Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Harry Bloomfield on 18 Dec 2007 12:42 Clive George wrote : > That's not answering the question. You even know it isn't - see later. If in > your opinion, +10% is "Ok", is -10% going to be safer? The answer is "yes". Is -20% safer -yes, but is it practical to keep on reducing speed until risk is eliminated and the answer to that is an absolute no. In all things in life we take risks. I have taken calculated risks for my entire life. I weigh up those risks carefully before starting any fresh activity. I might decide the risk is too great and not take part, or I might decide I can reduce the risks to an acceptable level by taking extra care during the activity, or by building in extra safe guards. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: JNugent on 18 Dec 2007 12:43 Rob Morley wrote: > In article <EvWdnVaBNeeonfXanZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, JNugent > not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com says... > >>Rob Morley wrote: >> >> >>>Steve Firth %steve%@malloc.co.uk says... >> >>>>Does that ring any bells (like the ones that should be >>>>fitted to the bicycle but are not?) >> >>>What function do you think a bell serves, other than to warn a >>>pedestrian (who will probably remain oblivious or react inappropriately) >>>of the approach of a bicycle? >> >>I agree with the thrust of that question. AAMOF, I don't think there >>should be any compulsion to have any vehicle fitted with an audible >>warning device. I'd go further: car and van horns should be illegal. >>They never ever get used for the right purpose anyway. >> > > Never ever? Back in my "driving Minis as fast I could around > roundabouts" days my air horns almost certainly prevented a few > crunches. The brakes would have achieved the same end without shredding the nerves of residents of the nearby houses.
From: Ekul Namsob on 18 Dec 2007 12:43 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Ekul Namsob <notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob(a)wronghead.com> wrote: > > > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Nick <nospam(a)spam.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry Huge, its not really about other people being right its more > > > > about you being wrong. I'm afraid that will follow you around like a > > > > bad smell. > > > > > > Yes right, and what you think of as the odour of sanctity that follows > > > all cyclists around is the ordure of insanity. > > > > For heaven's sake Steve, do stop tarring all cyclists with the same > > brush. It's tedious and it does you no favours. > > When the cyclists learn to stop tarring pedestrians and motorists with > the same brush, I shall respond in kind. You're developing the same > monovision as the rest of the lycra loons. Please provide evidence of this monovision. [1] You see, as both you and I know, there is no such homogeneous group as 'the cyclists', 'the motorists' and 'the pedestrians'. Cheers, Luke [1] as always, this is a genuine request. I pride myself on my honesty. -- Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
From: Clive George on 18 Dec 2007 18:13 "Harry Bloomfield" <harry.m1bytNOSPAM(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:mn.8ce37d7c07a6101d.8412(a)tiscali.co.uk... > Clive George wrote : >> That's not answering the question. You even know it isn't - see later. If >> in your opinion, +10% is "Ok", is -10% going to be safer? The answer is >> "yes". > > Is -20% safer -yes, but is it practical to keep on reducing speed until > risk is eliminated and the answer to that is an absolute no. In all things > in life we take risks. I have taken calculated risks for my entire life. I > weigh up those risks carefully before starting any fresh activity. I might > decide the risk is too great and not take part, or I might decide I can > reduce the risks to an acceptable level by taking extra care during the > activity, or by building in extra safe guards. Well done - at last an answer which demonstrates an understanding of the point being made. cheers, clive
From: Roger Merriman on 18 Dec 2007 13:50
JNugent <not.telling(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Rob Morley wrote: > > > Steve Firth %steve%@malloc.co.uk says... > > >>Does that ring any bells (like the ones that should be > >>fitted to the bicycle but are not?) > > > What function do you think a bell serves, other than to warn a > > pedestrian (who will probably remain oblivious or react inappropriately) > > of the approach of a bicycle? > > I agree with the thrust of that question. AAMOF, I don't think there > should be any compulsion to have any vehicle fitted with an audible > warning device. I'd go further: car and van horns should be illegal. > They never ever get used for the right purpose anyway. try narrow lanes. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com |