From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 10:07 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1jossaml4t4p4$.igdpf6zimsfz.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:34:53 +0100, GT wrote: > >>> Is that why women are seen as such poor drivers? >> >> There are less women drivers on the roads, so there would be lower >> numbers, >> naturally. Also their logic works differently! > > the point is they take less pointless risks than some male drivers. If you > look at the "logic" of some male drivers they think its OK to risk your > life to overtake a car in less than ideal places to get home a couple of > minutes early. Women think that's mad, they are correct. That's not the logic I was referring to. Given that nothing can be done about the fool at the front of a queue who speeds up on the only good overtaking part of a road, I was talking about the logic used to support the installation of a 'safety' camera on that only safe overtaking place on the road. This decision forced people to either pay a �60 overtaking fee or overtake in a less than ideal place. A lot of women (and clearly you too) think this is a good idea. I think they (and you) are wrong - I don't think being forced to overtake in a less than ideal place is not a good idea - I think allowing people to overtake in the best safe place is a better idea.
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 10:11 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:ivccutydrso2$.irz4gdmp44hm$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:39:29 +0100, GT wrote: > >>> that is meaningless without comparison to the running costs per ticket. >>> I >>> get the impression theres no great "profit" made. >> >> There are many things in this world where no great profit is made per >> item. >> I heard on the radio this morning that British Gas will make only 20p per >> household per day over the next 3 months. This is a tiny, tiny amount of >> money, but it will still net them 10s or even 100s of millions of pounds! > > speed cameras are not in those sort of orders of magnitude. I didn't mean to imply that they are, simply that when the fine money was kept in the system they were self-funding and did not run at a loss.
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 10:12 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:14n2gvgk1icry.62syjuwksogb.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:42:32 +0100, GT wrote: > >> There are very few laws that are enforced by cameras. > > because most cannot. That is what I was getting at - and why I didn't understand his point!
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 10:20 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:12ke2dniefk0g$.a7587xb4mjxu.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:07:03 +0100, GT wrote: > >> That's not the logic I was referring to..........A lot of women (and >> clearly you too) > > As we are referring to different things *as you state*, you cannot assume > I > agree with a theory I was not commenting on. Fair enough!
From: Matt B on 28 Jul 2010 10:26
On 28/07/2010 15:05, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:02:53 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >>>> I'm not sure that limits would be needed at all in such circumstances. >>> >>> the circumstances are there now on motorways. >> >> Not quite. We currently mix trucks and cars, and often have more than 2 >> lanes. > > good enough, why do you think 3 lanes is dangerous? Not necessarily dangerous, just less safe. There are more places to watch and more permutations to look out for. With 2 lanes you use lane 2 to overtake, nothing else, and if there's someone else coming up in it, faster than you from behind, you wait. It works well on the unlimited German motorways. -- Matt B |