From: Cynic on 22 Dec 2009 12:59
On 22 Dec 2009 14:20:49 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>You mean like the height signs which are a legal requirement?
>> No, he said *extra* warning.
>> There is no way that I would want you or Adrian to design any
>> safty-critical system. You both assume that everything will work
>> exactly as it should, including the human operator, and so there is no
>> need to provide any backup system.
>What's next? A bus driver hits a pedestrian, so you require every
>pedestrian to carry a big flashing sign saying "I'm a pedestrian" - after
>all, the poor bus driver can't possibly be expected to look where they're
>going, can they? They're only human, after all.
I would only want to see practical ideas implemented that have an
acceptable cost/reward ratio. Obviously that would have to be worked
out by people who are sufficiently intelligent to be able to tell the
I suppose you would no doubt be quite happy to walk on the left hand
side of the road on a moonless foggy night wearing black clothes
because you don't see any advantage in facing the traffic wearing
something bright and reflective. After all, your family can always
see to it that the driver of the vehicle that hits you is suitably
punished, so what's the point in making a collision less likely?
From: Cynic on 22 Dec 2009 13:02
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:14:11 GMT, James Martin(a)hgvu.com wrote:
>>For the same reason that you have spent money on a computer, and
>>probably a mobile phone despite the fact that they do not work
>>reliably all the time.
>Ah but my computer does work reliably all the time I built it myself
>and in years of having a mobile phone I have yet to have one go wrong
>in any way.
So you have never had your OS crash or been out of range of a
cellphone base station. Pull the other one - I don't believe you.
From: Adrian on 22 Dec 2009 13:10
Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> I suppose you would no doubt be quite happy to walk on the left hand
> side of the road on a moonless foggy night wearing black clothes because
> you don't see any advantage in facing the traffic wearing something
> bright and reflective. After all, your family can always see to it that
> the driver of the vehicle that hits you is suitably punished, so what's
> the point in making a collision less likely?
I'm sure my family would be quite happy in placing blame where blame was
due should I befall such a demise.
From: johnwright ""john" on 22 Dec 2009 13:23
Ian Dalziel wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:16:06 +0000, johnwright <""john\"@no spam
> here.com"> wrote:
>> S wrote:
>>> On Dec 13, 1:58 pm, Ray Keattch <r.keattch5...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> mike scott wrote:
>>>>> alexander.keys1 wrote:
>>>>>> On 11 Dec, 20:09, Chris Tolley <cj.tol...(a)bogus.co.uk (ukonline
>>>>>> really)> wrote:
>>>>>> "A double-decker bus carrying children on a school trip has had
>>>>>>> its roof torn off after crashing into a bridge in Leicester.
>>>>>> height marked in the cab? Those that I've seen do. What happened?
>>>>> Satnav in use?
>>>> Why satnav?
>>> Satnav has the effect of turning the driver's brain off, so lorries go
>>> down narrow country lanes clearly marked as unsuitable for them and
>>> get stuck, because that's the shortest route the satnav finds.
>> Very true. The Tom Tom I use when coming from a particular direction
>> tries to send me home via a farm track that is only in use by tractors
>> and people like me walking dogs. No sane person would ever take anything
>> short of a tractor down that track.
> Presumably you are posting from your vehicle stuck on a farm track,
Not at all.
> Otherwise it isn't very true at all, is it?
Its very true. As I well know you don't go that way. What makes you
think I do?
I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore
From: Conor on 22 Dec 2009 14:18
In article <fjg1j5pjug4qani2db0u50r50cbjo3gjce(a)4ax.com>, Cynic says...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:48:31 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> >> How much would it cost to install some extra
> >> warning at all bridges below some standard height?
> >You mean like the height signs which are a legal requirement?
> No, he said *extra* warning.
> There is no way that I would want you or Adrian to design any
> safty-critical system. You both assume that everything will work
> exactly as it should, including the human operator, and so there is no
> need to provide any backup system.
You assume people will take notice of some fancy system with
illustrative graphic displays...
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.