On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:36:18 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

It is not chance. It is statistics which is a science. And by driving
at a safe speed we cana ffect out comes. ie improve survivabilty.

Driving at dangerous speeds is not "chance". It is a deliberate
action so anyone who is killed was killed by a deliberate action..

And what decides whether a particular speed is "safe" or "dangerous"?

Statistics is indeed a tool that can help us decide. Statistics can
tell us the probability of surviving a crash at a particular speed in
a particular type of vehicle, and also the probability of having a
crash under particular conditions. It may surprise you to learn that
an impact with a stationary object at just 20 MPH does not have
anything like 100% survivability. And an impact at 200MPH does not
have 0% survivability. Yet I am fairly certain that you would regard
the former as being usually "safe" and the latter as being usually
"dangerous" in a car on an average type of road.

So what statistical risk do you consider is "safe", and what
statistical risk is "dangerous"? And does that figure change
depending on how important to yourself it is to arrive at your
destination by a certain time?

A person's behaviour is influenced by their own *perception* of risk
rather than the actual statistical risk that exists. Which is why
many safety devices actualy result in an increase in risk-taking and
consequtial accidents.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:15:28 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Quite so. But if someone was killed, chances are that that was not a
safe speed. Regardless of the speed limit.

No, that does not follow at all. Many pedestrians are killed every
year by being struck by trains. Does that indicate to you that the
train was travelling at an unsafe speed?

What you say is true only if excessive speed *was a causal factor* in
the accident. Which I believe is not the case in the majority of
accidents (including those where the driver was exceeding the posted
speed limit).

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:17:48 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

On 25/01/2012 19:57, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

But we know neither is the death penalty.

If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been?

That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's
definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which
country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the
UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their
harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.


Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times
bigger than ours.

You will find that they have more crimes per unit of population than
we do.

--
Cynic

On Jan 26, 3:47*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:36:18 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

It is not chance. It is statistics which is a science. *And by driving
at a safe speed we cana ffect out comes. ie improve survivabilty.
Driving at dangerous speeds is not "chance". *It is a deliberate
action so anyone who is killed was killed by a deliberate action..

And what decides whether a particular speed is "safe" or "dangerous"?

Statistics is indeed a tool that can help us decide. *Statistics can
tell us the probability of surviving a crash at a particular speed in
a particular type of vehicle, and also the probability of having a
crash under particular conditions. *It may surprise you to learn that
an impact with a stationary object at just 20 MPH does not have
anything like 100% survivability. *And an impact at 200MPH does not
have 0% survivability. *Yet I am fairly certain that you would regard
the former as being usually "safe" and the latter as being usually
"dangerous" in a car on an average type of road.

So what statistical risk do you consider is "safe", and what
statistical risk is "dangerous"? *And does that figure change
depending on how important to yourself it is to arrive at your
destination by a certain time?

A person's behaviour is influenced *by their own *perception* of risk
rather than the actual statistical risk that exists. *Which is why
many safety devices actualy result in an increase in risk-taking and
consequtial accidents.

There was an article about cyclists wearing helmets and they find cars
drive closer
to them because they are safer wearing helmets. ;-0

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:05:59 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Far more resources put into rehabilitation. Which would include support
after release.

And when that fails?

Let's try it first, and then cross that bridge. Because it's clear
that our present system doesn't work too well, and nor did the far
harsher system that we used to have.

It was tried in the 1970's and it failed. I know because I was involved. I
was on the Training Scheme. I wrote a course for them which gave them a City
and Guilds Certificate. "I" was the writer of the course and "I" was the
City and Guilds Assessor and it was rolled out over the whole Prison System.

The methods that were attempted were watered-down compromises
involving just a few elements of the techniques originally proposed,
and they were quickly abandoned when they did not achieve *immediate
and spectacular* results.

Rehabilitation does not mean paying lip-service to some sort of
in-prison "training" (which is all that happened in most prisons) and
issuing a nice certificate, with little post-prison followup or
aftercare. It involves a whole raft of techniques designed to address
the root cause of the offending behaviour - of which lack of education
and marketable skills is just one. One program will *not* fit all -
offenders (and *potential* offenders) must first be categorised and
then the appropriate rehabilitation method should be applied to each
category.

And you should not expect to see results until the methods have been
in operation for at least 5 years, and probably twice that long.

--
Cynic

In message
,
whisky-dave writes
A person's behaviour is influenced *by their own *perception* of risk
rather than the actual statistical risk that exists. *Which is why
many safety devices actualy result in an increase in risk-taking and
consequtial accidents.

There was an article about cyclists wearing helmets and they find cars
drive closer
to them because they are safer wearing helmets. ;-0

Could it be their perception that they are safer wearing a helmet and
thus venture into more aggressive traffic situations?

My modest contribution as this thread heads for the 300 count....

regards



--
Tim Lamb

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:05:59 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

One of the prisoners was in for taking cars. "It would be cheaper for the
Government to buy me a car" he said one day. I politely told him that he
should get a job and pay for his car as I had done. I then put a deterrent
scheme to him. "If you were sentenced to 14 days with the proviso that next
time it would be 28 days and when you got to prison all you were doing was
shifting a pile of sand from one end of a corridor, and when that was done
you would shift it all back again, would you think twice before putting your
hand on a car door handle with the view to pinching it, knowing you will be
shifting sand for 28 days and the next term 56 days etc?" He agreed it would
be a deterrent.

You believed him because he told you what you wanted to hear. Did you
similarly believe all the inmates who undoubtedly told you they were
innocent?

There have been so many studies that show that it is the probability
of getting caught rather than the severity of the punishment that is
the deterrent that I wonder how you can seriously believe any
different. People commit crime because they do not seriously believe
they will get caught. It makes no difference if you don't get caught
and sentenced to community service than if you don't get caught and
sentenced to 10 years hard labour. The result is exactly the same in
both cases.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:19:25 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Yes, I'm sure you would be far more comfortable living in the
middle-ages. Or perhaps even less civilised - as a caveman?

Then what would we do with the offenders, kill them?

Depends on the type of offending. For some offences, my solution
would be to remove the unnecessary laws so that what they are doing is
no longer an offence at all. For most other offences my preference
would be to remove the cause of the offending behaviour in the
long-term and attempt to rehabilitate the person so that they become a
productive member of society rather than a drain.

Only after those things fail should lengthy imprisonment be considered
as a final solution.

So basically you agree with me.

My understanding of your position is that you would lock people up for
a long time *before* making any effort to rehabilitate them or remove
the root causes of their crimes. you would also want to make their
lives a misery whilst they are in prison - though it is difficult to
see why that is at all necessary or what it would achieve if your sole
purpose is to prevent them offending by removing them from society -
incarceration does that of itself.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:24:18 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Could be all sorts of reasons. It is quite common for children who
were raised by very responsible parents to do silly things,

Far less likely than the children of the feckless, by a ratio of 100:1
or more I'd say. If any of my friends' kids got into trouble we'd all be
astonished and shocked, whereas on the dodgy estates if a kid gets into
trouble no-one thinks it's worth a mention.

Can you honestly say that you have *never* in your life done anything
that was extremely stupid to the point of being dangerous?

Between the ages of roughly 12 and 20, the greatest influence on
behaviour is the peer-group. The type of peer-pressure a child
experiences correlates very closely to the type of neighbourhood the
child lives in. Many parents do not have a great deal of choice over
the area they live.

It must be really nice living in your black-and-white World.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:45:15 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Perhaps you would like to speculate on the effect it would have on a
dog if, just after the beginning of the dog's training, the owner was
obliged to leave the dog in a kennel for 6 hours a day, where it mixed
with 100 other dogs, most of which were aggressive and untrained.

--
Cynic

On 26/01/2012 08:43, harry wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:12 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:27:38 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I don't see anyone acting as apologists, simply people who see no
reason to gloat over their deaths or believe that it is *good* that
they were killed.
Obviously, you have never been the victim of a crime and lack the
imagination to see how victims feel.

You would be wrong on both counts.

Perhaps you have never been falsely accused of a crime and become the
subject of vigilante attacks?

--
Cynic

Ah. Moving the goal posts again?
The "vigilantes" are criminals too.
Especially if acting on rumour.

If a criminal is caught in the act,

What 'act'?

You (nor anyone) cannot tell what the mitigating circumstances
of/reasons for/legality of the 'act' may be, as you perceive it, at the
time; there may be no crime at all, even though 'you' believe 100% there is.

That is why we do not 'take the law into our own hands'; we cannot.

WM

harry :
On Jan 25, 6:22*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive *wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. *They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid *(in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing.
They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who cares?
I expect there's people here could think of other similar work.

That's answered none of my questions.

How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of
work yet still being paid?

They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove.
Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.

The labour is only one component of the cost of those jobs. Where do the
materials, the management, and the supporting services come from?

--
Mike Barnes

On 26/01/2012 16:51, Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:45:15 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Perhaps you would like to speculate on the effect it would have on a
dog if, just after the beginning of the dog's training, the owner was
obliged to leave the dog in a kennel for 6 hours a day, where it mixed
with 100 other dogs, most of which were aggressive and untrained.


Are you suggesting that the prison system targets innocent youngsters by
putting them in an environment with habitual criminals?

--
Moving things in still pictures

On 26/01/2012 08:25, harry wrote:
On Jan 25, 6:22 pm, Clive wrote:
On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing.
They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who cares?
I expect there's people here could think of other similar work.

That's answered none of my questions.

How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of
work yet still being paid?

They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove.
Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.

They do all get done (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes by ex-offenders).

WM

On 26/01/2012 11:08, Ophelia wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 6:22 pm, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an
oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing.
They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who cares?
I expect there's people here could think of other similar work.

That's answered none of my questions.

How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of
work yet still being paid?

They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove.
Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.

But that would infringe their human rights dontcha know ...

Except they do and it does not (for now).

WM

On 26/01/2012 08:46, harry wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:17 pm, wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:57, Clive George wrote:

On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

But we know neither is the death penalty.

If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been?

That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's
definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which
country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the
UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their
harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.

Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times
bigger than ours.

They do lock up a larger percage than us. But they don't have the same
benifits culture we have. You can starve in America.
Especially these days.

Oh, that is OK then (eyes roll).

You do know that many USA states can no longer afford their penal
systems? (mainly due to 3-strikes).

WM

Cynic :
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:15:28 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Quite so. But if someone was killed, chances are that that was not a
safe speed. Regardless of the speed limit.

No, that does not follow at all. Many pedestrians are killed every
year by being struck by trains. Does that indicate to you that the
train was travelling at an unsafe speed?

Different situation entirely. There is a somewhat analogous situation on
the roads, which I acknowledged by writing "chances are" to indicate
that there might be a significant number of exceptions.

What you say is true only if excessive speed *was a causal factor* in
the accident. Which I believe is not the case in the majority of
accidents (including those where the driver was exceeding the posted
speed limit).

Quite possibly but we're discussing deaths, not accidents in general.

--
Mike Barnes

®i©ardo wrote:
On 26/01/2012 16:51, Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:45:15 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Perhaps you would like to speculate on the effect it would have on a
dog if, just after the beginning of the dog's training, the owner was
obliged to leave the dog in a kennel for 6 hours a day, where it mixed
with 100 other dogs, most of which were aggressive and untrained.


Are you suggesting that the prison system targets innocent youngsters by
putting them in an environment with habitual criminals?

Sounds more like many parts of our school system to me.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 3:47 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:36:18 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

It is not chance. It is statistics which is a science. And by driving
at a safe speed we cana ffect out comes. ie improve survivabilty.
Driving at dangerous speeds is not "chance". It is a deliberate
action so anyone who is killed was killed by a deliberate action..

And what decides whether a particular speed is "safe" or "dangerous"?

Statistics is indeed a tool that can help us decide. Statistics can
tell us the probability of surviving a crash at a particular speed in
a particular type of vehicle, and also the probability of having a
crash under particular conditions. It may surprise you to learn that
an impact with a stationary object at just 20 MPH does not have
anything like 100% survivability. And an impact at 200MPH does not
have 0% survivability. Yet I am fairly certain that you would regard
the former as being usually "safe" and the latter as being usually
"dangerous" in a car on an average type of road.

So what statistical risk do you consider is "safe", and what
statistical risk is "dangerous"? And does that figure change
depending on how important to yourself it is to arrive at your
destination by a certain time?

A person's behaviour is influenced by their own *perception* of risk
rather than the actual statistical risk that exists. Which is why
many safety devices actualy result in an increase in risk-taking and
consequtial accidents.

There was an article about cyclists wearing helmets and they find cars
drive closer
to them because they are safer wearing helmets. ;-0



Why do cyclists, who dress in funny coloured tight clothing, wear dark
glasses all the time? Is it part of the superman uniform?

Mike

--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

On Jan 26, 12:53*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 26/01/2012 08:25, harry wrote:





On Jan 25, 6:22 pm, Clive *wrote:
On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive * *wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. *They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid *(in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing.
They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who cares?
I expect there's people here could think of other similar work.

That's answered none of my questions.

How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of
work yet still being paid?

They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. *Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove.
Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.

So where does the money come from?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Recycled materials.

On Jan 26, 1:36*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *Clive George wrote:

How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of
work yet still being paid?

They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. *Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove.
Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.
So where does the money come from?

From the taxpayer, of course. Public money being used to pay prisoners to
work. You know it makes sense...

--
*i souport publik edekashun.

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More sense than buying TVs for them.

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f217ae4.1045285250@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:05:59 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Far more resources put into rehabilitation. Which would include
support
after release.

And when that fails?

Let's try it first, and then cross that bridge. Because it's clear
that our present system doesn't work too well, and nor did the far
harsher system that we used to have.

It was tried in the 1970's and it failed. I know because I was involved. I
was on the Training Scheme. I wrote a course for them which gave them a
City
and Guilds Certificate. "I" was the writer of the course and "I" was the
City and Guilds Assessor and it was rolled out over the whole Prison
System.

The methods that were attempted were watered-down compromises
involving just a few elements of the techniques originally proposed,
and they were quickly abandoned when they did not achieve *immediate
and spectacular* results.

Rehabilitation does not mean paying lip-service to some sort of
in-prison "training" (which is all that happened in most prisons) and
issuing a nice certificate, with little post-prison followup or
aftercare. It involves a whole raft of techniques designed to address
the root cause of the offending behaviour - of which lack of education
and marketable skills is just one. One program will *not* fit all -
offenders (and *potential* offenders) must first be categorised and
then the appropriate rehabilitation method should be applied to each
category.

And you should not expect to see results until the methods have been
in operation for at least 5 years, and probably twice that long.

--
Cynic


And your first hand 'hands on' experience is
........................................ ?

Mike

--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

On Jan 26, 3:11*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:43:26 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I don't see anyone acting as apologists, simply people who see no
reason to gloat over their deaths or believe that it is *good* that
they were killed.
Obviously, you have never been the victim of a crime and lack the
imagination to see how victims feel.
You would be wrong on both counts.
Perhaps you have never been falsely accused of a crime and become the
subject of vigilante attacks?
Ah. Moving the goal posts again?

No, I am simply asking you the same sort of question as you asked me.

The "vigilantes" are criminals too.

Yes - which rather makes the sort of vigilante attitudes expessed by
posters on this thread a bit questionable, don't you think?

Especially if acting on rumour.

How about a newspaper article?

If a criminal is caught in the act, I don't blame anyone for beating
the **** out of them these days of half wit judges and greedy lawyers.

So you *do* approve of vigilante action. *I thought so.

Consider that even if "caught in the act" it is seldom 100% certain
that the person is in fact guilty of what he appears to be guilty of.
Misinterpreting someone's actions is quite common.

Not to mention the fact that if someone were to catch you in the act
of taking vigilante action, then by the same principles they would
also be justified in taking action against you - and so on and so on.


The problem is with our rat-arsed legal and political system.

On Jan 26, 3:32*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:51:18 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all.

For all sensible people however, it is a question of assessing the
risk/reward ratio and taking the risk if the ratio falls below a
certain threshold. =A0Most things we do contains *some* element of risk.
The question is *not* whether something bad happened as a result of a
person taking a risk, but whether the risk taken was reasonable in the
circumstances or not.
If everyone were to drive in a manner that eliminated *all* risk of
causing death, modern society would not be able to survive.
There are plenty of people out there who are not sensible.

"Sensible" is a subjective rather than an objective criterion. *A huge
number of major advances have been made by people who the majority did
not consider to be behaving very sensibly. *Personally I don't think
it is very sensible to pay money to watch a group of men kicking a
ball around a field, but obviously many people would disagree.

There are people out there (seemingly beyond your ken) who are evil
*******s and don't give a toss about anyone else.

*Very* few people fall into that category - probably under 0.01% *It
is however common to dismiss a *large section* of people as being
unworthy of consideration. *In fact, such an attitude is even
*necessary* in certain circumstances (such as for soldiers in
warfare). *Perhaps you yourself "don't give a toss" about anyone who
is considered to be a criminal?

Taking a risk that effects yourself is one thing. If it effects
someone else,that's another.

Yes, they do indeed merit different considerations, but it is
routinely necessary to make decisions that will affect and put at risk
other people besides yourself. *You do so every time you drive.
Parents must routinely make risk assessments on behalf of their
children, and make decisions that put the child at some degree of
increased risk.


Sense is something beyond the comprehension of our legal system.

With speed limits the decision is taken out of your hands.l

Not to mention the fact that if someone were to catch you in the act
of taking vigilante action, then by the same principles they would
also be justified in taking action against you - and so on and so on.


The problem is with our rat-arsed legal and political system.

What are the problems (specifically please) within them, in your opinion?

WM

On 26/01/2012 17:28, harry wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:36 pm, "Dave Plowman
wrote:
In ,
Clive wrote:

How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of
work yet still being paid?

They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove.
Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.
So where does the money come from?

From the taxpayer, of course. Public money being used to pay prisoners to
work. You know it makes sense...

--
*i souport publik edekashun.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More sense than buying TVs for them.

Who pays for in-cell TVs?

On Jan 26, 3:47*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:36:18 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

It is not chance. It is statistics which is a science. *And by driving
at a safe speed we cana ffect out comes. ie improve survivabilty.
Driving at dangerous speeds is not "chance". *It is a deliberate
action so anyone who is killed was killed by a deliberate action..

And what decides whether a particular speed is "safe" or "dangerous"?

Statistics is indeed a tool that can help us decide. *Statistics can
tell us the probability of surviving a crash at a particular speed in
a particular type of vehicle, and also the probability of having a
crash under particular conditions. *It may surprise you to learn that
an impact with a stationary object at just 20 MPH does not have
anything like 100% survivability. *And an impact at 200MPH does not
have 0% survivability. *Yet I am fairly certain that you would regard
the former as being usually "safe" and the latter as being usually
"dangerous" in a car on an average type of road.

So what statistical risk do you consider is "safe", and what
statistical risk is "dangerous"? *And does that figure change
depending on how important to yourself it is to arrive at your
destination by a certain time?

A person's behaviour is influenced *by their own *perception* of risk
rather than the actual statistical risk that exists. *Which is why
many safety devices actualy result in an increase in risk-taking and
consequtial accidents.

--
Cynic

The speed limit is not a matter of choice. It has been decided by
highway engineers and prominently posted.
You might be too stupid to see the reason for it's level.
But then you are not a highway engineer.

On Jan 26, 3:51*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:15:28 +0000, Mike Barnes

wrote:
Quite so. But if someone was killed, chances are that that was not a
safe speed. Regardless of the speed limit.

No, that does not follow at all. *Many pedestrians are killed every
year by being struck by trains. *Does that indicate to you that the
train was travelling at an unsafe speed?

What you say is true only if excessive speed *was a causal factor* in
the accident. *Which I believe is not the case in the majority of
accidents (including those where the driver was exceeding the posted
speed limit).

--
Cynic

Pedestrians killed by trains are mostly trespassers and deserve to die
for the same reason as these copper thieves.

On Jan 26, 4:45*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:24:18 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Could be all sorts of reasons. *It is quite common for children who
were raised by very responsible parents to do silly things,
Far less likely than the children of the feckless, by a ratio of 100:1
or more I'd say. If any of my friends' kids got into trouble we'd all be
astonished and shocked, whereas on the dodgy estates if a kid gets into
trouble no-one thinks it's worth a mention.

Can you honestly say that you have *never* in your life done anything
that was extremely stupid to the point of being dangerous?

Between the ages of roughly 12 and 20, the greatest influence on
behaviour is the peer-group. *The type of peer-pressure a child
experiences correlates very closely to the type of neighbourhood the
child lives in. *Many parents do not have a great deal of choice over
the area they live.

It must be really nice living in your black-and-white World.

--
Cynic

Not dangerous to other people.
I am virtually perfect.

On Jan 26, 4:51*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:45:15 -0000, "'Mike'"

wrote:
Parents fault. *They had not been subjected proper discipline.
Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Perhaps you would like to speculate on the effect it would have on a
dog if, just after the beginning of the dog's training, the owner was
obliged to leave the dog in a kennel for 6 hours a day, where it mixed
with 100 other dogs, most of which were aggressive and untrained.

--
Cynic

Dogs don't mix in kennels. They are kept apart. You really are in
Lala land.

In article ,
'Mike' wrote:
Always amuses me when the unions say that they 'Will work to rule'. Why
aren't they 'always' working to rule and setting an example?

You've never worked for an organisation which has a job description? Such
a description will be careful to state the limits of a employee's duties.
And invariably, nothing like the job as it is performed. So when working
to rule, you simply do the job as your employer has written it down.


What are 'rules' for? ....... Not that I have much time for unions
anyway. They want to run a business without putting their neck on the
block and taking the risk.

Why should a workforce take risks when they don't get a share of the
profits they generate? Or are you one who thinks all profits are made by
some suit sitting in an office?

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/01/2012 17:44, harry wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:51 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:45:15 -0000, "'Mike'"

wrote:
Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.
Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Perhaps you would like to speculate on the effect it would have on a
dog if, just after the beginning of the dog's training, the owner was
obliged to leave the dog in a kennel for 6 hours a day, where it mixed
with 100 other dogs, most of which were aggressive and untrained.

--
Cynic

Dogs don't mix in kennels. They are kept apart. You really are in
Lala land.

Totally oblivious to those around them?

I think you need to try to work your way out of your (logically-flawed)
'Lala land'.

WM

In article ,
Nigel Oldfield wrote:
They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove.
Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.

They do all get done (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes by ex-offenders).

It's the sort of thing those sentenced to community service do.

But consider the logistics of using prisoners for this. They would have to
be transported to and from the place of work. Food and toilet facilities
etc provided. Enough staff to supervise them in what is obviously an open
environment. Tools and materials rigorously checked to prevent weapons
being imported to the prison after work.

Of course in the US, you see chain gangs working in the fields. Obviously
works well since the US has such a low rate of imprisonment. ;-)

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/01/2012 18:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Nigel wrote:
They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove.
Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.

They do all get done (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes by ex-offenders).

It's the sort of thing those sentenced to community service do.

I know, done it

But consider the logistics of using prisoners for this. They would have to
be transported to and from the place of work. Food and toilet facilities
etc provided. Enough staff to supervise them in what is obviously an open
environment. Tools and materials rigorously checked to prevent weapons
being imported to the prison after work.

Well, lower Cats do allow prisoners to work 'off-site', but, ....

I agree, they can rarely afford to do it *inside a prison*.

Of course in the US, you see chain gangs working in the fields. Obviously
works well since the US has such a low rate of imprisonment. ;-)

Point taken.

WM

Clive George wrote:

On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote:
On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their
keep. They would remain there working until they had paid (in
cash) full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an
oversupply of labour - how would yours be any better? Would you
undercut normal working people to get your work?

They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing.
They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who
cares? I expect there's people here could think of other similar
work.

That's answered none of my questions.

How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of
work yet still being paid?

They could do the work that we need to import massive amounts of
immigrants in for. You know, "the work no British wants"

--

On 26/01/2012 17:27, John Williamson wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:
On 26/01/2012 16:51, Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:45:15 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Perhaps you would like to speculate on the effect it would have on a
dog if, just after the beginning of the dog's training, the owner was
obliged to leave the dog in a kennel for 6 hours a day, where it mixed
with 100 other dogs, most of which were aggressive and untrained.


Are you suggesting that the prison system targets innocent youngsters
by putting them in an environment with habitual criminals?

Sounds more like many parts of our school system to me.


Many a true word...

--
Moving things in still pictures

Mike Barnes wrote:

harry :
On Jan 25, 6:22*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive
*wrote: On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. *They would work and pay for their
keep. They would remain there working until they had paid
*(in cash) full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an
oversupply of labour - how would yours be any better? Would you
undercut normal working people to get your work?

They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing.
They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who
cares? I expect there's people here could think of other
similar work.

That's answered none of my questions.

How are you going to do this work without putting other people out
of work yet still being paid?

They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere.
Work that needs doing but doesn't get done.
There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to
remove. Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements.

The labour is only one component of the cost of those jobs. Where do
the materials, the management, and the supporting services come from?

The money saved not pampering them.

--

On Jan 26, 5:38*pm, harry wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:47*pm, (Cynic) wrote:





On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:36:18 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

It is not chance. It is statistics which is a science. *And by driving
at a safe speed we cana ffect out comes. ie improve survivabilty.
Driving at dangerous speeds is not "chance". *It is a deliberate
action so anyone who is killed was killed by a deliberate action..

And what decides whether a particular speed is "safe" or "dangerous"?

Statistics is indeed a tool that can help us decide. *Statistics can
tell us the probability of surviving a crash at a particular speed in
a particular type of vehicle, and also the probability of having a
crash under particular conditions. *It may surprise you to learn that
an impact with a stationary object at just 20 MPH does not have
anything like 100% survivability. *And an impact at 200MPH does not
have 0% survivability. *Yet I am fairly certain that you would regard
the former as being usually "safe" and the latter as being usually
"dangerous" in a car on an average type of road.

So what statistical risk do you consider is "safe", and what
statistical risk is "dangerous"? *And does that figure change
depending on how important to yourself it is to arrive at your
destination by a certain time?

A person's behaviour is influenced *by their own *perception* of risk
rather than the actual statistical risk that exists. *Which is why
many safety devices actualy result in an increase in risk-taking and
consequtial accidents.

--
Cynic

The speed limit is not a matter of choice. It has been decided by
highway engineers and prominently posted.

It hasn't been decided by highway engineers at all. It's been decided
by politicians under the thumb of single-issue extremists.



You might be too stupid to see the reason for it's level.

On the contrary, almost everyone is smart enough to see that there is
*no* legitimate reason for its level. It does not reflect dangers that
are hidden to the vast majority of drivers. It reflects minor dangers
that the vast majority of drivers are quite open aware of, and quite
willing to accept as being the price of motoring - in particular,
motoring that is psychologically easy and which fits with the reality
of human behaviour, and does not involve consuming disproportionate
concentration and willpower on maintaining perceived excessively low
speeds, or driving in a manner that is notionally more efficient but
which is out of accordance with the way in which humans actually
negotiate their social behaviour.

A classic example is that of tailgating. The politicians tell us not
to. The reality is, it is designed to discipline those drivers who
would otherwise drive excessively slowly, or who would wander off into
their own world oblivious to other traffic. It would be nice not to
have to tailgate. The reality is, it's a behaviour that involves risks
but which is necessary as part of an activity carried out by humans,
in which drivers must drive at a broadly socially acceptable speed and
in a socially acceptable manner. Even I get tailgated occasionally
(usually when driving slowly to observe unfamiliar surroundings), and
my correct response is to allow others to pass me - it also causes me
to avoid those situations that are likely to cause tailgating if I can
help it.

So too, tailgating on motorways, as well as being an expression of
frustration, is in practice fairly necessary in order to prevent queue-
jumping. It would be nice if people could be electronically locked
into their respective lanes. That is not the reality of what occurs,
and so it is necessary for everyone to tailgate, to avoid queue-
jumpers who will, by filling in the gaps, cause tailgating anyway,
except with a rearrangement of the queue in such a way that those who
try to maintain their distance are increasingly slowed and pushed to
the back of the queue.

"Ste" wrote in message
...
help it.

So too, tailgating on motorways, as well as being an expression of
frustration, is in practice fairly necessary in order to prevent queue-
jumping. It would be nice if people could be electronically locked
into their respective lanes. That is not the reality of what occurs,
and so it is necessary for everyone to tailgate, to avoid queue-
jumpers who will, by filling in the gaps, cause tailgating anyway,
except with a rearrangement of the queue in such a way that those who
try to maintain their distance are increasingly slowed and pushed to
the back of the queue.

Tailgating a driver who is observing the applicable speed limit is
deplorable and there doesn't appear to be any punishment dished out to
drivers who tailgate.

Bill

On 26/01/2012 00:14, wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:42:01 GMT, (Cynic) wrote:

Heck, I could come up with a situation in which opening a window
caused the death of 100 people.

The designers of the Comet certainly did.

Rubbish, it was nothing to do with the "opening of a window", it was
caused by in-flight metal fatigue as a result of the flexing of the
airframe. The origin of the crack started in the corner of a navigation
window on top of the fuselage which was square in shape. It was the
shape of the window(s) which caused the problem, rather than the opening
or closing of it.

--
Moving things in still pictures