"Rod" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Arfa Daily
writes
"Mortimer" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:

(Men have better night vision. Picking fruit vs hunting
rabbits?)

****ing on target at 3am, without having to put the bathroom
light on ?
IKWYM. Doesn't the light hurt the eyes if you do switch it on.
:-(
I have good night vision and it gets spoiled by cars at both
night and
day, who have badly aligned head lights, or fog lamps. Do
drivers assume
that their fog lamps are driving lights, because they are not
yellow? On
the same subject, I get blinded by the number of drivers that
are using
head lights during the day and there is nothing better to
distract you,
when they start flashing their lights in your rear view mirror
as they
bounce along the road. As for motorcycles, why do they drive
round using
full beam? That really gives me black spots in my vision. I've
started to
put mine on now, when they approach me.
I've no problem with motorbikes using headlights during the
day - anything
that makes them more visible as they overtake
on the inside, on the motorway...

If you're doing 30mph in the middle (first overtaking) lane,
probably

--
geoff

I guess you don't get out on motorways too much then ... I was on
the M25 earlier this week, and had motorbikes come around the
inside of me in all three lanes - yes, the inside lane as well. All
were just taking the 'easiest' route through the traffic for them,
and sod the rest of us who couldn't weave around like they could.
What with all the foreign trucks, the people who can't use a slip
road, the people who have no idea what lane speed structure is
about, and particularly irresponsible motorbike riders, the
motorways are becoming more dangerous almost by the week.


Certainly the M40 has seemed like that.


Shocking M40 statistics
By Neil Phillips

11:37am Saturday 31st May 2008

ACCIDENTS on the south Bucks stretch of the M40 have more than
doubled since the year 2000, firefighters revealed this week at the
end of 12 months of tragedy.

Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the horrific accident that
began the year of carnage on the M40.

lots more detail and comments

http://www.bfp.co.uk/display.var.2308559.0.shocking_m40_statistics.php


The trouble with that article is that it doesn't actually categorise
what level of accidents they were, just saying something like "They
show that during 2007 the fire service was summoned to 75 traffic
collisions. This was a significant jump from 2006, which saw
fire-fighters tackle 54 collisions. And the figures for 2000 show
there were just 31 traffic collisions that the service was called to."
is totally meaning less without doing so, considering that the Fire
and Rescue service could get called out for anything from split
chemicals (possibly even a split battery) to a 100 vehicle pile up
were every vehicle needed cutting open. Then we get this cracker, "But
Fraser Pearson, spokesman for Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue, noted
that fire-fighters were not called to all collisions.", trying to
imply that the road could be even worse, I hope the junior hack who
obviously wrote the article doesn't expect the Fire and Rescue service
be called out to every case were there has been not injury never mind
rescue needed?!...