From: Eric on 24 Dec 2009 09:23
On 2009-12-24, Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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?
Well yes, actually (better driver anyway, "superior" seems a bit
strong). If driving in normal conditions requires you to understand how
your vehicle responds to the state of the road and to your actions, and
how it sounds while doing so, then you will still be able to handle it
in many abnormal conditions. Many of the things it teaches you can be
transferred to driving other vehicles.
> *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.
Modern cars just work in normal conditions, which is great, but you get
no idea of where the boundaries are for when something unusual is
required. Most people who have never driven anything but a recent car
will have little idea of how to explore the limitations of an older
vehicle and will, at best, take a long time to do it adequately.
> 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.
From: Denis McMahon on 24 Dec 2009 09:51
> Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>> It's quite obvious that, of the many things that were clamouring for the
>> driver's attention including making a right turn across the dual
>> carriageway, checking his route on his satnav (and it probably wouldn't
>> have been any less distracting if he'd been using either a map or
>> printed up directions), and looking at the road ahead, he either:
>> a) didn't look up and see the low height warning;
> Or, even, the approaching bridge
Or he's so used to every bridge on his normal route(s) being high enough
that he doesn't give bridges a second thought, because he knows he
doesn't need to check the height, because he knows his bus fits under them.
>> or b) saw the low height warning but didn't realise the significance of
> You mean he forgot he was driving a double-decker bus?
No, I mean he knows his bus fits under all the bridges. Except that
today he's not on his normal route, but in amongst all the stress of
trying to navigate on an unfamiliar road to get to somewhere he's never
been before, he overlooks the fact that the bridge in front of him isn't
one that he normally drives under 8 times a day in his bus.
From: Roland Perry on 24 Dec 2009 10:34
04:34:05 on Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Paul Weaver
>Ever sat at some red lights, hand brake on, in neutral, car in front
>of you stopped, car behind you stopped, then a heavy van rams into the
>back of the car behind you, causing that car to crash into you? How
>does your competent driver avoid that situation?
I've been sat at red traffics lights, at the head of the queue, and been
rammed from behind. Twice. (A few years apart).
The first time wrote off his car, the second time wrote off mine. In
neither case did the police seem very interested in prosecuting the
bloke behind, but luckily no pedestrians got caught in the crossfire
(they might have been crossing in front of me, both times).
From: Conor on 24 Dec 2009 10:50
In article <jag6j51ib1indspi1tjvd8dn2l04gfufgc(a)4ax.com>, Cynic says...
> You appear to believe that it is possible to select perfect drivers
> who will never make mistakes rather than accepting that mistakes are
> inevitable and attempting to reduce the consequences of such mistakes.
Hitting a low bridge isn't a "mistake" but sheer incompetency.
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Conor on 24 Dec 2009 10:54
In article <rco6j5pli2hkalap1o45d73lh52u0vsvi1(a)4ax.com>, Cynic says...
> >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.
But you don't fall out of the sky and die.
> >> 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.
You seem to be trying to.
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.