Posts by Graham Marsden 6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Many years ago, Bristol City Council spent a load of money doing studies and re-designing the Three Lamps junction leading out of Bristol on the A4 because it was a notorious bottle-neck.
Apparently the contractors they hired chucked down some temporary lights whilst they were working and the junction had never flowed more freely!
They told the Council who said "stick with our design" and, when they'd finished, it was as much of a bottle-neck as ever...!
Another flaw is that the induction sensors are sometimes not sensitive to pick up a bicycle and the "camera" sensors occasionally even miss a motorbike meaning two-wheel users end up stuck at the lights until eventually a car pulls up behind them (and, yes, when cycling I *DO* stop at red lights, ok?!)
> The trouble with motorcyclists is that the the menaces are in a majority.
BALDERDASH!
From the Department of Transport:
* * * * *
4.1 Right of way violations
Of the total cases, 681 (38%) involve ROWVs. However, less than 20% of these involve a motorcyclist who rated as either fully or partly to blame for the accident. The majority of motorcycle ROWVaccidents have been found to be primarily the fault of other motorists.
This is an even higher level of ‘non-blameworthiness’ in ROWVaccidents than that observed in other in-depth studies, e.g. Hurt et al. (1981) The majority of ROWVs occur at T-junctions, which are three times as common as roundabouts or crossroads. This finding is in accordance with the work of Hole, Tyrell and Langham (1996), who found that the majority of such accidents occurred at ‘uncontrolled’ (i.e. no stop light or sign with only give-way markings and/or signs
present) T-junctions in urban environments.
When these cases are examined, it can be seen that the most common failure of other drivers in motorcycle accidents is a failure in the continuity of their observation of the road scene. Over 65% of ROWV accidents where the motorcyclist is not regarded as to blame involve a driver who somehow fails to see a motorcyclist who should be in clear view, and, indeed, frequently is in view to witnesses or other road users in the area. Failures of observation that involve drivers failing to take account of restricted views of one kind or another, and failing to judge the approach speed and/or distance of a motorcyclist, are not included in this category.
Sometimes, accident-involved drivers in motorcycle accidents fail to see riders even when they are verifiably using visibility aids, such as daytime running lights and high-visibility protective clothing. This occurs in over 12% of such cases (but the level of use of these aids to visibility is felt to be under-reported by police).
* * * * *
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110509101621/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/indepthstudyofmotorcycleacc.pdf
"Sorry Mate, I Didn't See you" really means "Sorry Mate, I Didn't Bother to LOOK Properly"!
"Habitual viewers of smut often mess up their lives".
ORLY?
Or perhaps people who have messed up lives become habitual viewers of smut. Or alcoholics. Or drug abusers. Or resort to crime. Or...
The same goes for “excessive users had severe social and relationship problems and had often lost their jobs or been in trouble with the law as a result of their addiction” the conclusion seems to be that it's the porn that caused the problem, rather than the problem being the result of other factors and which is then manifested in this "addiction".
BTW "addiction" is a nicely pejorative term, but whilst drug addicts may mug grannies for their pensions to feed their habits, I don't think I've ever heard of someone doing the same so they can buy another porn mag or download a movie...
Meanwhile, *who* were these "800 habitual online smut viewers"? How were they selected? And if there were "800 habitual online smut viewers" how does that compare with the number of those who also view online smut but do not do it "habitually" (whatever that means, how frequently do you have to do it before it becomes "habitual")?
I found a link to the original survey, but, alas, the survey was no longer available which is a shame, because I'd have loved to see what the questions were and how impartially they had been phrased.
Some other questions:
"30 percent acknowledged that their work performance suffered due to excessive viewing" and how many "habitual" smokers acknowledge that their work suffers due to them gasping for a cigarette?
"20 percent of respondents said they preferred the excitement of watching porn to being sexually intimate with their partner" and what about those geeks out there (of which there are more than a few) who haven't got a partner because aren't good in social situations and, as such, find other ways to relieve sexual tension?
"Around 14 percent had formed a relationship with other online users" which is surely a good thing (but good things don't come from "addictions" do they?)
"18 percent were preoccupied with fantasising when they were not online" and it's only "habitual smut watchers" that have this problem. After all, it's not the same as thinking about the big match you watched yesterday evening or worrying about your financial problems when you should be working or...
And finally ""Watching porn is a learned behaviour and we believe it can be unlearned” says Dr Sitharthan. Why does this sound so disturbingly like the assertion from the last century that "Homosexualiy is a learned behaviour and we believe it can be unlearned”, resulting in attempts to "cure" gays by administering electric shocks for aversion therapy or, even, giving them lobotomies?
I think these researchers had a conclusion and then did their research to prove it.
Going by this article, a binary system is one where the "hot Jupiter" has accumulated even more mass and undergone fusion to be come a sun in its own right.
If that's the case then you'd never see that fancy double sunset because your planet wouldn't exist in the first place.
@asdf - I suggest you look up the term. "Bunfight" has nothing to do with "Bumfight" and, in fact, pre-dates it by a long time.
Whilst it can mean an official (but completely unimportant) event which requires people to dress up in their best finery, it also is used to mean an argument or dispute which is "a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing at all".
... what happens to my business?
As I've posted in the past, I run a legltimate, legal and successful business making affordable leather products for the (ahem!) discerning adult ;-)
I already have my site signed up to Net Nanny, Cybersitter, Surf Watch etc so that *responsible* parents can install appropriate blocking software and stop their children accessing it.
But if this stupid proposal comes into force, I'm probably going to find my business on the blacklist meaning that anyone who wants to be a customer has to ask permission from Nanny first which is not going to be good for trade.
What next? Having to opt-in to being able to visit Ann Summers shop on the high street...??
As I've just posted in another El Reg forum, they did.
See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bt-blocks-direct-access-to-telephone-porn-lines-personal-code-will-be-needed-for-adult-premium-rate-numbers-1494484.html
It was eventually revoked, but by that time there were other services accessible.
... when it was decided that access to the 0898 "naughty phone lines" should be made opt-in rather than opt-out.
Unsurprisingly, very few people were willing to call up their phone provider and say "Please let me access the smutty message services", meaning that perfectly legal and legitimate businesses suddenly had a massive drop in their income.
Eventually, of course, this decision was reversed, but it just goes to show how stupid the "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" mentality can be.
I know several bikers who, when it comes to licence renewal, have claimed that theirs is "lost" because if they send them back to the DVLA they have a habit of sending new ones *without* the details of said bikers having passed their test and being told they're going to have to re-take it otherwise they'll be riding illegally!
In this post, Graham agrees with Big Boomer saying "Yes, you have a point there."
Yes, you have a point there.
Coming up, Graham also thinks that many "documentaries" that last for an hour, could be shown in 30 minutes if they cut out all the padding.
Many "documentaries" that last for an hour, could be shown in 30 minutes if they cut out all the padding.
Wow! Can I get a job in TV?
I run a stall at a market once a month and occasionally I get American customers who haven't bothered to sign their cards because they're so used to handing over their driving licence as proof of ID when they use the card.
In any case, if I have to use the manual backup eg because my GPRS terminal won't connect, I phone for authorisation on any transaction which is above my "floor limit" (amount which my card processing company sets). This doesn't guarantee payment, but at least it means that, at the time of the call, the card hasn't been reported lost or stolen.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
