On Saturday, 26 August 2017 19:21:30 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:38:35 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 04:02:56 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 19 August 2017 01:37:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
--snip--
The traffic shouldn't be moving when people are crossing, they should wait until they have crossed before doing their 0-60.

IF they're ALREADY crossing, yes.

Which most are otherwisw they'd be on the pavement.

But when a pedestrian decides to cross, they should wait until there are no vehicles approaching, or they've all spotted them and are slowing down for them.

Depends on the incident, there's lots of accidents with just cars.
Car drivers need to know how long it will take them to stop and what distance that translates too.

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA), the leading causes of fatal road crashes in the UK include:

Speeding

Indeed. Driving too fast gives you less time to react to hazards.

It also makes you more alert.

No it doesn't it can increase your reaction time but it can't make you more alert.
We ran a reaserch project here using games to test if this was true and it was proved that palying games increases yuor reaction time by a small amount, but not how alert you are.




Driving at the speed limit is exceedingly boring to those with a properly functional brain,

How would you know even at a walking speed of a couple of miles an hour gets you walking into things hwo will running impove the problems you have ?




and you nod off. Drive 30mph over the limit and you stay wide awake and pay attention.

There' s no evidence that is the case.



Drink-driving

I don't think we need say more about this.

Yes we do. A couple of pints makes you MORE alert.

No it doesn't it makes you think you are more alert, because you tend to take more risks so think you are a better driver, I've tested myself.
In asimialr way most think they are better at getting laid once drunk or just getting 'dutch courage' and beer goggles.
Some think they can fly but they soon find out they can't.





Your brain runs on glucose, or alcohol. Either will do.

They have differnt effects.


I can concentrate on things way better with a drink or two.

Some think the same about coffeee it's just an illusion.


Instead of stupidly low numerical alcohol limits, we should have a sobriety test.

I'd agree with that the do it in the USA.

Can you walk along a white line without falling off it. If you fall off, you're unfit to drive.

What if you haven't had a drink and still fall off ?
You know yuor problems regarding wearing shoes and kn owing where your toes are.



A numerical limit doesn't take into account the tolerance of different people. Consider two people, one has a single pint of beer for the first time in his life. The other has three pints and has drunk loads his entire life. The first is more dangerous on the road, yet the second is the one that will get nicked.

It would depend on what they were doing on the road, if someone is driving OK they are unlikely to be stopped on suspicion of drunk driving.



Instead of doing people for looking like they are more likely to possibly cause an accident,

if they look like they are going to cause an accident why not stop thenm before they cause the accident ?.
It could be that they are playing a game on a smartphone while driving and all their concentration is beign used, or they could be having a heart attack, or just have somethin gin their eye(s), or a mechanical or illectrical problem with teh car.
There's many reasons why an accident is waiting to happen.




do the people that DO cause an accident, no matter if they're drunk or sober.
It still depends on what causes they accident.



Not wearing a seat belt

This only affects the driver. There are arguments suggesting that
people who do not wear seatbelts would automatically take more care.
Hence the argument to put a spike in the steering wheel.

There is no reason whatsoever for the law to intervene in this. If someone wants to risk their OWN life, nobody else has the right to intervene.

It's also a costs more medically if you sustain more damage than you would have
if wearing a seat belt, and that cost more in insurance ans the the NHS.


Careless or aggressive driving

No excuse for this.

Oh yes there is. If someone drives badly or slowly, I'll be aggressive to the little **** that is getting in my way. There is no excuse for going slow, or for not indicating.

Depending on your definition of slow, most tend to drive slower in bad conditions and this has nothing to do with their brain, it;s to do with things like grip on the road and how far they can see ahead.


Drivers who don't look

They should be banned.

If they crash. Again, simply put points on your license for each collision.

They do that sort of thing anyway. But hwo manyb times has a tree collided with you ? You;ev said how yuo collide with door frames maybe you're walking to fast.
You do know there's a law about traveling to fass don't you. ;-)






Only idiots need stoping distances.

Explain.

You should know or have an appreciation of whether you can stop in time to avoid any obsticle that may present itself. Of course there are situations where you are also relying on the skills or lack of them of other road users.
This works for both NASCAR and those piloting large ships like tankers which have significant stopping distances.

Of course. People should be aware of their vechicle's and their own
limitations.

If a car without ABS is allowed to go 30mph, then my car with ABS should be allowed to go faster.

For me that would also depend on the reaction speed of the driver not just in the car.

Would you not drive more carefully if you changed to a car without ABS?

I'd know the distance required to stop but I'd have no way of knowing what
car in front or behind was cable off or the driver.
There;s a reason why peole like car racing from NASCAR to stock cars to formula one and road cars, if it was as simple as the cars spec decide on whether iot could stop in time or win a race it'd be pretty boring.



****ing stupid as the driver behind can't see through the vehicle in front to know if there's something to stop for.

Why is he concerned about that ?.

Exactly. If the driver is keeping a safe distance behind the vehicle
in front (s)he has no need to know what the vehicles further ahead are
doing.

If you can see through it, you don't need the "safe distance".

Because you can't estimate how long it will take the driver in front of you to stop.

Why waste road space?

It;s not a waste.

I do however love safety conscious fools like yourself that leave a "stopping distance". It means I can pull out in front of you.

Like putting chocolate/cheese on a mouse trap.


Dumb motorists, if they can't follow simple rules perhaps that's why there's accidents.

There are too many rules. A horn is simple a device to make a noise as you can't shout when you have the windows closed. It can be used for many things.

Yes so how is a motorist expecting to know the reason a horn is sounding is it a warning to slow down because of an imenante accidetn or because some arsehole has seen his mate across the road and for some reason wants him to know he's been seen.

Of course the horn should only be used as a warning.

Dave, don't respond to JWS; he's a troll.

You don't think that idiots should be told they made a mistake?

One should try but sometimes it takes more effort thatn it's worth.

If you don't hoot at someone who nearly crashed into you, they'll do it again and possibly kill someone. Therefore you, by not hooting after the event, are an accomplice to a future murder.

I thought you were hooting at a made just coming out of the local shop, so why should anyone take any notice of you hooting ?