Y Safle

War on Want have released a report title “Fashion Victims” that reveals the exploitation of Bangladeshi workers by Tesco, Asda (owned by Wal Mart) and Primark.

To quote from the report:

Lina began working in a garment factory at the
age of 13. The oldest of eight children, her
parents became unable to pay for her
education when her brother became sick. She
moved from her village to the Bangladeshi
capital Dhaka to get a job and help them make
ends meet. Now 22, she works in a factory
that supplies Primark, Asda and Tesco. She is
one of the lucky ones to have learned how to
operate a sewing machine, and so can
command a wage of £17 per month.

To earn
this amount, she must work between 60 and
90 hours each week.

It seems that workers are being paid as little as 5 pence (about 10 cents US) per hour to produce the clothes that we adorn ourselves with. This is a toxic mix of a push to provide shop prices lower than any other high street retailer, whilst encouraging us to spend ever more on clothes that we really do not need.

It is not a bad thing that clothes are being produced in Bangladesh. People need the work – but they also need to be given a wage large enough for them to survive. What is being offered is well below the estimated living wage of £22.00 per month. Many workers can just about scrape together £8.00 per month if they work 80 hour weeks!

It is high time we started seeing the fair trade label on clothing. If such clothing existed, I would be seen in nothing else.

Anyone reading this blog over a long period will be aware that I have always been opposed to the War in Iraq, and perhaps that I am deeply unhappy with the assumptions of our capitalist systems, with their introspective politics and their global reach. I think that in a world of gross injustice and suffering, it is the richest nations that have the most to be ashamed about.

But when we analyze the problem, we need to beware the spin of people we agree with just as much as the spin of those we oppose. Indeed moreso, as we are inclined to challenge those we disagree with, but to allow spin to pass unchallenged by those with whom we agree.

So I was reading a post on the AcrimoniouZ blog, attempting to disect all that is wrong in American politics (and lay the blame for it squarely at the feet of George Bush), when I read this:

Today more than half of the top 100 economies of the world are corporations.

http://acrimoniouz.blogspot.com/2006/12/corporate-america-has-taken-control.html

That claim is bogus.

Firstly I am deeply suspicious of any measure of sizes of economies that appears to be double counting. If we are to count the size of, say, Microsoft corporation and treat this as a seperate economy, then shouldn’t we subtract that size from the US economy in which its profits are accounted? And if we did this for all such corporations, how much would be left to actually count in the national economies? You would clearly expect corporations to be the largest economic units, because you have deliberately broken down national economies into smaller units.

But the other reason this is bogus is because of the way we count the size of an economy. National economies are accounted by GDP. Thus the US has the largest national GDP in the world, followed by Japan, Germany, the UK and France (although if you treat the EU as a single entity, that is the largest economy in the world).

But what does GDP measure? perhaps a little simplistically, it is a measure of the value added by an economy. If we were to find a similar measure of value added by corporations, then we would not be using the figures that people have been using to report them in the top 100 economies. We would not use annual turnover of the corporations, or capitalisation, but rather a measure of added value – i.e. profits.

By this measure these corporations are no longer of equal size to national economies in the top 100 economies of the world.

That does not mean we should not be concerned about how policy in our nations is being shaped time and again for the benefit of corporations, rather than for the people.

But facts matter, and if we are to taken seriously when we have a point to make; if we are to persuade those who *disagree* with us of our point of view, then we must understand and be careful about facts.

This is why Noam Chomsky commands respect, even from people who disagree with him. Because he is so careful to accumulate, check and document facts.

But we should not leave that to the professionals. If you find yourself agreeing with everything someone says (be it on a blog, in a speech, on television or whatever), then be warned – you may be allowing spin to pass as fact.

Some controversy has erupted over comments by Steve Chalke of Oasis Trust over his views about the penal justification theory of the substitutionary atonement. Chalke is reported to have likened this to “Divine Child Abuse”, and John Piper (writer of “Desiring God”) has reportedly stated that Chalke’s view is blasphemous.

Wayne Grudem has taken Piper’s side, but has argued that the use of the term “blasphemy” is so negatively charged that he would prefer not to use it. And here I think Grudem has a point. We all too easily label those with whom we disagree, and then use those labels to dismiss them.

We don’t like the views of a certain Christian? No matter – he is a liberal, and so we can ignore him. Labels are so easy – conservative, liberal, evangelical, fundamentalist, fascist, communist, anarchist, monarchist.

It does not matter what the subject, and what our viewpoint – we can always find a way to compartmentalise everyone.

A case in point happened a while ago when a Christian wrote:

> That’s why Arminianism has been called
> “Semi-Pelagianism”.

Someone who may or may not have called himself an Arminian, but certainly had strong reservations about reformed theology replied:

> You’re welcome to call it “Semi-Pelagianism” if you don’t mind
> my calling Calvinism “Semi-Islam”.

Whilst I don’t see any merit in using the semi-Pelagian label here, this
comment was not fair. But it shows how unhelpful such labelling can be.

Islam has so little to do with Calvinism that it would be hard to say
Calvinism was a moderation of Islam in any meaningful sense. Semi
Pelagianism, on the other hand, was a movement that attempted to find a
middle ground in the controversy between Augustinianism and Pelagianism.

In semi Pelagianism there was an attempt to give a place to both Divine
grace and the human will as co-ordinate factors in the renewal of man,
basing predestination on foreseen faith and obedience. Man was seen as
weakened, diseased, but not fatally injured by the fall. It was argued
that man was never so depraved that he could not co-operate with Divine
grace.

It seems to me that there are important parallels between semi
Pelagianism and Arminianism.

But was the label helpful? Certainly not. Because Pelagianism has been so roundly rejected by the Christian Church, to start labelling Christians in this way is like calling them “semi-heretics”. Whereas the Calivinist/Arminian debate is a debate amongst evangelicals. Bible believing Christians.

And one label simply caused another person to respond in kind. That is unhelpful. Rather we should look at the source of our disagreement, and stop trying to label each other. Sometimes we find we are not as far apart from one another as we had at first thought.

I mentioned before that I am something of a pedant. I also mentioned I am something of a sloppy pedant. A case in point occurred when I wrote the following:

> I don’t know about you, but I do not only speak English in an English
> class!

I meant that I speak English in other circumstances, and not just in an English class, but another pedant shot back with:

>If you’re gonna get pedantic, that sentence is ambiguous.

[At this point we will leace the interesting digression on whether "gonna" has become a legitimate verb auxiliary].

> It could mean that you also speak Zambezi in an English class.

I naturally replied:

As the Zambezi is a river and not a language, that is hardly likely.

However there are a number of languages spoken by the people who live
around the Zambezi. The river name itself comes from the language of
the Batonka tribe (originally from Malawi). Other languages spoken by
the people of the Zambezi include Thakwani, Sena and associated
dialects, Nyungwe, Nyanja, Marenje, Manyawa, Lolo, Kunda and Kokola.

In previous posts I have been reposting some correspondence I had with someone over issues of speeding. As we saw in the previous posts, the writer (MW) was relying on anecdotal evidence, rather than hard data to inform his views. For completeness, I recount below the remainder of my reply to MW, which dealt with speeding policy, sloganeering, some suggested solutions from me, and a bit about logic (MW claimed his logic was clear and sequential, which is why he numbered his propositions).

MW continued:
>4) Current thinking by the government is that lower speeds would reduce RTA mortality
> – why do you think they are conducting such extensive
> campaigns to get people to slow down, illustrating their argument with
> just this point?

My reply:

The government want to be seen to be doing something. They also do not
hold a consensus on “current thinking”. Indeed I note that current
thinking is very much divided on the role of speed limitation on reducing
mortality from road traffic accidents. There have clearly been benefits in
some locales from reducing speeds, but taken beyond what is sensible, the
results have been quite the opposite.

In 1995, Suffolk introduced 450 30mph limits on roads that were previously
60mph, since then the number of accidents has risen by an average of 51
per year, after falling by an average of 171 per year for the preceding
seven years.

You can see the statistics and the whole story at:

http://www.abd.org.uk/suffolk_accident_trends.htm

So no, there is no consensus of current thinking “that lower speeds would
reduce RTA mortality”. You are wrong on this too.

>>> 5) The
>>> current laws are not adequate to deal with the general attitude so
>>> clearly exemplified by some of the member of this group; that it is
>>> okay to speed because you’re such good drivers.

>> That argument is ad hominem. As far as I am aware, no such argument has
>> been proposed.

> There is nothing wrong with ad hominem argument, except in the rarefied
> world of Tractatus groupies. Most of political philosophy is ad hominem,
> just look at Hobbes, Locke, Marx et al, they reason through preference.

This is an irrelevant appeal to authority. It is as fallacious as the ad
hominem. It is also wrong. I have not read much Marx, but Hobbes and Locke
I have read and not noticed a strong tendency to ad hominem arguments from
either. There are certain assumptions in their work, but that is something
different. Locke sees property as something special, and the
non-propertied man somehow less than human (not his term of course). That
is a pragmatic assumption to make his philosophy work, and Locke is – of
course – one of the greatest philosophical pragmatists. However that does
not make his argument ad hominem unless he dismisses the logic of another
based on their lack of property (which to my knowledge he does not).

Now ad hominem arguments *are* fallacious, and if you do not agree with me
then all I can say is that your arguments are of no consequence to me
because your surname is Winters, and [anecdotally] everyone I ever met with that surname
was a simpleton! (:o)

And finally to your assertion that people who have disagreed with you over
speed humps and speed limiters think it is okay to speed: I think no such
thing. I have never said it is okay to speed and I don’t think it is. I
have never in my life had a speeding ticket, nor a single point on my
license, and I am a paid up member of the IAM. I agree with their policy
that speed limits are limits. I also have never had an accident.

But of course it is so much easier to cast aspersions at others rather
than deal with the issues. That is why the ad hominem argument is so
popular – because it is so much easier than actually thinking about the
issues under discussion.

> 6) Such culturally embedded attitudes require sterner measures to
> counter

You have not demonstrated a culturally embedded attitude. I also don’t
think that the law is the instrument of change for cultural attitudes –
it is education that is needed, which needs to treat people as though
they have the wherewithal to comprehend an issue beyond simplistic
sloganeering.

> In truth, we are approaching
> this from two differing philosophical standpoints. You seek empirical
> truth and logical reasoning. I’m offering deductive processes based upon
> witness testimony. A Posteriori if you like, given your fondness for
> archaic expressions.

Statistical data such as I have presented here *is* a posteriori. It is
based upon observation and is not deduced a priori. We may note that
scientists and statisticians are empiricists almost to a man. Thus it is a
posteriori propositions that are garnered to make sense of the world, and a
priori propositions are secondary, being analytic.

So no, our differences here do not come from some epistemological
distinction between rationalists and empiricists. The problem here is that
you are not thinking critically at all.

> 7) If you are prevented from speeding then the problem is partially
> solved

No, the problem is merely shifted. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.

> What were you saying about simplistic sloganeering? This is one of the
> best. Treat the cause, not the symptoms. Apply your logic to that. Where
> do you find cause?

In excessive use of the motor car, which leads to dependence on the same,
which makes it politically unacceptable to demand that motor vehicle use
might be limited to those who can consistently prove themselves competent
and safe to move said vehicles around.

We combat this by several measures:

1. Break dependence on motor vehicles by funding public transport,
changing planning laws to enable better designed communities with
amenities that do not require road trips, encourage alternative transport
means, discourage cars where they are problematic through road tolls and
orders etc.

2. Radically increase driver education, both for existing drivers and for
new drivers. Consider some level of testing that at least gets drivers
looking at the Highway Code! (How many drivers even know where their copy
is?!) A full driving retest at regular intervals would be good but
impractical all at once, so instead use driving schools for those who
commit traffic offences, and demand retesting for anyone who loses their
license. Life bans for driving should also be issued where drivers are
unwilling to improve their driving competence and attitudes.

I could go on, but you get the idea, I am sure.

> One of the problems with using semantically accurate deduction is the lack
> of any human quality. I know motorists, in general, drive too fast,
> because I have seen them. You would argue that because I have only seen
> black swans my logic is faulty in assuming that all swans are black.

I rather suspect you have only seen white swans, unless you live in Perth,
Western Australia.

If, based on your empirical observation that all swans you have seen are
white you then proceed to deduce that all swans are white, then yes – your
logic is faulty of course. However you may indeed *induce* the hypothesis
that all swans are white, which is an essential part of the scientific
method. I have no problem with that, but neither is it relevant here. On
discovery of the Black Swan River, you must abandon your hypothesis and
the faulty proposition. Likewise in the face of the evidence I have quoted
above, I invite you to abandon your faulty hypotheses in the message you
wrote previously.

> You
> don’t appear to understand that in some cases, deduction from observation
> is perfectly valid,

You are referring to induction. A hypothesis is an induction and its
validity is open to test. This is different from logical deduction and the
absolute validity or otherwise of a logical argument.

> Is there a better way to prevent
> speeding than to make the road unsuitable for fast driving?

Yes:

1. Better enforcement by the police. Use of Gatsos at accident
blackspots etc. and use of police traffic cars to keep a check on
driving standards.

2. Increase speed limits where they are clearly unsuitable, and then
rigorously enforce those limits (e.g. raise the motorway limit to 80).
This would be done alongside lowering limits in other areas.

3. More use of variable limits.

4. More rigorous road testing, including greater use of retesting and
training following traffic offences.

5. Greater education perhaps through positive encouragements to
undertake advanced driving courses.

6. A more well rounded debate in the media rather than repeated
sloganeering

> This is the voice of someone who does not understand marketing. At the
> risk of sounding patronising, you would only appeal to those of your
> intellectual standing and to be frank, you ain’t the problem.

Sloganeering panders to the myth that one is safe if, for instance, one is
not speeding. That is quite untrue and an example of why such sloganeering
is often counter productive. You will notice figures suggest that such
marketing campaigns have spectacularly failed to change attitudes.

This is reworked from a post I made in October.

It is fairly well understood that Christ was not born on December 25th, and that this day was chosen simply to help pagans coming to Christ adapt their festivals (such as the Roman Saturnalia) to Christianised festivals.

It is also clear that for several centuries, no Christian celebrated the date of Christ’s birth, and that the celebration of His death and resurrection are far more important to the early Church (and, indeed, the puritans too. Jonathan Edwards’ Journal for 25th December does not even acknowledge the title of the day).

But what is perhaps less well known is that we can more or less date Christ’s birthday, perhaps to the autumn.

The evidence in the Bible is in Luke 1:5-17:

In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years.

Once when he was serving as priest before God and his section was on duty, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and offer incense. Now at the time of the incense offering, the whole assembly of the people was praying outside.

Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was terrified; and fear overwhelmed him. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

So we know that Zechariah was of the order of Abijah and his section was on duty. Now the details are convoluted, but can be found on the web. I quote:

Chronicles 24 lists the courses, divisions or shifts of the priesthood that served in the Temple throughout the year. Verse 1 states, “These are the divisions of the sons of Aaron.” Among the sons of Eleazar were sixteen heads of their father’s house, while among the sons of Ithamar were eight additional heads of house, making twenty-four courses (verse 4).

These courses of priests were divided by lot to be officials of the sanctuary and of the house of God (verse 5). Beginning on Nisan 1, these courses rotated throughout the year, serving in the Temple for one week apiece. The course of Abijah, the course during which Zacharias was responsible to work, was the eighth shift (verse 10).

Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian—who was, by the way, of the priestly lineage of the course of Jehoiarib, the first course—supplies further information about the priestly courses.

“He [David] divided them also into courses: and when he had separated the priests from them, he found of these priests twenty-four courses, sixteen of the house of Eleazar and eight of that of Ithamar; and he ordained that one course should minister to God [during] eight days, from [noon] Sabbath to [noon on the following] Sabbath. And thus were the courses distributed by lot, in the presence of David, and Zadok and Abiathar the high priest, and of all the rulers: and that course which came up first was written down as the first, and accordingly the second, and so on to the twenty-fourth; and this partition hath remained to this day” (Antiquities of the Jews, 7:14.7).

These courses were strictly followed until the Temple was destroyed in ad 70.

http://sabbath.org/index.cfm/ fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/ k/568/subj/christmas/ When-Was-Jesus-Born.htm

So we know when the course of Abijah was, and we find that John the Baptist must therefore have been born in either March or September (9 months after the course of Abijah). Which course is harder to be certain. The site above assumes Jesus was born in 4BC, and chooses based on that assumption, but we are at least getting closer to a starting point for Christ’s birth date. A slight problem is that Luke does not say that Elizabeth conceived immediately after Zechariah’s return from the temple, and so we are still guessing really. Let us add a month tolerance to our dates – so we have March-April or September-October.

Where do we go next?

Luke provides more answers in Luke 1:26ff:

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

This is the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John the Baptist. That tells us that Jesus would be born six months after John, which puts his birthdate also in March-April or September-October.

Now there is other evidence we can bring to bear (the fact that the Shepherds were on the hills with their flocks, for instance) and we can go with assumptions based on the year of Christ’s birth, but it is a fair assumption that Christ was born about now.

We don’t have an exact day, and I think that is deliberate. Some writers try to tie up Christ’s birthdate with a Jewish festival, but if the date was meant to be significant, I think we would have been told it.

The fact of the matter is that we are not told an exact date, but we might as well be celebrating Christmas on December 25th as any other day.

So happy Christmas everyone.

22 years after the famine in Ethiopia that inspired Bob Geldof et al., to sing “Feed the World” at Christmastime, Africa continues to suffer from famine, war, trade injustice, AIDS, poor corporate governance, mountains of debt and yet more injustice.

Africa is a continent in flames and deep down if we really accepted that africans were equal to us we would do more to put the fire out. We are standing around with watering cans when what we need is the fire brigade.

Bono

As we enjoy the celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace, spare a thought – give consideration, discuss with your families and most of all decide what we can do in 2007 to change our watering cans for the fire brigade.

Happy Christmas (English)
Nadolig Llawen (Cymraeg/Welsh)
Nadelik Lawen (Kernewek/Cornish and also Breton)
Nollaig chridheil (Ghàidhlig/Gaelic)
Glæd Cristes mæsse (Old English)

Bon nadal (Catalan)
Polit nadal (Occitan)
Geseende Kerfees (Afrikaans)
Gledhilig jol (Faeroese)
Kilisimasi Fiefia (Tongan)

Okay, you get the idea.

Wishing you a deeper knowledge of Him this Cristes mæsse.

I have been detailing a reply to a correspondent, MW, about speeding. He argued (against the evidence) that most people break the speed limits, and that those who do not break speed limits tend not to have accidents. On investigation, both claims were clearly false – but MW preferred anecdote and prejudice to colour his views. I am reposting MWs message now, to show how easily we can make errors in our decisions if we base those decisions on anecdote and hunches.

In thi sthird article, we look at another of MWs claims – this time based on second hand reporting and our tendency to misremember what surveys are saying to bolster our world views.

MW wrote:
> 3) The UK has the highest child mortality rate attributable to RTAs in
> Europe. [...]
> I heard it on the Beeb, in a discussion with one of the many Transport
> Ministers. I can’t be bothered to dig up a better source than that.

It was a pity that MW posted this without bothering to look it up, as he would have spared himself some embarrassement had he done so. MW is not alone in misremembering media reports. Frankly, I do so nearly every time – and I frequently find that when I go back and read the reports again, that I have the details wrong.

But MW could not be bothered to look up his sources, so I had to tell him he was wrong.

The UK road death rate is, of
course, one of the lowest (I think probably *the* lowest – but I do not have latest figures in front of me. It was *the* lowest when I replied to MW) in Europe per
head of population. We are about three or four times less likely to die
in our cars than the French (or Americans for that matter), but our
figures show that we have a *poor* record on pedestrian death, and
particularly child pedestrian death.

We are not the worst in Europe. According to Department of Transport Figures I see that
the UK child pedestrian death rate was .9 per 100,000 population. Which
compares unfavourably with Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy (.5);
Netherlands, Germany (.6) and especially Sweden (.2). However we are
streets ahead of Portugal (2.8), and significantly lower than Ireland
(1.2), Luxembourg (1.3), and Spain (1.0). I also note that the comparison
is only with Western Europe – although I expect that Eastern Europe might
have lower figures, as there are generally fewer cars there.

So again your facts are wrong. Our child pedestrian death rate is poor,
but not the worst in Europe. It is however a significant blot on our
otherwise very good driving record.

> We do,
> however, have a lower overall mortality rate than most of the rest of
> Europe, so I have discovered, which is food for thought.

We also might note that children living in the most socially deprived
areas of the UK are up to three times as likely to be hit by a car than
those living in the most affluent parts of the country. ["Streets Ahead",
Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and the Imperial College
Centre for Transport Studies (ICCTS)]

There are no doubt many factors for this, but it would perhaps be just as
productive in reducing the child death toll to lift such children out of
this social deprivation. This would also have long term benefits for the
children and society as a whole… but it would cost more and take longer
to implement than a speed hump and yet another speed limit, wouldn’t it.

In a previous article I wrote about a correspondent, MW, who argued (against the evidence) that most people break the speed limits – relying on anecdotal evidence.

He also wrote:
> 2) People who don’t break speed limits tend not have accidents

My answer:

Are you sure? I am sure I read an article somewhere that showed that
people who tend to drive well below the speed limit are much more likely
to have accidents than people who travel at around the speed limit
(whether a little below or a little above). This was, I think, in an old issue of Advanced Driving magazine, although unfortunately I have no reference to hand.

Munden (1967), reported some interesting results for drivers in the
United Kingdom who habitually drive at deviant speeds (speeds well
above or below the *average* speed for a road.) The speed of selected
drivers were observed and compared to the four preceding and four
following vehicles. For drivers observed more than once, those traveling
more than 1.8 standard deviations above or below the mean traffic speed
had significantly higher crash rates. This from:

J. M. Munden, “The Relation Between A Driver’s Speed and His Accident
Rate,” Report LR 88, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne,
England, 1967.

But that survey was one of a number that discovered an interesting U
shaped curve in accident rates against deviation from the mean speed by
drivers (when excluding changes of speed for purposes of maneuvering).
What is shown quite clearly is that both very slow moving vehicles and
very fast moving vehicles are much more likely to have accidents.
Strangely we do not see a move towards a simplistic “slowness kills”
message, because we understand that other factors are at play here.

What is very interesting was some follow up research [2] by David L. Harkey,
H. Douglas Robertson, and Scott E. Davis. “Assessment of Current Speed
Zoning Criteria.” Transportation Research Record, 1281 (1990), p. 51.

“Speed at which accident risk is minimized occurred at the 90th percentile
of the travel speeds observed.”

Thus those who exceed the speed limit a little are statistically (in that
survey) the least likely to have accidents, and in fact all the U curves
in all the studies show accident rates at their lowest at about 10% over
the mean speed, which is usually a little over the speed limit.

Of course there are other surveys that show those who seek compliance with
speeding laws are at less risk of having accidents, and that there is
often a direct correlation between excessive speed in a driving situation
and higher accident rates. I do not want to excuse habitual or excessive
speeding, nor suggest that speeding is really acceptable. What these data
do demonstrate, however, is that MW was wrong to say:

“People who don’t break speed limits tend not have accidents.”

Again the evidence shows otherwise. The statement is too simplistic and
ignores the real data.

What we *can* say is that those who habitually and/or excessively speed
are statistically *more likely* to have accidents.

Notes:

[1] The Relation Between a Driver’s Speed and His Accident Rate, Report LR 88
JM Munden – Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England, 1967

[2] Assessment of Current Speed Zoning Criteria
DL Harkey, HD Robertson, SE Davis – Transportation Research Record, 1990