From: Tom Crispin on
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:32:01 +0000, JNugent
<not.telling(a)> wrote:

>> Recall that I was interviewed for a health and safety film.
>I can't recall that, but never mind.

You don't have a very good memory, do you?


You were the first to respond.
From: MrBitsy on
Clive George wrote:
> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> news:BtA9j.10644$745.8443(a)
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> "Harry Bloomfield" <harry.m1bytNOSPAM(a)> wrote in
>>> message news:mn.84897d7c0031448a.8412(a)
>>>> After serious thinking Tom Crispin wrote :
>>>>>> How can a well driven car at speed limit +10% be more dangerous
>>>>>> than a poorly driven one at speed limit -10%
>>>>> That's no the point. If both a well driven and poorly driven car
>>>>> stick to the posted limit -10% we'd all be safer.
>>>> How does that work then?
>>> Do you really need it explaining? Are you that dim? Which is safer,
>>> a well driven car at limit +10% or limit -10%?
>> Depends on the conditions when the speed was chosen. If conditions
>> are ok for limit +10% then it is OK.
> 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".

I don't agree at all.

I pick a speed based on conditions. If I am passing farmland or fields with
horses in, those circumstances will be included in my choice of speed. If we
follow your argument to its conclusion, we will HAVE to drive at 5mph
everywhere to take account of ALL possible hazzards.

Even then, what are you going to do if your hit by falling debris from an
aircraft while stationary at a junction?

>>> From your posting
>>> history, it's apparent that you are aware that even a good driver
>>> needs to cope with the unexpected, since you claim you're always
>>> having to do it.
>> Your argument here starts to fall down. As a driver I choose a speed
>> based on the conditions - more hazzards then less speed. More space
>> then more speed is possible. Apart from not driving, it is
>> impossible to allow for all possible hazzards. I was on a motorway
>> once when a road sign blew into the car - I could have been
>> stationary and it may still have hit me. Driving vehicles will always be
>> risky. We decide if we can accept
>> those risks and drive accordingly. We can only hope we are not in
>> that wrong place at the wrong time.
> And here you answer the question you failed to understand earlier.
> If you were to slow down a little, then the risks you take would be
> lower - it would be safer.

So why don't you say we should slow down a lot - say 5mph? Please define 'a
little' in regard to ensuring perfect safety. You can't though, because
perfect safety is not achievable with current roads and vehicles.

> Do you seriously believe that there wasn't
> more risk presented when that road sign hit you if you were moving
> compared to if you were stationary?

So what is your answer in that situation - should I have been doing 5mph on
a motorway in case a sign hit me?

> It's precisely those unexpected events which make my point for me.

It is precisly those events which show your argument to be a nonsence. It
would be logical to suggest a driver remain alert, observe, anticipate and
drive a suitable speed for the conditions. It is a nonsense to just say
'driving slower means less risk', because the conclusion of that argument is

>>> The subject of this thread believed there were
>>> absolutely no surprises to be had on the road (eg he could tell deer
>>> were about to jump in front of him from the flash of their eyes),
>>> but I don't subscribe to that theory, and I don't believer that you
>>> do either. The slower driver will have more time to react to
>>> hazards as they appear, which will make them safer.
>> So should there be a 5mph limit everywhere, or should the driver
>> choose a speed based on space available, weather conditions and
>> number of hazzards?
> You appear to be addressing a different point to the one I made. How
> about not doing that? Would you like to have another go at replying,
> this time taking note of what was said, rather than what you've made
> up?

'The slower driver will have more time to react to hazzards as they appear,
which will make them safer'

as I said, this argument is a complete nonsense. The only conclusion is to
drive as slow as possible - I used 5mph. Even at that speed, you are not
going to be perfectly safe. The only sensible thing to say is to observe,
anticipate and drive at a speed suitable for the conditions.

Driving slower equals safety, is the reason why we have so many speed
cameras around the place - they are harming road safety using the same
flawed logic you are using.


From: Steve Firth on
Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:32:01 +0000, JNugent
> <not.telling(a)> wrote:
> >> Recall that I was interviewed for a health and safety film.
> >
> >I can't recall that, but never mind.
> You don't have a very good memory, do you?

Whereas it's obviously the most significant thing that has ever happened
to you, it's a great big yawn for everyone else. So of course we forget
it, or would if you could restrain yourself from mentioning it every
three minutes.

From: Brimstone on

"MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> There is a lot to driving a large vehicle safely. It can be done with a
> good driver, but they need to be helped by good cyclists too. I was
> shocked when my PCV trainer positioned himself down the side of the bus
> while standing up - he is 6ft. He managed to be invisible from just behind
> the cab to about 6ft back.

That's just about cyclist hiding size.

From: Brimstone on

"MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
> Brimstone wrote:
>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> MrBitsy wrote:
>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OWZ9j.10620$h35.4554(a)
>>>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)
>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many cyclists, like pedestrians, seem oblivious in very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple ways to keep themselves safe - not obeying red
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights for instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this dangerous? Are there any figures to bear it out?
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you seriously suggestion it is safe to pass red traffic
>>>>>>>>>>> lights under normal conditions?
>>>>>>>>>> The question makes no such suggestion. I am asking you - is it
>>>>>>>>>> dangerous? And please give reasons. Then I will offer my
>>>>>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>>>> You don't know why it would be dangerous to not obey red
>>>>>>>>> traffic lights?
>>>>>>>> I can think of cases where it would be safe to not obey red
>>>>>>>> traffic lights. If you can't, then you're pretty dim.
>>>>>>> Are we talking everyday normal use of traffic controlled
>>>>>>> junctions?
>>>>>> Define that a bit better :-) The strict answer is "it depends".
>>>>>> (coz I'm not Brimstone, I'll not stop there.)
>>>>>> Red traffic lights don't just happen at traffic controlled
>>>>>> junctions - road works and road crossings are the two other ones I
>>>>>> can think of. So that's one reason why your question isn't
>>>>>> helpful. But here's the main one:
>>>>>> Safety when not obeying them isn't an absolute - just as you say
>>>>>> safe speed isn't the absolute prescribed figure. It depends on the
>>>>>> circumstances - what other vehicles/people are present, how much
>>>>>> can you see, how fast are they going. You're very keen on
>>>>>> observing the hazards and making an appropriate decision when it
>>>>>> comes to speed limits - why not apply this to other laws too?
>>>>>> After all, it's easy to provide cases where it is perfectly safe
>>>>>> to ignore a red traffic light - and indeed, it's even easy to
>>>>>> provide them where it's not only safe, but doesn't even slightly
>>>>>> affect other road users. And that applies no matter what your
>>>>>> mode of transport. Of course,
>>>>>> the fact that it's rather easier when you're small, manoeverable
>>>>>> and have better opportunities for observation could be a reason
>>>>>> for considering some modes rather more than others (and indeed
>>>>>> the law recognises this to an extent).
>>>>> When choosing a speed to travel at, all hazzards, road & weather
>>>>> conditions are taken into account. I am always going to be
>>>>> travelling on the correct side of the road, in a direction other
>>>>> road users and pedestrians expect me to be going. A 10% difference
>>>>> in speed is not going to catch someone out, if the driver has
>>>>> chosen that speed on an accurate assesment of those conditions.
>>>>> A red traffic light is an absolute message to stop. I know this and
>>>>> all other road users are expecting me to comply with it. Other road
>>>>> users will be approaching green traffic lights expecting the road
>>>>> to be clear. Many motorists will not be observing either side of
>>>>> the junction for road users not obeying the red. Therefore, not
>>>>> obeying a red traffic signal, has far more risks associated with
>>>>> it than going a little faster than a posted speed limit - one that
>>>>> has no idea of the conditions when I pass it.
>>>> What if there are no other road users?
>>> What about it?
>> Quote, "I know this and all other road users are expecting me to
>> comply with it. Other road users will be approaching green traffic
>> lights expecting the road to be clear."
>> That's quite true. but what if there are no other road users, why
>> shouldn't one drive/ride through a red light?
> Both of you are trying to get a 'because it is the law' answer, but I
> would treat a red signal with great caution for the reasons I have given.
> If the signal was broken, I would pass the red with great caution, because
> of the strength of message given by the green.

Fair comment.

> Going faster than a speed limit is based on what I can see and what I can
> reasonably expect to develop. As has been said so often, a speed limit is
> a best guess at likely hazzards, but this limit has to be too high or too
> low almost all the time. I will drive at a speed withing the law 90% of
> the time AND within a safe speed for the conditions 100% of the time.
> However, when the road and conditions allow a faster speed, I will drive
> faster than the limit.

So why can't or won't you apply the same criteria and methods to a red