Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Cynic on 24 Dec 2009 07:33 On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:02:42 +0000, Ian Dalziel <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote: >>Ah, a youngster. A quarter of a century *is* modern. My first car was an >>MG Midget, designed in 1960, and stopped manufacture exactly 30 years >>ago. But even that had rubber "5mph" bumpers, disc brakes and radial >>tyres by the end. >Modernity appeared in the space of five years? >Anyway, I was generalising. 24 to 37 years old, actually, and the >oldest is the most "modern", the newest the least. Do you believe that driving around in an old vehicle that lacks many of the modern safety features indicates that you are somehow a superior driver? *Anyone* who is capable of driving a modern car could get behind the wheel of an old banger and achieve an adequate, safe performance once they have explored its limitations. I very much doubt that I would have a great deal of difficulty driving a model T Ford, though I have no desire to do so except out of curiosity to see what it is like. When I used to skydive, I came across a few people who used to brag about jumping without a reserve chute. Apparently safety devices are for wimps, and deliberately placing yourself at unnecessary risk is the macho thing to do. I confess that I have never properly understood such a concept. Perhaps you could explain it to me? -- Cynic
From: Mr X on 24 Dec 2009 07:56 "Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote in message news:f2j6j5ln7if3mmqaat1cicl05dhp86hft2(a)4ax.com... > So drivers are ramming buses into low bridges all the time, are they? > This plague must be dealt with at once! Think of the children! > > Don't you think the fact that the incident is so widely reported means > that it is a bit exceptional? It isn't uncommon at all. There are plenty of reports on the BBC and even videos on youtube of buses that have met their maker in such a way. In fact it is so common that there are devices on the market that alert the diver about such bridges, as I linked to before. Hanover Displays makes such a hazrd warning system.
From: Cynic on 24 Dec 2009 08:21 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:55:13 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> I really didn't think there were people who would actually take such >> an argument seriously. Maybe you should think it through a tad more >> deeply. The clue is in the fact that a muti-engine aircraft can >> *continue to fly* in the event of an engine failure. >And amazingly, single engine aircraft manage to continue on in the event >of an engine failure. Yup, which is why I was talking about flying transatlantic. The fact that you can glide for 20 miles after the donk stops is little comfort if the closest land is 1000 miles away and the water temperature is below zero. >> I hope you have never had occasion to design a safety critical system. >I hope you don't. By the time you've finished, the item will be such a >behemoth due to the "must cover every eventuality" myriad of safety >systems that it'll be completely unusable. I design such systems frequently. Nobody is saying that *every* eventuality should be covered. Determining which eventualities should be covered and which should not be covered is a very important part of the design process that involves looking at both the probability of the event occuring and the seriousness of the consequences should it occur. You then have to decide whether to lower the probability of the event occuring, or diminish the seriousness of the consequences. Or a bit of both. You are also evaluating what is an acceptable risk for *other people* to *unknowingly* take. That threshold is far lower than what may be perfectly acceptable to you, personally. Whilst I would personally be perfectly willing to accept the risk of flying a single engine aircraft across the Atlantic, I would be less comfortable allowing my young son or daughter to come with me, and even less comfortable taking someone else's young child with me. If the passenger was old enough to understand and accept the risk, that's OK. It is also true that UK society has become more risk-averse over the years, and so safety requirements are more stringent than they once were. I have bemoaned such a trend many times myself, but only when the increase in safety has come at the expense of decreasing an advantage of taking the risk. I have no problem with the idea of making things as safe as is *reasonably* practical. I expect you would be a tad upset if your house burnt down due to your TV set bursting into flames. I also expect that you have absolutely no idea of how likely it is for such a fault to occur in your TV set. The person who designed the TV had to evaluate that risk, and design in safety devices to bring that risk to what is regarded as being an acceptable level today. They probably add almost 5p to the cost of manufacture and make a fire only about 1000 times less likely than would otherwise be the case, so maybe you don't believe they are worth fitting. -- Cynic
From: Ivor Jones on 24 Dec 2009 09:11 On 24/12/09 12:33, Cynic wrote: > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:02:42 +0000, Ian Dalziel > <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote: > >>> Ah, a youngster. A quarter of a century *is* modern. My first car was an >>> MG Midget, designed in 1960, and stopped manufacture exactly 30 years >>> ago. But even that had rubber "5mph" bumpers, disc brakes and radial >>> tyres by the end. > >> Modernity appeared in the space of five years? > >> Anyway, I was generalising. 24 to 37 years old, actually, and the >> oldest is the most "modern", the newest the least. > > Do you believe that driving around in an old vehicle that lacks many > of the modern safety features indicates that you are somehow a > superior driver? *Anyone* who is capable of driving a modern car > could get behind the wheel of an old banger and achieve an adequate, > safe performance once they have explored its limitations. I very much > doubt that I would have a great deal of difficulty driving a model T > Ford, though I have no desire to do so except out of curiosity to see > what it is like. There's a company in California that hires them out to tourists, I saw a few in Yosemite National Park last time I was there, but didn't have time to try it myself. Apparently the control configuration is totally different from modern cars, so it might not be as easy as you think..! Ivor
From: AlanG on 24 Dec 2009 09:23
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:11:59 +0000, Ivor Jones <ivor(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >On 24/12/09 12:33, Cynic wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:02:42 +0000, Ian Dalziel >> <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote: >> >>>> Ah, a youngster. A quarter of a century *is* modern. My first car was an >>>> MG Midget, designed in 1960, and stopped manufacture exactly 30 years >>>> ago. But even that had rubber "5mph" bumpers, disc brakes and radial >>>> tyres by the end. >> >>> Modernity appeared in the space of five years? >> >>> Anyway, I was generalising. 24 to 37 years old, actually, and the >>> oldest is the most "modern", the newest the least. >> >> Do you believe that driving around in an old vehicle that lacks many >> of the modern safety features indicates that you are somehow a >> superior driver? *Anyone* who is capable of driving a modern car >> could get behind the wheel of an old banger and achieve an adequate, >> safe performance once they have explored its limitations. I very much >> doubt that I would have a great deal of difficulty driving a model T >> Ford, though I have no desire to do so except out of curiosity to see >> what it is like. > >There's a company in California that hires them out to tourists, I saw a >few in Yosemite National Park last time I was there, but didn't have >time to try it myself. Apparently the control configuration is totally >different from modern cars, so it might not be as easy as you think..! > >Ivor The pedal controls are different as are the hand controls. Startup is not a very straightforward procedure either. There was a demo on one of the top gear shows. Gets repeated on Dave so it should be coming up again soon. Or http://www.modelt.ca/drive-fs.html |