Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Clive George on 18 Dec 2007 19:33 "Conor" <conor_turton(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5sr39pF1ah14lU7(a)mid.individual.net... > 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? Um, no. Are you really claiming a car doing 54mph on those roads is well driven? Are you really claiming that a car doing 66mph on those roads is safer than the one doing 54mph? clive
From: Clive George on 18 Dec 2007 19:34 "Conor" <conor_turton(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5sr39rF1ah14lU8(a)mid.individual.net... > 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. And that disagrees with what I wrote precisely how? clive
From: Clive George on 18 Dec 2007 19:34 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:5gZ9j.12145$ov2.1737(a)newsfe5-win.ntli.net... > 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. Thus making it exactly what you haven't said. clive
From: Clive George on 18 Dec 2007 19:35 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)newsfe5-win.ntli.net... > DavidR wrote: >> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>> DavidR wrote: >>>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>>>> >>>>> Many cyclists, like pedestrians, seem oblivious in very simple ways >>>>> to keep themselves safe - not obeying red lights for instance. >>>> >>>> Is this dangerous? Are there any figures to bear it out? >>> >>> Are you seriously suggestion it is safe to pass red traffic lights >>> under normal conditions? >> >> The question makes no such suggestion. I am asking you - is it >> dangerous? And please give reasons. Then I will offer my opinion. > > You don't know why it would be dangerous to not obey red traffic lights? I can think of cases where it would be safe to not obey red traffic lights. If you can't, then you're pretty dim. clive
From: MrBitsy on 18 Dec 2007 19:51
Clive George wrote: > "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:deZ9j.12144$ov2.11527(a)newsfe5-win.ntli.net... >> 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? > > 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? -- MrBitsy |