Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Rob Morley on 18 Dec 2007 12:08 In article <1i99j1k.1ff11v21gn3zl4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, 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?
From: JNugent on 18 Dec 2007 12:15 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.
From: Rob Morley on 18 Dec 2007 12:21 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.
From: DavidR on 18 Dec 2007 17:44 "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.
From: Harry Bloomfield on 17 Dec 2007 17:36
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. As has been pointed out by NM, everyone has an ideal pace of driving - one at which their safety is at a peak. That speed varies from person to person, is also dependent upon their experience, the vehicle they happen to be driving at the time plus of course the conditions and hazards. The actual posted limits are rarely a perfect match to my own safest speed, sometimes they are above it and sometimes below. I would describe my driving a brisk most of the time, but there are times when I might find conditions dictate that I need to drive at well below the limit and I find myself being tail gated. You see the difference between a good driver and a bad one is not speed, but knowing when there are sufficiently increased level of hazards, that it is prudent to slow down - unlike the one who plods along at the speed limit minus n regardless. So far as the deer is concerned - either being too slow or too fast can put you in the right place at the right time to be at odds with the likes of a deer, or even a falling tree, or other similar unpredictable hazards. With such things you can only take your chances. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk |