From: MrBitsy on
Clive George wrote:
> "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?

Oh, I see conditions are now coming into your argument. Your automatic 10mph
slower is safer in all circumstances is flawed. Speed based on conditions is
what makes one speed safer than another - a fact you prove in your reply..

--
MrBitsy


From: MrBitsy on
Clive George wrote:
> "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.

<groans>

You ought to be a politician.

--
MrBitsy


From: Clive George on
"MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OWZ9j.10620$h35.4554(a)newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:deZ9j.12144$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?

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).

cheers,
clive

From: Clive George on
"MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:a0_9j.17190$wD5.9435(a)newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "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?
>
> Oh, I see conditions are now coming into your argument. Your automatic
> 10mph slower is safer in all circumstances is flawed.

Are you going to continue crediting me with things I haven't said?

> Speed based on conditions is what makes one speed safer than another - a
> fact you prove in your reply..

Just because you don't understand my argument doesn't make it invalid. What
I'm arguing is mindbogglingly simple - you should have agreed with it
straight away. Instead you let your pet "people suggesting driving slower =
bad" idea dominate your thinking, rather than considering the actual point.

clive

From: Alan Braggins on
In article <5sr39mF1ah14lU6(a)mid.individual.net>, Conor wrote:
>
>Just a note..cabs a feckin high now with the bottom of windscreens over
>6ft off the floor so try and be a few feet in front of the lorry if
>you're directly in front of it.

If you're stopped at a red light and a lorry pulls up right behind you,
that means going a few feet through the red light. Sometimes that's safe
and advisable, but sometimes it would mean pulling into the middle of a
pedestrian crossing which is being used.