Prev: Should I or shouldn't I?
Next: Failed MOT
From: Graz on 21 Sep 2008 19:07 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 22 Sep 2008 09:22 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 22 Sep 2008 09:40 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 22 Sep 2008 10:04 "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 22 Sep 2008 10:14
<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. |