UK considers law blaming driver in all car/bike crashes!!
in [Drive]
|
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS on 23 Sep 2009 11:57 N8N <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:d3db0513-485d-4d7c-8193-50b7f0df99c1(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com: > > False. Plenty of cites out there of lights that were short of ITE > standards by a half second, a second, etc. > > nate > Hey stupid. So why is it that i and most people have no trouble stopping on a yellow?
From: N8N on 23 Sep 2009 12:52 On Sep 23, 11:57 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote innews:d3db0513-485d-4d7c-8193-50b7f0df99c1(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com: > > > > > False. Plenty of cites out there of lights that were short of ITE > > standards by a half second, a second, etc. > > > nate > > Hey stupid. So why is it that i and most people have no trouble stopping > on a yellow? sure you don't, sandpaper "tars."
From: jim on 23 Sep 2009 13:13 Brent wrote: > > The point is to stop people from driving. No stupid. They stated the object is to change what type vehicle people chose to drive. > By saying it's always the > driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. That is even intelligent enough to be called stupid. >This will > greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. The idea is they switch to driving bicycles. When that happens their insurance rates go down. > Less people will be able > to afford to drive. Not really, but when they drive they likely will defer to bicyclist which presumably for many will make it more convenient to use bicycles instead of cars. The proposal is an alternative to simply closing a large percentage of the roadways to auto traffic and allowing only bicycles or small scooters on the majority of urban roadways. Many places already do not allow large trucks on residential streets. It's social engineering. Yes, you finally got one correct. You must taxed all 3 brain cells figuring that one out. Do you think that spending the governments entire transportation budget on building infrastructure for automobiles is not social engineering? -jim
From: Brent on 23 Sep 2009 13:14 On 2009-09-23, N8N <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 23, 2:31�am, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 22, 5:51�pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > gpsman wrote: >> > > On Sep 21, 8:34 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote: <maniacal >> > > crossposting adjusted> >> > >> I mean, it may sound old-fashioned, but to me it only seems >> > >> fair to assess things on a case by case basis and assign blame to the >> > >> party that was actually negligent, reckless, careless, whatever. >> >> > >> I know, quaint and amusing, but still. >> >> > > Lol. >> >> > > What about crashes "caused" by RLCs, underposted speed limits, etc., >> > > ad nauseum...? >> > > �----- >> >> > > - gpsman >> >> > If a known short yellow light causes a driver to panic stop to avoid a >> > ticket, and he is subsequently rear-ended, the blame should be on the >> > last person to work on that signal. �Simple, no? >> >> Simpleminded. >> >> TTBOMK, the greatest reduction of a yellow interval was on the order >> of 0.1 seconds. > > False. Plenty of cites out there of lights that were short of ITE > standards by a half second, a second, etc. And even when it was short by .1, that was short of the modern absolute minimum of 3 seconds. This absolute minimum does not account for the conditions of individual intersections nor the posted speed limit nor the actual speed of traffic. Thus at 2.9 seconds the yellow cycle could be significantly shorter than it would have been under pre-RLC era guide lines. Also, if there is a red light running problem the proven quick fix is to lengthen the yellow signal. This has repeatedly been shown to work for decades. Only in the RLC era has enforcement and punishment been given priority. Of course enforcement and punishment has little if any safety benefit compared to actually fixing the underlying problems. Why I'm going over this again for the benefit of bone heads like gpstroll I have no idea....
From: Brent on 23 Sep 2009 13:43
On 2009-09-23, jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote: > > > Brent wrote: > >> >> The point is to stop people from driving. > No stupid. They stated the object is to change what type vehicle people chose to > drive. read TFA. They want people to walk or bike, not drive something else. >> By saying it's always the >> driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. > That is even intelligent enough to be called stupid. Ever drive in front of a public housing project in a big US city? Try it some time. People will walk out right in front of your car. Making it automatically the fault of the motorist will increase the number of collisions for three reasons: 1) fraud. (great way to get insurance settlements) 2) moral hazard. (encourages reckless behavior because the responsibility is on someone else) 3) general MFFY behavior. >>This will >> greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. > The idea is they switch to driving bicycles. When that happens their insurance > rates go down. Where do people get bicycling discounts on automobile insurance? I do a lot of bicycling, this could be very profitable for me. Oh, and this screws up your claim they aren't aiming to discourage driving. >> Less people will be able >> to afford to drive. > Not really, but when they drive they likely will defer to bicyclist which > presumably for many will make it more convenient to use bicycles instead of > cars. The proposal is an alternative to simply closing a large percentage of the > roadways to auto traffic and allowing only bicycles or small scooters on the > majority of urban roadways. Many places already do not allow large trucks on > residential streets. Which will do nothing except make driving suck more. >> It's social engineering. > Yes, you finally got one correct. You must taxed all 3 brain cells figuring that > one out. Do you really want to go down the insult road? I can play that way too. > Do you think that spending the governments entire transportation budget > on building infrastructure for automobiles is not social engineering? If people didn't drive where would the money for the transportation budget come from? Considering it's the driving related taxes that are raided to fund other forms of transportation it should go to making roads able to handle automobile traffic. Bicycling requires little more than a smooth dirt path. Anyways, it's not social engineering because it's bottom up, that is people decided they wish to drive to and that drove the system. I like bicycling (and do more of it than probably 98% of the population) but I don't like being forced into anything because someone who thinks they should rule over the rest of us decides it's a good idea. |