From: Graz on
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:54:14 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:51:21 +0200 (CEST), Keith
><keith(a)mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Sep 2008 at 13:38, Graz wrote:
>>> I already know what making progress means. In a 30 zone it means
>>> going at 40 or more. Try doing that during a driving test. Then,
>>> when you have, come back and tell us what happened.
>>
>>On *most* 30 roads it's safe to do 45+ at *most* times of the day.
>
>How do you know that, unequivocally?

And even if it is safe most of the time, the law is in place to
accommodate those instances when it isn't.

From: Adrian on
unopened(a)mail.com gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> Ahh, but...Morris Minors are still quite legally on the road, and the
> HC has to have rules suitable for _all_ vehicles, not the 'average'
> vehicle. You might have a point if there were a maximum acceptable
> braking distance legally enforced by taking non-compliant vehicles off
> the road, but there isn't, so your point is void.
>
> The roads are for use by the whole population, including old biddies
> going to church on Sundays, and not just testosterone fuelled lads
> believing absurdly in their own competence and immortality. When you
> are past your prime and appreciate (rather than take for granted) the
> freedom and independence a car gives you, you too might be glad that
> you don't need the reactions of a fighter pilot to be allowed to drive
> on a public road.

But what you're forgetting is that a Moggy Thou is utterly atypical on
today's roads. Of course they're still permitted - and long may the FBHVC
and FIVA ensure they remain so. But basing modern highway code and
driving test recommendations on them is ludicrous - a Moggy Thou can
utterly outbrake an Austin 7 - so should the braking distances be based
on that? (And, fwiw, I've seen an Austin 7 on the road today, but no
Minors)

No, sorry. Base the figures on _representative_ vehicles, with a
"TeflonFred" fudge factor for comfort, and make it clearly aware that
older vehicles may well differ.
From: Brimstone on
Adrian wrote:
> unopened(a)mail.com gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> Ahh, but...Morris Minors are still quite legally on the road, and the
>> HC has to have rules suitable for _all_ vehicles, not the 'average'
>> vehicle. You might have a point if there were a maximum acceptable
>> braking distance legally enforced by taking non-compliant vehicles
>> off the road, but there isn't, so your point is void.
>>
>> The roads are for use by the whole population, including old biddies
>> going to church on Sundays, and not just testosterone fuelled lads
>> believing absurdly in their own competence and immortality. When you
>> are past your prime and appreciate (rather than take for granted) the
>> freedom and independence a car gives you, you too might be glad that
>> you don't need the reactions of a fighter pilot to be allowed to
>> drive on a public road.
>
> But what you're forgetting is that a Moggy Thou is utterly atypical on
> today's roads. Of course they're still permitted - and long may the
> FBHVC and FIVA ensure they remain so. But basing modern highway code
> and driving test recommendations on them is ludicrous - a Moggy Thou
> can utterly outbrake an Austin 7 - so should the braking distances be
> based on that? (And, fwiw, I've seen an Austin 7 on the road today,
> but no Minors)
>
> No, sorry. Base the figures on _representative_ vehicles, with a
> "TeflonFred" fudge factor for comfort, and make it clearly aware that
> older vehicles may well differ.

What's wrong with allowing a small safety margin for the older, less common
vehicles and a bigger safety margin for more modern vehicles, especially as
so many people haven't got a clues as to what the represent in real life
(hence so many people drive so close to the vehicle in front).


From: OG on

"Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8f6dnSheioL7PUrVnZ2dnUVZ8tDinZ2d(a)bt.com...
> What's wrong with allowing a small safety margin for the older, less
> common vehicles and a bigger safety margin for more modern vehicles,
> especially as so many people haven't got a clues as to what the represent
> in real life (hence so many people drive so close to the vehicle in
> front).

Indeed, a combination of overestimation of personal competence and risk
compensation. Even without the former, the latter seems to be an almost
inevitable feature of human behaviour.


From: Road_Hog on

<unopened(a)mail.com> wrote in message
news:bcdde5ef-87b9-4cb1-b896-9f43d9154f0f(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
.. When you
are past your prime and appreciate (rather than take for granted) the
freedom and independence a car gives you, you too might be glad that
you don't need the reactions of a fighter pilot to be allowed to drive
on a public road.

Sid


I'm 43, I feel unfortunately, though not old, that I am past my prime.

The Morris Minor is not representative of the cars on the road today and
using your logic we would take the oldest/slowest worst braking car (lowest
common denominator) on the road today and hold that up as the standard for
braking distances.

PS Get yourself and use a news reader that adds quotes.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: Should I or shouldn't I?
Next: Failed MOT