Ok, the riots matter.  Especially if you’re unlucky enough to have had to face rioters in your district, near your home, or near your business.  In fact, the riots and disturbances are full of tragedy, deaths and ruined lives.  They are, frankly, horrible.

And strong action is needed to stop it turning into a joyfull rampage for our criminal underclass.

But what they aren’t is some kind of protest.  They’re a laugh.  If I didn’t have much to lose I suspect I might even find the thrill of a riot quite an attraction.  And in areas where there’s possibly not much to do if you’ve got very little money then I can quite understand the fun, the empowerment of feeling that police won’t stop you when they usually do.  Thing is, what nobody seems to be saying is that the number of people involved is tiny.

200/816216 = 0.0245%

Here’s a thing – the number of people kicking off in the Liverpool area has been reported as approximately 200.  In reality that means anywhere between 50 and 500.  But let’s assume that 200 is correct for now.  That’s a whole 0.0245% of the population.  Another way of looking at is that that 99.975% of the population in Liverpool didn’t feel compelled to smash anything up or set fire to cars.  I daresay the proportions around London are similar.

So actually, society functions well for almost everybody in it.  In fact, given that 45,000 18-20 year olds are indicted of a criminal offence in a year (sample from 1999) you can see that even the vast majority of young convicted criminals aren’t interested in rioting.  The numbers are so small that you can’t say that this is a problem with a consumerist society, a problem with poverty, or a problem with our culture – the sample size is too small.  It’s probably just some yobs getting the upper hand on the police and having some fun.

It’s a Policing Thing, Stupid

You can stop almost all riots.  All you need are an awful lot of police who aren’t scared to intimidate and bully their way through trouble.  It works.  Riots are rare in police states, for example.

So we need to ask if we really want brutal police officers?  What about when they’re not dealing with a riot?  They’re going to be the ones your son deals with when he gives a bit of cheek to an officer after being told off for cycling on the pavement.  They’re going to be the ones potentially wading in too early during an otherwise peaceful protest.

We must come to accept that these occasional moments of unrest are, unless repeated again and again with significant economic damage, a relatively small cost of living in a relatively free society.  Just as we mustn’t allow the few terrorists with religious agendas to change how we live, we mustn’t allow the few thugs out there to change the way we deal with protest and the way we run our cities.

Of course, the cost mustn’t be borne by the individuals and businesses affected – if our society is to accept this, it must also ensure that nobody is left harmed or significantly out of pocket by this either.  We need to be humane and adult about it all.

What we certainly don’t need is to start pressuring our politicians into making some dumb, knee-jerk changes that will take away our hard won freedoms.  Let’s take stock, let’s maybe ask for police to be a little smarter in apprehending the rioters, but let’s not give up and change too much.

Just after the start...

There’s enough in the video to convince anybody, but I’ve decided to add my own few thoughts.

As long as the military culture exists that allows this to happen, then the West can never consider themselves superior in any sense, nor can we ever expect peace in the Middle East or the cessation of Islamic terrorism.  What happened was murder, pure and simple.  The airmen acted as judges, jury and executioners.

I felt sick.  You probably will too.  I know that this post won’t reach the eyes of anyone in a significant position of power, but if I show it to you, and you show it to some more people, then we can be a tiny part of what will put pressure on the US military authorities to properly investigate this video and explain fully what happened.

It would appear that, perhaps through a state of heightened tension and military paranoia, that any grouping of individuals in Baghdad could become targets.  With nobody taking real care to check what was actually happening the killing of innocents, including two children, was inevitable.

But what really really made me angry was the way the airmen talked like teenagers playing a video-game.  They described the scene as ‘nice.’  They were please with their blasting apart of a van that had been trying to help rescue the wounded.  Their descriptions of the people they were watching didn’t for one moment suggest they were dealing with people or individuals.  People with children, parents, lovers, dreams and ambitions.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0[/youtube]

There are, I’m sure, a great many in the military who’ll be appalled by this video.  Let’s hope they can encourage Thinking amongst those who appear to have detached themselves from any sense of empathy.

Seriously, both of them are as bad as each other. Lord Foulkes for failing to understand the difference between expenses and salary, and the presenter for being rude.

Kudos to Carrie Gracie for answering the question though – she could have given a typical politician’s answer and fudged the response.

But you know, MPs (or anybody else for that matter) – when you make an expenses claim that could, potentially, come under public scrutiny at some point you have to think about how it could look. And if you’re not paid enough, then sort out the pay. But given that each constituency manages to have lots of applicants for the job I suspect that the job is seen as a rather attractive one. I would be quite happy to receive an MP’s income along with money to pay for an office and staff. Lucky them.

So here’s a gentle nudge to MPs to have a think about how you look to the public you serve, and the public who pay your salary. And yes, I do appreciate that many MPs are decent and hardworking – but they need to be open so we can see this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF_2L4a75iM[/youtube]

Popped into the Campaign for Thinking, for obvious reasons.

Thanks to Alison Classe who listed this on Cix.

Seaton cliffs, by p_jolly at flickr

Read this article on the BBC News site, and let’s imagine what they may have been thinking:

Here we have some young men, out for the day in a beautiful spot.

“Hey guys, you know what would be brilliant?  A picture of me that looks like I’m struggling to save myself from a dangerous fall!”

His friends then eagerly agree and point to a tuft of grass, “yeah! Just grab that grass there and dangle over the edge.  What’s the worst that can happen?”

And so, the grass gave way and young man – probably a fun and interesting young man, died.

I know that what I’m doing here is almost making light of a tragedy, but actually my intention is to point out that it’s an incredibly stupid way to die, which makes it even more of a tragedy.  This story illustrates a different kind of lack of thought to my popular target of politicians.  It’s about a guy who was just having a laugh.  He wanted to have some fun.  Like most people he was almost certainly a decent enough man.  He just didn’t measure up the risks properly.  A little thought might have saved him – and not just from himself, but from his friends who were a part of this.

There’s a question on a wall in Liverpool – “Would you like to die old and slow, or young and tragic?”  But the more I think about it, the more I don’t know.  This guy was definitely young and tragic.  I hope his friends and family get over it – they’ve learned the painful way.

Cerrie Burnell. Look, she's lovely, OK? (pic lifted from a BBC site, hope they don't mind...)

I keep thinking that I should cancel my Campaign for Actually Thinking*.

After all, nobody really cares what I say.  I’m just some guy, running a small web business.  I code a little (a very little these days) and I talk to people.  I carry little influence.  So it’s hard to motivate myself in the face of rampant stupidity, but this one really got me:

The sad story of parents objecting to a disabled TV presenter.

Cerrie Burnell accused of scaring children by bigoted parents.

I’ve no idea if Ms Burnell is a great kids presenter or not, but chances are she can’t be bad if she’s got the job with CBeebies.  But that’s not the point.  And so what if her dodgy arm scares some kids – I’ve had one kid in tears at me because I had dark hair.  Little children can be scared of practically anything.  I used to be scared of the space under my bed.  Terrifying, it was.  To be honest, far less scary than an attractive blonde girl could ever be.

So, to the parents, bigots and dolts who complained about her… please, do us all a favour and go away and keep your opinions to your fellow BNP members.  Either that or try thinking for a change, but I suspect that’s not likely.

*name changes according to my mood.

Health & Safety - not new, and not unique to the UK (public domain poster, thanks to Wikipedia.org)

The UK Health & Safety Executive is run by largely sensible, clear minded folk that want to help us to keep doing what we do, but ideally without losing fingers, testicles or lives.

So why do they get so much flack?  Why do we keep hearing tales of children not being allowed to play in snow, in case they slip and get hurt?  What about risk assessments that prevent village fetes from selling cups of soup in case visitors get scalded?

Mostly it’s bullshit.  Stories made up or inflated, often with important facts removed by right wingers or libertarians who want to discredit the whole idea that people do, sometimes, need third parties to come along help protect others.

Food is supposed to be hot.  If you burn yourself by drinking a soup that’s just out of the pot then that’s you’re look out.  Health & Safety accept that common knowledge exists.

Health & Safety Bullshitting Consultants

So how do the more ridiculous, and genuine, cases arise?  Because any damn fool can set themselves up as a Health & Safety consultant.  There are no qualifications required, no accreditation enforced.  There are, of course, bodies that provide qualifications in the subject, but they’re not compulsory.

So if you want to use a H&S consultant, find a real one – with experience or genuine skills and knowledge of the area concerned.  When I’m racing I quite appreciate it when I’m advised that my harness is incorrectly tied into place, because I don’t want to die in an accident.  It won’t be an H&S consultant, but somebody who understand both the risks and the technology.

Don’t Use H&S as an Excuse for Non Thinking

If you’re someone like a teacher who’s looking after kids and you’re scared that if the children in your charge could get hurt, don’t use H&S as an excuse for stopping them from getting outside and doing stuff.  Parents present their fears without using Health & Safety as an excuse, so teachers should present them a bit more intelligently too.

If, as a teacher, you start getting scared that if your kids get hurt, you’ll end up in court, then that is a valid reason to express doubts about your involvement with these children.  I can understand – some parents are morons (there is no license required to become one) and they believe their children are the unflawed product of their loins.  Of course, children are actually manipulative, scheming little brats that haven’t yet learned how to behave in real company.  Exposing them to risks, other people, and a bit of actual life helps them to develop.  So for God’s sakes, let them play conkers once in a while, even if there’s an occassional bruised forehead.

But if you try to avoid conflict by blaming a large and relatively misunderstood public body then you’re doing us all a disservice and deserve to be severely hurt in a workplace paper-cut accident.  If H&S can’t work properly, we’ll all be at more risk from exploding fuel tanks and sharp, pointy hood ornaments.

Linkage

Health & Safety Executive (UK)

Conkers Story – sensible experts, and a bonkers school by well meaning but non-thinking headteachers

Image by Eric "Pause" Weigle on Flickr - cc sa

I’ve already expressed my distaste for rising bollard barriers (but the video I linked to then has long gone, sorry), and it’s not difficult to see how dangerous putting strong barriers out of the line of sight of a driver can be.  You can say he shouldn’t be there, but the guy in the video attached here was just turning up to service a lift.  He didn’t need to have his day ruined, and a company car wrecked, because of a poorly thought out barrier design. [youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jx195VU516I[/youtube]

From Wikimedia - image by Julia Costa, Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.5

I’m not going to say much on this one, other than to refer you to an excellent article at The Register on this subject.

There’s some subtle xenophobia in all this too, which people forget.  The notion of this law will make life a lot harder for already vulnerable foreign prostitutes, but that particular reality is completely missed because… well, knock-on consequences for foreigners are never well considered when setting legislation.

So just a short post then, something bigger to come soon.  I’m getting my teeth into this subject matter – there are so many easy targets in the Campaign for Thinking.

Now, if you’re a control freak, this is like a gift from heaven.  If you’re a control freak in power (yes, that includes you Jacqui Smith) then it’s even more wonderful, because it hands you a whole ton of power.

Like everything, of course, it’s not all bad.  There are plenty of good reasons for speed limiting cars, trucks and even fire engines.  That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.

How The Pro Speed Limiters Present Their Argument

Slow, yet also lethal - public domain image with thanks to Wikipedia

There are currently a lot of fears in society, especially Western society.  We’re scared of global warming, the economy, terrorism, and dying in a fiery ball of fire when some chav in a misguidedly tuned Vauxhall Nova comes careering head-on towards you as a result of massive overconfidence and a lack of skill.  Throw those arguments into the air and you have some pretty strong arguments as to why we should introduce speed limiters.

Here’s a quick list of their key points:

• Safety – you’ll hear this a lot.  And it’s true.  Go slower and if all else is equal safety will go up.
• Economy – by being forced to go slower, you’ll drive more economically and be able to save the world from Global Warming at the same time.
• Reduced need for thirsty, fast cars – true to a degree because what’s the point in a big V8 if you hit speed-limited wall at 70mph?
• Reduced load on drivers – no need to think about speed, or worry about speed cameras.
• It’s optional, there’s no need to fit a speed limiter if you don’t want it.
• If you do have it, there’s an override button for those rare occasions you may need to go faster than strictly legal.
• If only a minority of cars have this limiter, the effect will be to slow down others without it.
• Lot’s of people are killed or injured daily, and anyone arguing against speed controls must be in favour of those deaths.

The arguments are mostly presented by different types of organisation.  You have the emotionally irritating Brake, and the more calm but government funded (don’t forget this fact, they may sound independent but they aren’t) Motoring Forum, the UK Commission for Integrated Transport, and various other safety campaigners.

I can’t find a quote from Jacqui Smith on this subject, but I’m sure she’ll be along soon.

And The Argument Against

Well there has to be some rational argument against this, but unfortunately we’ve only got Safe Speed getting all the media attention on the other side.  Holy Fucking Shit.  I mean, really.  Have you seen them?  You wouldn’t trust these people to decorate your house, so why would you trust them with setting the agenda on speed limits and motoring policy?

Instead, why not get a psychologist who’s studied driving onto your show?  Or, at a stretch, someone from the Institute of Advanced Motorists?  But no, instead you get to listen to a  muppet from Brake arguing with a muppet from Safe Speed.  I suppose there’s only so many pundits to go round and the radio and TV stations pick the easiest ones they can find.

Sheesh.

But here we go – this is other people’s arguments, don’t forget.  Mine come later.

• It’ll encourage zombie behaviour, which is almost certainly true – in the US where freeways were once limited to the mind-numbingly dull speed of 55mph, you get to see a lot of this.
• It’s a symptom of control-freakery – yep, almost certainly.
• Speed doesn’t kill, it’s inattentive driving, which kind of cycles back to the first point.
• It’s the thin end of a wedge which will end with all cars having compulsory speed limiters.
• It probably won’t affect KSI (Kills and Serious Injuries) rates in the positive manner the pro side would like to see.
• Slowing down can cause more accidents.

Thankfully, spokefolk from the RAC, AA and the likes are occassionally wheeled out to discuss such issues and they tend to be a bit more rational and thought out.  But they’ve become rather dysfunctional resellers of insurance and recovery services these days, rather than the clubs and associations that they originally started out as.  Consequently they have to toe a fine line between keeping customers (many of whom are the unthinking fools I worry about) and not upsetting the government (filled with the misguidedly thinking fools I also worry about) into adding more restrictions to both their customers and their businesses.  So they tend towards making statements rather than take the risk of getting involved on radio or TV.

Of course, avoiding radio or TV is a sensible move for many.  I’ve listened to myself on Radio and I’m clearly a rambling buffoon who doesn’t know when to shut up and who talks over others.  Heaven knows what would happen if I found myself on TV.  Of course, it’s not totally bad to be a buffoon – look how well Boris Johnson’s done out of it.

The best argument against this, so far, comes from the easy to respect Derek Charters, from the Motor Industry Research Association, who believes limiting speed automatically could cause accidents.

“The last thing you need is one car to be overtaking and then pull back in, in front of the cars in front, because that braking event will then cause everybody to start to slow down, which will then compress the traffic, which then causes an incident.”

The Dave’s Attempt to Think on this Subject

• Oh Jesus, do we need the government controlling us just a bit more?
• Would government controlled GPS units eventually be used to track our cars’ every movement?
• A world full of cars doing identical speeds is so horrifically soporific that I suspect we’d be having massive pile-ups in no time.
• The unthinking are the worst people to get this technology – they’ll just turn into motoring zombies.
• Going faster is fun.  Sometimes it’s good to be able to have a bit of fun, you know, even if it does make the world ever so slightly less safe.
• All speeds are dangerous – being crushed to death by a 2mph Audi Q7 isn’t much fun either – stop people from realising how dangerous cars are and boom! more dead people.
• It’ll probably mean the end of the fantastic Top Gear show.
• It’ll make moving to South America far more appealing.

The key arguments for or against this idea are really just noise.  The question we should be asking is at what point should drivers give up responsibility for the movements of their cars?  Lane sensing technology has matured enough that you could conceivably place your Honda at the beginning of the M6 and drive all the way to Scotland without touching the wheel, brakes or throttle again, coming to a stop when the traffic in front does so, and accelerating to a set speed when it’s possible to do so.  I remain to be convinced that all this is a good idea, but at least it’s entirely within the control of the driver – he can choose what is and is not switched on, and where.

GPS technology is constantly improving, as are sensors.  It’s only a matter of time before we can simply climb into our cars, shout “take me to work, autocar!” and climb into the back for a nap.  Sounds like a wonderful idea to me and I wouldn’t care what speed the car travelled at so long as it woke me up on arrival and neatly parked itself while I go for a pee.

Partial implementation, on a wide scale, of speed limiters or even smart cruise control could be lethal.  Each car would end up driving at ever so slightly different speeds.  Overtaking moves could be measured in miles, and it wouldn’t matter if you didn’t have a speed limiter – you’d be stuck behind those with them fitted.  And those who choose to have them fitted would be sitting in a smug pool of self-superiority, knowing they’re driving at the maximum safe speed.  They’d be wrong, of course.  70mph is safe when it’s clear and dry.  It’s safe even when it’s wet.  But in a deluge it’s lethal.  But having given up the act of thinking about speed they would just keep their foot mashed down on the carpet.  Until they eventually plough into the back of the car in front that they couldn’t see.

And that’s why this topic has made it into the Campaign for Thinking.  Full automation is a good thing, it means you can go and think about something else.  But a world full of drivers who believe thinking about speed is only for the government… God preserve us!

Now, could the government get on with thinking about things they could help us with?  Infrastructure, international security, the economy, tax… that kind of stuff?  The big, hard problems that they have the power to do something about?  3,000 people a year die on the roads.  60,000 people a year die from murders in South Africa.  And providing assistance to unstable or impoverished countries could save the lives of millions.  Unfortunately it’s hard to get elected on the promise of saving the lives of AIDS stricken Tanzanians, but you could save or dramatically improve the lives of more than 3,000 of them with the millions spent on speed limiter studies.  Yes, I know it’s a straw man argument, but a little sense of perspective on the point of all this would be useful.

Linkage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/mf/index.htm

http://www.mira.co.uk/

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa