last week.
This technique uses some clever tricks to fool us - check how they don't just project the image of an object, then project its shadow too!
.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Survival Skills - Free Riding Skills Tips
Kevin Williams is 'Survival Skills' rider training.
His extensive site has just had a re-vamp, but the massive selection of riding skills tips is still available here.
.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Life Coaching - Hampshire / Berkshire
Unashamed plug for a good friend's new web site:
http://www.leytonfield.com/
Coaching provides a way forward in people’s lives without the hassle of delving deep into past experiences that may not be relevant to what you want to do here and now. Coaching can be a focused way of building confidence, improving self-esteem, helping with self development, exploring ways of increasing motivation and getting out of ‘that rut’ or finding ways of making that ‘tough decision’.
With coaching the aim is to focus on a problem in the present and explore ways of overcoming the problem in the here and now. Coaching with Dr Matt Tofield at Leytonfield uses an approach that has problem-solving at its core and as such is great for people who want to make positive change in their lives without spending years in therapy.
Whether it is identifying your talents, dealing with stress at work or home, boosting confidence, becoming more motivated, or planning the next stage of your life, at Leytonfield we work together with you to find solutions that work for you.
About Matt:
leytonfield was created by Dr. Matt Tofield: psychologist, coach and qualified teacher.
At leytonfield we believe in offering high quality coaching in a flexible format for any individual over the age of 16 who needs confidential support with self-development in areas of self-esteem, self-confidence, making decisions, coping with the stress of early careers and career planning.
Dr Matt Tofield has a PhD in Psychology from the University of Reading, a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PCET) from the University of Southampton, is a Certified Coach, and is an Associate Member of the Association For Coaching (AC). A member of the British Psychology Society (BPS) and an inaugural member of the BPS Special Group in Coaching Psychology.
Confidentiality and Privacy are vital and Leytonfield Coaching practices under strict ethical principles and follows good practice guidelines as set down by the British Psychology Society (BPS) and the Association For Coaching (AC).
.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Smile please! We're taking more of your money
No apologies for repeating something you may already know - if it saves one person some grief it's worthwhile.
Quite simply:
1. Do you have a photocard driving licence?
2. Is it 10 years old?
If 'yes' and 'yes' - you need to renew it.
That'll be £17.50, plus the cost of a new photo.
Full details from the AA:
When photocard driving licences were introduced ten years ago it was recognised that they would have to be updated – like it or not, our appearances do change and this has to be reflected on the licences.
So, if you have a photocard licence, you have to change it, and update the picture, every ten years. Now that the first photocards are ten years old everyone who has one needs to check if it needs renewing.
Inevitably there's a cost to produce a new licence and the government has said that the DVLA should re-coup this from drivers rather than from all taxpayers.
Renewing a photocard licence is going to cost £17.50.
No-one likes paying again for something we thought we had already paid for, but this going to have to be the case with the photocard licence, although the AA believes that the DVLA could have made drivers much more aware that licences were going to expire and were going to cost money to replace.
When does my licence expire?
The front of a photocard licence carries two dates
4a – the date the photo is valid from, and
4b – the date by which the licence needs to be updated
The '4b' renewal date is generally ten years after the licence was issued but for car drivers nearing or over 70 years of age, or with medical restrictions it is the date at which entitlement to drive ends.
If the '4b' date has passed, or is getting close you will need to act. Find details of what to do on the directgov website.
Do I get a reminder?
DVLA will send a reminder to drivers whose photocard licences are about to need updating.
But if you've changed address and not told DVLA then you won't get the letter.
Moving House or changing your name?
If you change address or name then you must tell DVLA so that car registration and driving licence details can be updated,
In this case the new licence is free, and will retain the current photograph and renewal date so long as the '4b' date has not been passed.
Paper licences
If you still have a paper driving licence you don't have to worry about ten yearly updates though you must still notify DVLA of name or address changes.
Parliament has given powers to recall all paper licences so the more secure photocard licences will be held by everyone, but no date has been set for this and the government is well aware that it would be controversial to make everyone buy a new licence.
The AA has said that if the government insists on everyone changing, it should phase in such a move and subsidise the cost.
Keeping the details on your paper licence up to date will ensure that DVLA is able to tell you when this is happening and if you need to do something.
Penalties
Having a licence which has not been updated will pose problems, particularly if you want to hire a car, or if you have to prove your entitlement to drive to your employer.
It could also lead to a fine of up to £1000 although we have had no reports of this happening for failing to update a photocard.
Here's the DVLA information sheet
.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Extreme Shepherding
Extreme ironing? Pah!
Ta to Ian for the link, and Mari for classic entertainment!
.
Ta to Ian for the link, and Mari for classic entertainment!
.
Parking Protest
TUESDAY, 31ST MARCH @ 7PM
WESTMINSTER CITY HALL, 64 VICTORIA STREET, LONDON SW1
The reason.
In August 2008, Westminster City Council, in direct opposition to every Transport Authority in the UK who see powered two-wheelers as the solution to inner-city pollution & congestion, but also the Conservative Party to whom they claim to belong, and by using the flimsiest of justification of supposedly "recouping" the £23,000 cost of providing more parking spaces, introduced under an "experimental traffic order" what is now recognised as the most dangerous piece of anti-motorcycle/scooter legislation ever seen in the world...charging for parking.
The opposition.
In response to this blatant removal of a privilege enjoyed by riders all over the world, the No To Bike Parking Tax Campaign was formed in September 2008, and has steadily exposed the misleading statements of the protagonists of this scheme to both their own fellow Councillors and the public, discovering that since its inception, it has already raked in over £2.5m from hard-working, honest and conscientious citizens, this figure raising every day
Abetted by a series of on-street demonstrations the likes of which have never been seen by this Council in its history, the Campaign has attracted unequivocal support from both the motorcycle community by way of BMF & MAG, and the mainstream by way of the much-heralded Tax Payers' Alliance.
The effect.
As a result, the Campaign has been offered the opportunity to present its findings to a select committee of Westminster Councillors on 31st March at 7pm.
The opportunity.
This also affords us the opportunity to demonstrate the real depth of resentment towards this tax, and for that, we need you there, outside Westminster City Hall.
The arrangements.
We will meet at Trafalgar Square, between 5pm-6.15pm, for the mother of all demonstrations, we will leave the Square at approx 6:15pm for a short ride-out to Westminster City Hall (via parliament square) arrive 6.45pm, in what needs to be the largest ride-out ever seen in the capital.
ACE CAFE RUN
Others will be gathering at the Ace Cafe between 3pm-4:15pm if you want to join them, they will then join the rest of us at Trafalgar Square, for the demonstration.
Make sure you take the time out to be there. If you are coming from outside London take time off.
WHY?
Well the choice is simple....
PROTEST NOW OR PAY FOREVER EVERYWHERE!
WWW.31ST-MARCH.COM
WESTMINSTER CITY HALL, 64 VICTORIA STREET, LONDON SW1
The reason.
In August 2008, Westminster City Council, in direct opposition to every Transport Authority in the UK who see powered two-wheelers as the solution to inner-city pollution & congestion, but also the Conservative Party to whom they claim to belong, and by using the flimsiest of justification of supposedly "recouping" the £23,000 cost of providing more parking spaces, introduced under an "experimental traffic order" what is now recognised as the most dangerous piece of anti-motorcycle/scooter legislation ever seen in the world...charging for parking.
The opposition.
In response to this blatant removal of a privilege enjoyed by riders all over the world, the No To Bike Parking Tax Campaign was formed in September 2008, and has steadily exposed the misleading statements of the protagonists of this scheme to both their own fellow Councillors and the public, discovering that since its inception, it has already raked in over £2.5m from hard-working, honest and conscientious citizens, this figure raising every day
Abetted by a series of on-street demonstrations the likes of which have never been seen by this Council in its history, the Campaign has attracted unequivocal support from both the motorcycle community by way of BMF & MAG, and the mainstream by way of the much-heralded Tax Payers' Alliance.
The effect.
As a result, the Campaign has been offered the opportunity to present its findings to a select committee of Westminster Councillors on 31st March at 7pm.
The opportunity.
This also affords us the opportunity to demonstrate the real depth of resentment towards this tax, and for that, we need you there, outside Westminster City Hall.
The arrangements.
We will meet at Trafalgar Square, between 5pm-6.15pm, for the mother of all demonstrations, we will leave the Square at approx 6:15pm for a short ride-out to Westminster City Hall (via parliament square) arrive 6.45pm, in what needs to be the largest ride-out ever seen in the capital.
ACE CAFE RUN
Others will be gathering at the Ace Cafe between 3pm-4:15pm if you want to join them, they will then join the rest of us at Trafalgar Square, for the demonstration.
Make sure you take the time out to be there. If you are coming from outside London take time off.
WHY?
Well the choice is simple....
PROTEST NOW OR PAY FOREVER EVERYWHERE!
WWW.31ST-MARCH.COM
Trust?
Do you trust the police and politiicians?
Possibly a silly question ;)
But prompted by a recent press release from the BMF which follows on the heels of the 'Motorcyclists are tax dodgers' [proved false] from (IIRC) a government committee, and '200mph motorcycles' claim from ACPO evidence presented to a government committee [proved false].
The latest one?
As the debate over Westminster Council’s motorcycle parking charges intensifies, the council have had to clarify the issuing of a press release that referred to ‘rogue motorcycle protestors.’
Full BMF text:
Westminster City Council – Not All Motorcyclists are Rogues
As the debate over Westminster Council’s motorcycle parking charges intensifies, the council have had to clarify the issuing of a press release that referred to ‘rogue motorcycle protestors.’
Writing to Councillor Danny Chalkley over the press release ‘Rogue Motorcycle Protestors May Face Legal Action’, BMF Government Relations Executive Chris Hodder said, “This is serious defamation against the good character of the BMF. The BMF was established 50 years ago to counter repeated anti-motorcyclist propaganda and here we are in the 21st century faced with the same old scare tactics.”
As supporters of the ‘No To Bike Parking Fees’ (NTBPF) campaign, the British Motorcyclists Federation says that a Westminster Council press release, singling out unofficial and wayward actions alleged to have been made by some protesters, muddies the waters and gives the impression that all motorcyclists, and especially those who are exercising their freedom of speech, are somehow ‘rogue’.
If some protesters have indeed overstepped the mark, the BMF condemns any acts that may constitute harassment, but insists that these would have been unofficial and did not warrant such a press release that in effect smears the NTBPF campaign.
In his response, Councillor Chalkley has made it clear that the Council accepts that ‘lawful, peaceful protest is an entirely legitimate method of disagreeing with any Council policy’, and that the ‘use of the phrase “rogue motorcycle protestors” emphasises the fact that the majority of protestors have behaved lawfully and reasonably.’
With a massive protest demonstration scheduled for 31st March, Councillor Chalkley has now asked that NTBPF ‘desist from actions which damage the West End Economy’ adding that ‘these are not the actions of a responsible group.’
In response the BMF say that protesting is a legitimate right and is the only effective way of making Westminster City Council know the strength of feeling on this issue.
Further information on NTBPF can be found at www.notobikeparkingfees.com or http://www.31st-march.com
Westminster City Council website:
http://www.westminster.gov.uk/transportandstreets/parking/
Possibly a silly question ;)
But prompted by a recent press release from the BMF which follows on the heels of the 'Motorcyclists are tax dodgers' [proved false] from (IIRC) a government committee, and '200mph motorcycles' claim from ACPO evidence presented to a government committee [proved false].
The latest one?
As the debate over Westminster Council’s motorcycle parking charges intensifies, the council have had to clarify the issuing of a press release that referred to ‘rogue motorcycle protestors.’
Full BMF text:
Westminster City Council – Not All Motorcyclists are Rogues
As the debate over Westminster Council’s motorcycle parking charges intensifies, the council have had to clarify the issuing of a press release that referred to ‘rogue motorcycle protestors.’
Writing to Councillor Danny Chalkley over the press release ‘Rogue Motorcycle Protestors May Face Legal Action’, BMF Government Relations Executive Chris Hodder said, “This is serious defamation against the good character of the BMF. The BMF was established 50 years ago to counter repeated anti-motorcyclist propaganda and here we are in the 21st century faced with the same old scare tactics.”
As supporters of the ‘No To Bike Parking Fees’ (NTBPF) campaign, the British Motorcyclists Federation says that a Westminster Council press release, singling out unofficial and wayward actions alleged to have been made by some protesters, muddies the waters and gives the impression that all motorcyclists, and especially those who are exercising their freedom of speech, are somehow ‘rogue’.
If some protesters have indeed overstepped the mark, the BMF condemns any acts that may constitute harassment, but insists that these would have been unofficial and did not warrant such a press release that in effect smears the NTBPF campaign.
In his response, Councillor Chalkley has made it clear that the Council accepts that ‘lawful, peaceful protest is an entirely legitimate method of disagreeing with any Council policy’, and that the ‘use of the phrase “rogue motorcycle protestors” emphasises the fact that the majority of protestors have behaved lawfully and reasonably.’
With a massive protest demonstration scheduled for 31st March, Councillor Chalkley has now asked that NTBPF ‘desist from actions which damage the West End Economy’ adding that ‘these are not the actions of a responsible group.’
In response the BMF say that protesting is a legitimate right and is the only effective way of making Westminster City Council know the strength of feeling on this issue.
Further information on NTBPF can be found at www.notobikeparkingfees.com or http://www.31st-march.com
Westminster City Council website:
http://www.westminster.gov.uk/transportandstreets/parking/
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Motorcycle Crash in Church
Yup, not an every-day headline!
The explanation goes:
It's a Disciple Now Weekend and youth pastor, David Few rides a motorcycle into the auditorium to deliver something to the stage. All is fine until the bike gets out from under him as he exits.
.
The explanation goes:
It's a Disciple Now Weekend and youth pastor, David Few rides a motorcycle into the auditorium to deliver something to the stage. All is fine until the bike gets out from under him as he exits.
.
Friday, 13 March 2009
FPIRSYNHO #1
That's:
"Famous People In Road Safety You've Never Heard Of"
And to start - and probably end - the series, is Reuben Smeed.
A recent conversation on the internet forum The Rev Counter was about improving safety levels, accident and casualty rates, and asked 'why?'
I've been involved in road safety for almost 30 years, so like to think I've had a bit to do with saving lives.
But what can I - or any other road safety professional - say to a theory which suggests that anything we do is almost irrelevant?
Read on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Smeed
Reuben Jacob Smeed (1909–1976) was a British statistician and transport researcher.
He obtained a degree in mathematics and PhD in aeronautical engineering from Queen Mary's College before entering academia as a teacher of mathematics.
When World War II started he was working for the Royal Aircraft Establishment on radio and radar equipment. In 1941 he assumed the rank of Wing Commander while he ran a small team in operations research for RAF Bomber Command looking at bomber losses. Whilst there he used statistics to verify the safest methods and formations for bombers and to investigate the effectiveness of various radar countermeasures, and by 1945 had become their Chief Research Officer.
In 1947 he joined the Traffic and Safety Division as Deputy Director at the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (later the Transport Research Laboratory), where he investigated issues around traffic, road users, accidents, lighting and vehicle behaviour, pioneering the scientific study of transport studies. In so doing, he discovered a number of surprising or counter-intuitive features of road systems. In 1949 he proposed Smeed's law, an empirical rule that broke the usual link between environmental factors and road accidents. Instead he correlated traffic fatalities to traffic density, as measured by the proxy of motor vehicle registrations and country population. He also proposed that the average speed of traffic in central London would always be nine miles per hour, because that is the minimum speed that people will tolerate. He claimed that his new designs for the linked use of traffic lights might increase the number of cars on the roads but would not increase their speed, because, as soon as the traffic flowed faster, more drivers would come to slow it down. Under his direction the TRL investigated many aspects of road safety and driver behaviour, publishing more than 50 papers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law
increasing traffic volume leads to a decrease in accidents per vehicle. It was posited after an analysis of figures from a number of countries over several decades.
[Wiki has a theorem or two here, but it won’t C&P]
Smeed published his research for 20 different countries, and by his death he had expanded this to 46 countries, all showing this result. Smeed became deputy director of the Road Research Laboratory and later Professor at University College London.
The relationship was revisited by John Adams who held that it was valid for a variety of countries over time, for example in Great Britain from 1909 to 1973. In 1995 Adams further showed the relationship worked for the data of 62 countries. He noted the enormous difference in fatality rates across different parts of the world even though vehicles may be built to approximately similar standards, which, according to the theory, is "explained by myriad behavioural adjustments in response to perceived increases in the threat of traffic".
However, the validity of Smeed's Law has also been disputed by several other authors (for example Andreassen, Broughton, Oppe, Ameen & Naji).
Smeed himself took his law as expressing a truth about group psychology: people would take advantage of improvements in automobiles or infrastructure to drive ever more recklessly in the interests of speed until deaths rose to a socially unacceptable level, at which point safety would become more important and recklessness less tolerated.
Freeman Dyson summarized his friend's view as:
Smeed had a fatalistic view of traffic flow. He said that the average speed of traffic in central London would always be nine miles per hour, because that is the minimum speed that people will tolerate. Intelligent use of traffic lights might increase the number of cars on the roads but would not increase their speed. As soon as the traffic flowed faster, more drivers would come to slow it down.....Smeed interpreted his law as a law of human nature. The number of deaths is determined mainly by psychological factors that are independent of material circumstances. People will drive recklessly until the number of deaths reaches the maximum they can tolerate. When the number exceeds that limit, they drive more carefully. Smeed's Law merely defines the number of deaths that we find psychologically tolerable.
Whilst in charge of the RRL's traffic and safety division, Smeed's views on speeds and accidents were well reported at the time of the introduction of a mandatory speed limit on UK roads: "If I wanted to stop all road accidents I would ban the car and introduce an overall speed limit, for there is no doubt that speed limits reduce accidents. Of course, roads with higher speeds often have lower accident rates. It is only on the safer, clear roads that you can drive fast - but that does not prove that you are driving more safely". He recognised that few methods of reducing accidents were painless and thus preferred to report facts and not to make direct recommendations as: "political, social and economic factors come in - but the people who make the decisions must know what the facts are on a subject.".
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/smeed.html
Written by the late Paul Smith, notes how Smeed should be nowadays in the UK, and postulates why not.
Oh, I couldn't find a picture of him, so this'll have to do :)
.
"Famous People In Road Safety You've Never Heard Of"
And to start - and probably end - the series, is Reuben Smeed.
A recent conversation on the internet forum The Rev Counter was about improving safety levels, accident and casualty rates, and asked 'why?'
I've been involved in road safety for almost 30 years, so like to think I've had a bit to do with saving lives.
But what can I - or any other road safety professional - say to a theory which suggests that anything we do is almost irrelevant?
Read on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Smeed
Reuben Jacob Smeed (1909–1976) was a British statistician and transport researcher.
He obtained a degree in mathematics and PhD in aeronautical engineering from Queen Mary's College before entering academia as a teacher of mathematics.
When World War II started he was working for the Royal Aircraft Establishment on radio and radar equipment. In 1941 he assumed the rank of Wing Commander while he ran a small team in operations research for RAF Bomber Command looking at bomber losses. Whilst there he used statistics to verify the safest methods and formations for bombers and to investigate the effectiveness of various radar countermeasures, and by 1945 had become their Chief Research Officer.
In 1947 he joined the Traffic and Safety Division as Deputy Director at the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (later the Transport Research Laboratory), where he investigated issues around traffic, road users, accidents, lighting and vehicle behaviour, pioneering the scientific study of transport studies. In so doing, he discovered a number of surprising or counter-intuitive features of road systems. In 1949 he proposed Smeed's law, an empirical rule that broke the usual link between environmental factors and road accidents. Instead he correlated traffic fatalities to traffic density, as measured by the proxy of motor vehicle registrations and country population. He also proposed that the average speed of traffic in central London would always be nine miles per hour, because that is the minimum speed that people will tolerate. He claimed that his new designs for the linked use of traffic lights might increase the number of cars on the roads but would not increase their speed, because, as soon as the traffic flowed faster, more drivers would come to slow it down. Under his direction the TRL investigated many aspects of road safety and driver behaviour, publishing more than 50 papers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law
increasing traffic volume leads to a decrease in accidents per vehicle. It was posited after an analysis of figures from a number of countries over several decades.
[Wiki has a theorem or two here, but it won’t C&P]
Smeed published his research for 20 different countries, and by his death he had expanded this to 46 countries, all showing this result. Smeed became deputy director of the Road Research Laboratory and later Professor at University College London.
The relationship was revisited by John Adams who held that it was valid for a variety of countries over time, for example in Great Britain from 1909 to 1973. In 1995 Adams further showed the relationship worked for the data of 62 countries. He noted the enormous difference in fatality rates across different parts of the world even though vehicles may be built to approximately similar standards, which, according to the theory, is "explained by myriad behavioural adjustments in response to perceived increases in the threat of traffic".
However, the validity of Smeed's Law has also been disputed by several other authors (for example Andreassen, Broughton, Oppe, Ameen & Naji).
Smeed himself took his law as expressing a truth about group psychology: people would take advantage of improvements in automobiles or infrastructure to drive ever more recklessly in the interests of speed until deaths rose to a socially unacceptable level, at which point safety would become more important and recklessness less tolerated.
Freeman Dyson summarized his friend's view as:
Smeed had a fatalistic view of traffic flow. He said that the average speed of traffic in central London would always be nine miles per hour, because that is the minimum speed that people will tolerate. Intelligent use of traffic lights might increase the number of cars on the roads but would not increase their speed. As soon as the traffic flowed faster, more drivers would come to slow it down.....Smeed interpreted his law as a law of human nature. The number of deaths is determined mainly by psychological factors that are independent of material circumstances. People will drive recklessly until the number of deaths reaches the maximum they can tolerate. When the number exceeds that limit, they drive more carefully. Smeed's Law merely defines the number of deaths that we find psychologically tolerable.
Whilst in charge of the RRL's traffic and safety division, Smeed's views on speeds and accidents were well reported at the time of the introduction of a mandatory speed limit on UK roads: "If I wanted to stop all road accidents I would ban the car and introduce an overall speed limit, for there is no doubt that speed limits reduce accidents. Of course, roads with higher speeds often have lower accident rates. It is only on the safer, clear roads that you can drive fast - but that does not prove that you are driving more safely". He recognised that few methods of reducing accidents were painless and thus preferred to report facts and not to make direct recommendations as: "political, social and economic factors come in - but the people who make the decisions must know what the facts are on a subject.".
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/smeed.html
Written by the late Paul Smith, notes how Smeed should be nowadays in the UK, and postulates why not.
Oh, I couldn't find a picture of him, so this'll have to do :)
.
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Surfaces 2
Second one is 'platforms' or 'tables', often added as part of traffic calming measures.
If you're approaching on - even if in a car - look to see how high the platfoem is compared to the road surface.
Often they won't have the same degree of camber as the road, so my be less of a bump nearer the centre.
Also, under continuous impact from passing traffic, they often start to collapse in the wheel-track areas, so it's often worse those sections if the 'slope' has been damaged.
Check the picture above for an example of the oil drips from yesterday's post.
.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Posting 'Training' Stuff . . . Surfaces 1
So posting about GRGR2 led to posting a vid, which reminded me of a couple of thoughts on riding that I've been meaning to post for a while.
They're both about looking for detail in road surfaces.
#1
Ever notice dark 'splodges' in the centre of a lane, between the wheel tracks? Usually about .5m wide, and up to 1.5m long.
They're also usually just after a dip or bump in the road surface, harsh enough to jar any cars passing over so that loose drips of oil splash and stain the surface.
Not a lot you can do about the bump, not too much to worry about from the oil stain - but it'll give you some warning.
You may have seen this advice/information before?
If so, were you advised that the second bump/dip won't have the staining because all the oil will have fallen off at the first one?
.
They're both about looking for detail in road surfaces.
#1
Ever notice dark 'splodges' in the centre of a lane, between the wheel tracks? Usually about .5m wide, and up to 1.5m long.
They're also usually just after a dip or bump in the road surface, harsh enough to jar any cars passing over so that loose drips of oil splash and stain the surface.
Not a lot you can do about the bump, not too much to worry about from the oil stain - but it'll give you some warning.
You may have seen this advice/information before?
If so, were you advised that the second bump/dip won't have the staining because all the oil will have fallen off at the first one?
.
Advanced Video
Posting about the nre Great Roads Great Rides 2 DVD reminded me of one of AdvancedBiker's videos on Youtube.
.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Coming Soon, To A Test Centre . . .
. . . Well, I can't guarantee 'near you'.
However, the new 2008 (yup) 'Brake and Swerve' test is impending, it can be booked from 30 March 2009 and testing is to commence on Monday 27 April.
More details here.
The main change from previous plans is:
A key decision is that the practical motorcycling test will be split into two modules.
Module 1 – a specified off road manoeuvres test
Module 2 – a road riding test
This modular approach will allow DSA to increase the number of locations from which the new test will be available. It is planned that on launch day up to 67 locations will be available from which to take Module 1 and 104 locations for Module 2, together with 30 occasional centres in Scotland.
DSA Newsletter, with details of test price changes, locations of test centres, and results of the consultation here.
For rider traininers ('instructors' in old money) the MCITA site has a very good download of the new test content, also suitable for anyone who'll be taking the test.
I'd recommend downloading and saving a copy before they remove it from their site!
2DLD guidance - This guidance brochure was created by Nigel Osborne of Channel Rider Training to help trainers understand the requirements of the new off road test
Guidance Notes
The New Test, Changes and the Motorcycle Manoeuvring Area (MMA)
.
