Why Dont You Blog?

It is certainly true that if you don’t have a vote, you don’t count in a democratic society.

One of the (many) demonised groups in the UK now seems to be the “youth” - of which the middle aged, middle classes seem to be inordinately frightened. Coincidentally, this is also an age group in which most are unable to vote, and most of those who do, don’t seem to bother. As a result, it seems, they have become fair game for any crackpot ideas. Oddly, they are also a group politicians seem to constantly appeal to (obviously knowing they wont be arsed to vote…). Isn’t the world strange.

Two recent mad ideas spring to mind. First from the Guardian:

Road safety: Impose total alcohol ban for teenage drivers, says chief medical officer
A zero drink-driving limit should be imposed on all drivers under 20, the chief medical officer recommended yesterday, saying that such a ban would save lives.

This hits two of our current “fears.” First it panders to the idea that the UK is in the grip of a “Booze Culture” and secondly it cries that some new restriction will “save lives.” Nicely it wraps all this up by targeting a silent group of society, so the fall out would be minimal (and it was).

For me, despite being neither “yoof” or a novice driver so immune to any resultant laws, this is insane. I completely, 100% fail to see any logic. I am reasonably sure that any young driver mature and grown up enough to go out and stick to the 1 pint limit is also likely to be mature and capable enough to drive sensibly. The problem, and it isn’t just young drivers, is being over the limit.

Some figures are bandied about:

Justifying his call for zero alcohol for 17 to 20-year-olds, Donaldson said they were six times more likely to have a car crash if they had been drinking. A young person who had been drinking was 2.5 times more likely to have a crash than an older person who had been drinking. “I’m aware it is a controversial recommendation, but I believe it would save lives,” he said.

Now, so far I have been unable to clarify this, but I am reasonably certain that the problem is young people are more likely to be over the legal drink driving limit - I seem to recall the alcohol level is not recorded by the police if the person is under the legal limit.

Basically, this is saying young people over the limit have more accidents than old people over the limit, so lets lower the limit for young people.

Madness. But it is the madness that comes from some one with a fantastic knowledge of one subject area (medicine) being given implied authority in another area (crime reduction, driver safety etc).

The next bit really annoyed me. From the Times a few days ago:

Curfew tames feral yobs of Cornwall
An experiment to bring peace to a yob-plagued town by imposing nocturnal curfews on its teenagers had a promising start this weekend when the streets of Redruth in Cornwall were free of the usual intimidating gaggles of youths.
Under the experimental curfew, named Operation Goodnight, parents in the most troubled part of the town have agreed with police that they will keep children under 16 indoors after 9pm, and that under10s will not be allowed out after 8pm.

What a wonderful culture we live in. When you read things like this it really makes you despair for what the adults of 2020 will be like.

I have two big issues with this. First off - why are we sending kids so many mixed signals? We (as a society) say they should be more involved in the community, say they should spend less time on their playstations and more time outdoors, say they should spend more time interacting with others. Simultaneously we say they cant go out, cant hang round together and everything they do means a paedophile will get them.

Secondly, the sheer unadulterated nonsense behind this.

1. It is a voluntary scheme. So if you are a NAUGHTYKID™©® all you need to do is ignore it. All the good, well behaved kids will stay at home. Hang on, isn’t that the wrong way round?
2. It is being done with the approval of the parents and targets the children in the most troubled part of the town. What? It actually says “a Sunday Times poll showed that nine out of 10 parents backed restrictions on their own children going out after dark.”

Right, let me get this straight. The parents of these “feral” children want restrictions on when the children go out. They have enough control over the children to stop them going out but wont do this simply because their children are little s***s, they demand that the police tell them to do this.

Nope, still cant get my head around it.

Why in the name of Zeus dont the bloody parents control their children? Why do they have to agree with police to follow this “trial” curfew (which will, no doubt, report a positive outcome and then spread to other areas - just like the criminal nonsense that is congestion charging)?

Our children are fine. They are the same mix of evil little turds and fantastic kind angels they were 30 years ago, 60 years ago, 90 years ago and even 900 years ago.

The bloody feral parents are the problem…. but then, they can vote…

Popularity: 37% [?]

Popularity: 37% [?]

Ok, it is generally accepted that “luck” is a very difficult concept to quantify scientifically. Everyone has their own idea what it is and some people even think it has a “cause” and can be manipulated. Gamblers have a notoriously twisted idea of what “luck” is and how it can seemingly overcome mathematical certainties. Historically, humans from every corner of the globe have even objectified it into religions and religious icons. For some reason, certain Christians have a pagan approach to luck and think praying to the invisible will influence “luck” in their favour. All very strange.

Anyway, in view of this, I have spent the last few weeks carrying out an experiment that I am, as I have always suspected, cursed with bad luck… My PC is not possessed by the devil, it doesn’t hate me, I am just very unlucky - which is why every time I need an internet connection it goes down. This is not good news, but at least it explains why every week I do the national lottery and, despite the odds, I never get a single number. Ever. Now, part of me suspects the odds against that are greater than the odds against winning the lottery, but now I know the real reason©™.

My experiment has been simple. There are, basically, two routes I can take from work to get home. Because of the hideous nature of road traffic, my journey home normally takes in excess of an hour and I travel at the majestic average speed of 29mph. Aren’t modern cars wonderful. The upside of this mind numbing tedium is that I have time to think about things, and I realised that no matter which route I take, it takes me about the same lenght of time to get home and more importantly whatever lane I choose, the other goes faster.

Any drivers out there will undoubtedly share that experience. You are stuck in snail like traffic and all around you the cars are going faster. You change lane, only to discover the other lane has started moving. It is more than a little annoying.

So, during my thinking, I decided to see what was the best thing to do. Should I pick a lane and stay in it? Should I change as much as possible and fight my way forward. I know strong advocates of both options. Add to this, which route should I take?

From this, my experiment was formed… The plan was, over the course of several weeks to drive home a different way each time. Weeks 1 - 3 I would take “Route A” and then weeks 4 - 6 would be “Route B”. Although all at about the same time of day, each week would be either staying in the left hand lane, staying in the right hand lane or changing lanes as instinct dictates. As a “control” for the first two weeks, I would make a note of a car that joined about the same time as I did but in the other lane and see if they were ahead or behind me.

Anyway, today it all ended and the results were in. The basic conclusion is that I am cursed with bad luck. Seriously.

The average journey times for both routes was about 1hr 30mins (with very little deviation), giving me an average speed of 31mph. Wonderful eh? It seems that neither route was better, and changing lanes was no faster or slower than staying put. Also, it didn’t really matter what lane I was in, the time was pretty much the same.

Weirder still came when I was doing the “single lane” part. Every single time, every day for four of the six weeks, what ever lane I was in turned out to be the slowest. Without fail, a vehicle that joined the traffic the same time as me, would make faster progress if they were in a different lane to me. In some instances the other lane was going so fast I lost the vehicle (and visibility on this stretch is quite far), while in others, they were only a few minutes ahead of me - but they were ALWAYS ahead.

Like I said, the only redeeming feature of this is at least now I know why I never get a single number on the lottery. Maybe Luck hates Atheists. Or just me…

Popularity: 26% [?]

Popularity: 26% [?]

“It was a miracle I got out alive and I put it down to the power of prayer and God looking after me” (from the BBC)

said a 93-year-old former Pentecostal minister, who managed to reduce two Porsches and a Fiesta to landfill, while driving across the garage forecourt.

Hat tip to Alun for this link, with a shamefaced apology for not looking at my emails for days. Alun said:

Now was it a god, or was it lots of very tedious and difficult work by a lot of people working on safety that allowed that man to live?
On a more philosophical level, wouldn’t it be more helpful if god had whispered “Watch out mate, your about to crash into £60ks worth of Porsche!” *before* the accident or was it just that God wasn’t that eager to have the minister round to his place. If I had time I’d be tempted to set up a ‘Miraclewatch’ site.

There are obvious contradictions. If god has to be credited with the escape, then doesn’t he deserve any blame for putting the chap in danger in the first place? In fact, shouldn’t god take some stick for wasting a miracle on one specific careless driver when the world is awash with more deserving cases: the hungry, the sick, amputees?

It’s really eccentric of god to keep smiting some people and then letting them off at the last minute, to show off that he can, while continuing to smite other people - who pray even more earnestly - just for a cruel laugh.

But, in this case, I think there’s an explanation for god’s behaviour. The driver was obviously doing god’s will by driving in mysterious ways.

God just hates Porsches.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Popularity: 12% [?]

Stepping away from my quest for the ultimate in ID/Religious irony humour (only for a while though), I thought I would address some “Bad Science” which is frequently raising its ugly head as part of the War on Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV) - also known as 4×4s here in blighty.

Now, for quite some time the eco warriors have been campaigning against what they see as gas guzzling monsters being used, unnecessarily, on the school run. This has been picked up by successive news agencies and turned into a bit of a campaign issue for some politicians (i.e. Ken Livingstone). Now, without debating the rights and wrongs of driving an SUV or heading down the road of is a 32mpg SUV worse than a 16 mpg sports car (interesting in itself as the SUV may be carrying 5 people compared to the two in the sports car…), or even if you can make a moral value call on something like ownership of a type of vehicle, I wanted to highlight the science involved.

Recently, there has been reporting about a study which found SUV drivers 55% less likely than car drivers to have their hands in the “10 to 2″ position on the wheel, which it then goes on to describe as the sign of a “safe and alert” driver. This is an insane premise. Speaking as a car driver, I rarely, if ever, have my hands at “10 to 2″ and have never caused an accident in my life. As it stands though, I have no idea if there is any research which supports the “safe” claim so I will not comment on it any further other than to say it is a premise which needs proving.

Now, in light of the research (which you can read about on New Scientist) I decided to carry out a bit of my own. For various reasons I spent 90 minutes in a roadside service station on the A1(M) in the north of England on Tuesday 10 Jan 07. During this time I was able to observe a lot of passing vehicles and as the road was very, very busy there was a wide mix of vehicle types. As part of my study, I observed the drivers of 100 passenger cars, 100 sports utility vehicles and 50 light goods vehicles. I only noted the ones where I could clearly see the top half of the steering wheel to confirm the drivers hand positions so there were more vehicles which passed without me making a note. This is a much smaller study group than the
Now, of the 100 SUVs which passed, only six had drivers with their hands at “10 to 2″ (interestingly all were female), the rest had either one hand on top or both hands out of sight. Now, this is then compared to the “normal” cars out of which a grand total of four had their hands at “10 to 2.” Of these four, two were “young drivers” one of which still had a green P plate. Of the 50 LGV/vans I looked at none had their hands at “10 to 2.”

In addition, both SUVs and Cars had four people each who were using phones while driving (seven vans were), and two van drivers were driving without seatbelts (no cars or SUVs were as far as I could see).

As this is a small study group, I realise the numbers may be far from accurate, so yesterday (Wednesday, 11 Jan 07), I carried out a similar study (100 cars, 100 SUVs - no vans) from a service station on the M1 motorway. This time, five SUV drivers were observed with their hands at “10 to 2″ with four car drivers again. This means approximately 5% of SUV drivers have their hands in that position compared to around 4% of car drivers. For the numbers to have matched those in the study, I should have been looking at around 2 SUV drivers for 4 car drivers.
This broadly matches my own experience of being a passenger in other people’s cars and other people’s SUVs. I know no car drivers, with more than about 12 - 18 months driving experience, who drive with their hands at “10 - 2.” From my personal experience, driving with your hands at “10 to 2″ is not a reliable indicator of a safe and alert driver. It also strikes me as inaccurate to say SUV drivers are less likely to drive in the “10 to 2″ position than a normal car - with the exception of new drivers are, in turn, less likely to drive an SUV than a car.

I am not sure if this is bad science, but it strikes me as just being part of the slightly obsessive (and occasionally irrational) desire to demonise drivers of SUV/4×4s. I remember a few months ago reading about how SUV/4×4s gave smaller fields of view than normal cars (due to the width of side pillars), yet this never accounted for the increased field of view from the size of the vehicle and hight of the driver. I am not trying to support the use of SUVs but I think arguing against it should be rational and logical.

Popularity: 23% [?]

Popularity: 23% [?]