Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

Another fabulous ad

Ken might be having a bad day. But at least he can take heart at the brilliance of this Transport for London ad. How good are your observational powers?

Hat Tip: Boing Boing

Driven to distraction, but not to death

From the Marginal Revolution blog I learn of an interesting new study. Here are the first two paragraphs of the press release:

It's conventional wisdom that talking on cell phones while driving is risky business, but two University of California, Berkeley, graduate student economists report that a spike in cell phone use in recent years and on weekday evenings is not matched by an increase in fatal or non-fatal car crashes from 2002-2005.

Their findings, published on the Web site of the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, run counter to the conclusions of more than 125 other studies, 70 percent of Americans in a 2003 Gallup Poll who said drivers on cell phones cause accidents, and the reasoning behind complete or partial bans on using cell phones in at least 14 states. The issue is on the agenda in several foreign countries as well.

The paper itself can be found here.

The authors of the research sound shocked by their findings. And anyone who has used a mobile phone while driving, however briefly, will be surprised too. Holding your phone and calling is very distracting.

So why the finding?

Two simple words - risk compensation. A study of the direct effect of phone use on driving does not take into account what drivers do when not using their phones. They may, for instance drive faster and more dangerously.

The Cones Hotline lives

The other day, stuck in a long line of traffic, I took to wondering about the Cones Hotline.

When John Major became Prime Minister he announced his intention to make public services more responsive to customers. And one of the most celebrated, and lampooned, initiatives was the establishment of a hotline, to allow drivers to complain when they saw cones left on the road unnecessarily.

The initiative was not a success.

Despite the publication of the number on motorways everywhere, few drivers called the line. In 1995, the Cones Hotline was quietly dropped.

Or was it?

Take a look at the list of useful telephone numbers on the Greater Manchester Police website. There it is, fifth number down - the Cones Hotline.

So I phoned 08457 504030. And it turns out to be, well, still the Cones Hotline, really.

You can phone what is now called the Highways Agency Information Line (great rebranding, guys) and leave a message if you find "faults or debris" (who are they trying to kid).

So remember that number - 08457 504030. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, say goodbye to those unnecessary-cones-in-the-way blues.

UPDATE: With commendable swiftness and a sense of humour, Greater Manchester Police have read this post and changed the name of their hotline. I'm not fooled though...

For safety's sake - cyclists should jump traffic lights

I regularly break the law. Most days, for instance, I jump traffic lights. And now after reading this report I feel more than justified in doing so: it's much safer for me to ignore red lights and follow my own instincts. Yes, I'm a cyclist.

I think the Highway Code needs revising: cyclists shouldn't have to obey traffic lights. First, think about what traffic lights are for. They exist to help ease congestion by managing the flow of traffic, and to make the roads safer. But cyclists, unlike cars and lorries, don't cause congestion so they don't need to be managed. And traffic lights certainly don't make life safer for cyclists.

In fact, traffic-light junctions are one of the most dangerous parts of a cyclist's journey. As The Times report shows lorries quite often can't see cyclists who are ahead of them and on their left; hence why they have a habit of squashing them as they make a left turn. Drivers also tend to become mini-Schumachers at traffic lights, pulling away very quickly as if in a race. And, drivers also tend to watch traffic lights forgetting to look out for what other road users are doing.

So, it's often safer for cyclists, if they can see the road ahead, to jump lights. I trust the judgment of cyclists because they tend to have a more highly developed sense of risk than drivers: well, if you make a mistake you take the bigger hit. Knowing that your brain may be sprayed across a road does concentrate the mind.

Of course, we could take a further step and abolish all traffic lights.

Robbie Millen   

More cycle lanes of doom

Yesterday, you saw the cycle lane of doom that leads straight into a fence. Here's a frightening one in the middle of a dual carriageway (don't use it on a windy day people).

And ever wanted to cross the Greenwich Meridian... on a bike... on a cycle lane! Well, now you can! But you can't go much further, as you'll see here.

(Hat Tip: Tom Whitwell, Alex Galloway)

Murad Ahmed

The cycle lanes of doom

We're becoming quite irate about transport over here in the Comment Central lair. Danny wants his parking change back, I can't deal with pedantic yellow lines, but none of this is as annoying as what cyclists have to put up with.

For example, where is this cycle path supposed to lead?

Some bike lanes lead into lamposts, others into parked cars (as if avoiding the moving ones wasn't difficult enough). Local cyclists from Strathclyde to Brighton have, understandably, had enough.

Seen anything worse?

Murad Ahmed

(Hat Tip: Alex Galloway)

Driving me to distraction

A couple of months ago I got my driver’s licence, and I’m seriously considering never driving again.

Apart from having those driving safety ads running through my brain whenever I get behind the wheel, it’s the small nuisances that are kicking the driving bug out of my system. Like tailgating. Not getting my change back from a parking meter. And this:

Residents in north London believe they have found the shortest yellow lines in the country.

The 18-inch single yellow line in Highbury Crescent in Highbury is just long enough to fit one wheel, reports the BBC.

Such pedantry is unbearable. Give me an overpriced and overcrowded train carriage any day.

Murad Ahmed

The change parking change campaign

The parking meters post has been attracting attention. My fellow Times blogger Baby Barista issued a calls to arms, resulting in this piece of advice:

I reckon you'd be able to get the money back through an action in restitution for money had and received on the basis that the council had been unjustly enriched.

Great. Just as I suspected. Now all I need to know is what an action in restitution is and how to pursue it. Then I get back my
40p.

Time for a parking charge campaign (I think)

I think it's time for a campaign.

The reason for the note of hesitation is that first I feel I need some legal advice.

A number of papers are carrying a story about the demise of parking meters. They are being replaced by those pay and display ticket machines. And it is these machines that would be the subject of my campaign. If there was to be such a campaign.

Is it really legal for those machines to fail to give you change? Even when the coins you have put in exceed the amount required for the maximum parking time, no change is returned.

I am sure there are some basic laws that make this permissible, but I wonder if some of the myriad laws and regulations governing public bodies and consumer rights really allows this. I suspect it would be possible to have this over charging ruled an abuse and stopped. But this is no more than a suspicion.

I would like to hear from you

a. To find out if you share my view that a symbolic victory against this behaviour would be worth winning. After all, the consumption of my change is a stealth tax, not a fair imposition

and

b. To find out if you or anyone you know might be able to cast some light on the legal questions involved.

UPDATE: if you want to email in confidence, then contact me at commentcentral@thetimes.co.uk

Another UPDATE: Baby Barista gives us some legal advice...

Words of Winston

I always enjoy the thoughts of ad man Winston Fletcher and this, on speeding, is no exception.

Fletcher argues that you have more accidents the longer you spend on the road. Therefore, speeding actually reduces accidents. The author clearly has his tongue in his cheek. But despite some furious comments underneath his article, doesn't he have some sort of point?

Speeding clearly causes some accidents and make others worse. Yet it may also produce a small offsetting effect, since cars spend less time in places where they are likely to be involved in accidents.

I strongly support the use of speed cameras to enforce speed restrictions. The problem is that the restrictions are often set at the wrong level.