Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Conor on 18 Dec 2007 18:26 In article <13mdbr8mjah3d92(a)corp.supernews.com>, Clive George says... > Do you really need it explaining? Are you that dim? Which is safer, a well > driven car at limit +10% or limit -10%? Holderness is full of single track roads with blind bends and high hedges. They're all NSL. Are you really claiming that a well driven car doing 54MPH is safe on these? -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 18 Dec 2007 18:26 In article <13mde2mn88u2a64(a)corp.supernews.com>, Clive George says... > "NM" <never.opened(a)all.com> wrote in message > news:oHy9j.21368$jy3.1340(a)newsfe7-win.ntli.net... > > Clive George wrote: > >> "Harry Bloomfield" <harry.m1bytNOSPAM(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > >> news:mn.84897d7c0031448a.8412(a)tiscali.co.uk... > >>> 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%? 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. 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. > >> > >> clive > > > > Nonsense, everyone has a speed at which they feel comfortable, this will > > vary from situation to situation and with the amount of other traffic, at > > this speed they are aware and concentrating on what they are doing, make > > them go slower and their mind wanders, out of boredom and their attention > > drops. > > At which point they cease to be a good driver, and their car can no longer > be described as being well driven. Rubbish. I take milk tankers down roads that I can legally do 40MPH on at far lower speeds because to do 40 just isn't safe. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 18 Dec 2007 18:26 In article <5soertF1am66cU4(a)mid.individual.net>, Simon Dean says... > > Redesign the additional mirrors. reflective glass may be one > > solution, though I have no idea how practical that might be. > > Even simpler, move your head to look around the mirrors. How cretinous > some arguments appear to be. > So now I'm supposed to get out of the driving seat as I'm approaching a junction or roundabout? You have to move your head a long way to look around something that's 10-12" wide, 2ft tall and less than 2ft from your head. Incredible. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: MrBitsy on 18 Dec 2007 19:04 DavidR wrote: > "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >> DavidR wrote: >>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> 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? -- MrBitsy
From: MrBitsy on 18 Dec 2007 19:06
Clive George wrote: > "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. Exactly what I have said apart from the first few words. -- MrBitsy |