M6 motorway speeds?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: bod on 29 Jun 2010 05:21 bod wrote: > Mike P wrote: >> On 29 June, 07:23, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >>> were >>> saying: >>> >>>> Come on Mike! The difference between 70 and 200mph is immensely more >>>> dangerous in that scenario. For a start, at 200, the chances of a large >>>> bird crashing through the screen and hitting you in the face is >>>> immeasurably more likely, with dire consequences to follow. Surely you >>>> can see that? >>> I'm not sure I can. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the air >>> pressure over the bonnet and windscreen at those speeds meant it was >>> actually LESS likely that the bird would hit the 'screen. >>> >>> Anyway - how often do you hit "large birds" on average? Once every ten >>> miles, once every thousand miles, once every hundred thousand miles? >> >> In 20 years, I've hit a pigeon, a sheep, and recently a pheasant. That >> all, in probably 400,000 miles. >> >> Mike P >> >> >> > Sorry! You still don't qualify for a 'road kill' badge, untill you've > hit *5* different species. > <footnote> "Mike must try harder". > Bod
From: bod on 29 Jun 2010 05:27 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:16:53 +0100 > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> In 20 years, I've hit a pigeon, a sheep, and recently a pheasant. That >>> all, in probably 400,000 miles. >>> >>> Mike P >>> >>> >>> >> Sorry! You still don't qualify for a 'road kill' badge, untill you've >> hit *5* different species. > > Do humans count? Or if not, what about cyclists? > > B2003 > > The rules state, that "anything that is subhuman does count". So, yes, cyclists are legit. In fact, they are worth two points each. Bod
From: boltar2003 on 29 Jun 2010 06:04 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the >youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. >Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In general, older >drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies back >these facts up. I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive a 1 ton car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety records - the probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the accident rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) then it wouldn't be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents they indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. B2003
From: bod on 29 Jun 2010 06:14 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the >> youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. >> Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In general, older >> drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies back >> these facts up. > > I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive a 1 ton > car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety records - the > probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the accident > rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) then it wouldn't > be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents they > indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. > > B2003 > > Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving licence then? Bod
From: Mike P on 29 Jun 2010 06:22
On 29 June, 11:04, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 > > bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >And what about the largest category of having accidents then; the > >youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. > >Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In general, older > >drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance companies back > >these facts up. > > I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to drive a 1 ton > car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety records - the > probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the accident > rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) then it wouldn't > be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the accidents they > indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers behind taking risks. Well if youngsters have 1 in 4 of all accidents, those who *aren't* youngsters have the other 3 out of 4..... It wouldn't surprise me if older drivers have a better safety record because they do a lot less miles. When I and my mates passed our tests, we were driving around all the time. My grandad used his car about 3 times a week... Mike P |