On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:13:20 UTC, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

Pedestrians have an absolute right to travel on the Queen's highway.
Just as horses and cyclists do.

Try that on the Queen's motorway.

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...

Peter Parry wrote:

He also took 9 x 4mm (single) conductors down from steel trunking
through a hole he cut with tinsnips and left with razor sharp edges
without fitting any grommets and to get from one side of a room to
another used the convenient trunking carrying 40 data cables to put

Possibly there is special training involved to ignore any grey
(or white) cables already present. It's a pity no-one appears to
make trunking with "no mains" printed all over the inside.

his ring main wires in, he did tuck them neatly under the Cat 5
cabling though.

That's so that if someone complains he can claim that his wires
were in there first. (Thus it's someone else's fault for putting
the data cables in with the mains.)

Qualifications are no measure of competence or quality of
workmanship.

John Laird wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:20:17 +0100, Andrew McKay
wrote:

I found some figures relating to electricity in the home on the ROSPA
web site:

http://www.rospa.com/CMS/index.asp

"During 2000, there were a total of 44 deaths involving electric
current in the UK".

It's a fair bet that a good proportion of those will be abraded or loose
flexes, kids poking metal objects into sockets, complete morons working on
live appliances, in short, nothing to do with bodged installations. (More

Let alone addressing the issue of how many of these are due to DIY and
how many of these are due to "professionals".

It wouldn't suprise me if more electrical problems are caused by
rodents (either pets or vermin) given the way a collegue's gerbil loves
to remove insulation from flex.

likely to cause fires I would have thought.)

IIRC the law is that a pedestrian *always* has right of way on public
roads.

Of course.

Pedestrians have an absolute right to travel on the Queen's highway.
Just as horses and cyclists do.

Motorised vehicles are only permitted to drive on the highway if
properly taxed and licensed to do so and when conducted by a person
suitably trained to abide by the license.


Just as "Steam gives way to Sail" afloat.

But just try challenging a tanker in your sailing dinghy. Or
wandering across a dual carriageway in front of a heavy lorry.
You'll find your "right to use the highway" won't count for much in
court :-)

There's a rule of navigation that says that regardless of who's in the
right, everyone must do all they can to avoid a collision. But
provided you're obeying this law at sea and the equivalent common sense
on land, your "right to use the highway" will count just fine.

Ahh, but it's that comon sense thing again which is so sadly lacking. What's
the statistic?
90% of pedestrians involved in an accident with a vehicle after the hours of
darkness are drunk?
The crux of the whole speeding laws are a cheap blanket attempt to save
people from their own stupidity and like all the other nanny state solutions
which take responsibility for peoples actions away from them it is
ultimately doomed to failure.

I am a motor cyclist and fit into the category within Hywls mind of bloody
lunatic. I disregard speed limits at all times except when when there are
cmaeras or policemen and drive instead in a manner I consider to be
acceptabl;e for that piece of road. If that happens to be 140 mph then so be
it.

I commute 35 miles eachway into and across London every day. The amount of
people driving who are on the phone, reading the paper, seemingly have no
indicators or fog light off switches, who will change lanes and open doors
with no thought whatsoever for the consequences, is astounding. But hey,
none of them are speeding ,so that's alright.

Paul

--

Paul Coyne wrote:
There's a rule of navigation that says that regardless of who's in the
right, everyone must do all they can to avoid a collision. But
provided you're obeying this law at sea and the equivalent common sense
on land, your "right to use the highway" will count just fine.

Ahh, but it's that comon sense thing again which is so sadly lacking. What's
the statistic?
90% of pedestrians involved in an accident with a vehicle after the hours of
darkness are drunk?

Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.


people driving who are on the phone, reading the paper, seemingly have no
indicators or fog light off switches, who will change lanes and open doors
with no thought whatsoever for the consequences, is astounding. But hey,
none of them are speeding ,so that's alright.

Just where did this discussion go from doing all you can to avoid a
collision, to speeding?

R.

Richard wrote:

Paul Coyne wrote:

There's a rule of navigation that says that regardless of who's in the
right, everyone must do all they can to avoid a collision. But
provided you're obeying this law at sea and the equivalent common sense
on land, your "right to use the highway" will count just fine.

Ahh, but it's that comon sense thing again which is so sadly lacking. What's
the statistic?
90% of pedestrians involved in an accident with a vehicle after the hours of
darkness are drunk?


Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.


Hmm. I find that very hard to believe. However, 'scientific' studies
produced by lobby groups can always find some statsitical data to show
why smoking makes you healthy etc etc.




people driving who are on the phone, reading the paper, seemingly have no
indicators or fog light off switches, who will change lanes and open doors
with no thought whatsoever for the consequences, is astounding. But hey,
none of them are speeding ,so that's alright.


Just where did this discussion go from doing all you can to avoid a
collision, to speeding?



Dunno.


R.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.


Hmm. I find that very hard to believe. However, 'scientific' studies
produced by lobby groups can always find some statsitical data to show
why smoking makes you healthy etc etc.

Yes, that well-known lobby group the peer-reviewed Royal Statistical
Society Journal. Why not actually read the references before jumping to
conclusions? In fact they show that UK death rates increased by ~8% for
pedestrians and ~13% for cyclists with the introduction of seatbelts in
cars, far outweighing the net reduction in DR for drivers & front seat
passengers.

R.

Richard wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.


Hmm. I find that very hard to believe. However, 'scientific' studies
produced by lobby groups can always find some statsitical data to show
why smoking makes you healthy etc etc.


Yes, that well-known lobby group the peer-reviewed Royal Statistical
Society Journal. Why not actually read the references before jumping to
conclusions? In fact they show that UK death rates increased by ~8% for
pedestrians and ~13% for cyclists with the introduction of seatbelts in
cars, far outweighing the net reduction in DR for drivers & front seat
passengers.



Ah. Don't have time to read EVERY reference sadly.

That seems not inconsistent with common sense. However it still does not
prove. let alone imply, a causal connection.

It could be that it coincided with an unusually hot summer, and a world
cup victory, with more drink pedestrians and cyclists staggering around
(than usual).


I always like the old question 'how can the incidence of drawn test
matches affect the size of tree ring growth' It turns out they are both
likely due to unusually wet summers.

An interesting statistic, that sadly,proves nothing. What, for example,
is the standard deviation on pedestrian and cyclist death in the years
prior to and subsequent of this survey?

If anything, it might show that motorists who feel secure (i.e. by
adhering slavishly to speed limits) are more likley to mow down pedestrians.

There. I can spin it as well as any BBC reporter or government
communications officer.

I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT DOSSIER!!!



R.

David wrote:

Richard wrote in message ...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.


Hmm. I find that very hard to believe. However, 'scientific' studies
produced by lobby groups can always find some statsitical data to show
why smoking makes you healthy etc etc.

Yes, that well-known lobby group the peer-reviewed Royal Statistical
Society Journal. Why not actually read the references before jumping to
conclusions? In fact they show that UK death rates increased by ~8% for
pedestrians and ~13% for cyclists with the introduction of seatbelts in
cars, far outweighing the net reduction in DR for drivers & front seat
passengers.


I can't readily access this paper myself, but isn't this all about
'risk compensation' - the theory that if a driver is strapped in he
feels safer, and therefore more able and likely to drive more
dangerously (which he duly does, to the detriment of pedestrians and
cyclists)?

Somebody somewhere once wrote that best way to promote safe driving
and reduce RTA casualties would be to ban seatbelts and airbags, and
introduce the compulsory fitting of a large metal spike to the
steering wheel, pointing at the driver's chest. Think about it.


There is a certaon Darwinian aptness to that.




David

The Natural Philosopher wrote in :


I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT DOSSIER!!!



R.




And I read - I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT DOSSER!!!

Ho hum

Rod

"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David) wrote:

I can't readily access this paper myself, but isn't this all about
'risk compensation' - the theory that if a driver is strapped in he
feels safer, and therefore more able and likely to drive more
dangerously (which he duly does, to the detriment of pedestrians and
cyclists)?

Yup. It's why I don't wear a seatbelt when driving.

Refs:
"Target Risk" by Prof Gerald J.S. Wilde [PDE Publications, 1994]
"Risk" by Dr John Adams [Taylor and Francis, 1995]

Just as long as you also put a notice on your car to paramedics/Police etc
to not waste the additional NHS resources on patching you up after an
accident. Though - that's assuming you survive any crash...

Oh, and make sure you turn off any air-bag that you may have fitted.
Airbags are only safe if you're using a seatbelt. Not having a seatbelt may
well blow/burn your face off in even of an accident happening and you being
thrown forward onto the wheel.

Personally, I would be less reckless and just drive safer and more
carefully. If you need to not wear a seatbelt just so that you drive more
carefully, then you're a bad driver. There's plenty of good drivers out
there who wear a belt, and also watch out for pedestrians and other
vulnerable road users.

Generally, as a whole, maybe people will drive more less carefully after
wearing belts - but that shouldn't mean that individuals who are aware of
this fact, and also try to drive safely, can't buck that trend.

You may also find that if they re-did the research now, things may be
different. Initially, maybe people did drive more dangerously after
seatbelts were required - but now, seatbelts are as much a part of driving
as checking the car's out of gear before starting or adjusting your mirrors.

Incidentally, the only people I see around here who don't wear seatbelts are
the boy racers zooming up and down the highstreet/main roads at
significantly above the speed limit. I must admit though, I have little
concern about them not wearing their belts - karma comes to mind...
Though of course - that's a wrong attitude to take and it'll be people like
my wife and her friends who will have to patch them up after any accidents.

D

David Hearn wrote:

"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...

In article ,
(David) wrote:


I can't readily access this paper myself, but isn't this all about
'risk compensation' - the theory that if a driver is strapped in he
feels safer, and therefore more able and likely to drive more
dangerously (which he duly does, to the detriment of pedestrians and
cyclists)?

Yup. It's why I don't wear a seatbelt when driving.

Refs:
"Target Risk" by Prof Gerald J.S. Wilde [PDE Publications, 1994]
"Risk" by Dr John Adams [Taylor and Francis, 1995]


Just as long as you also put a notice on your car to paramedics/Police etc
to not waste the additional NHS resources on patching you up after an
accident. Though - that's assuming you survive any crash...

Oh, and make sure you turn off any air-bag that you may have fitted.
Airbags are only safe if you're using a seatbelt. Not having a seatbelt may
well blow/burn your face off in even of an accident happening and you being
thrown forward onto the wheel.

Personally, I would be less reckless and just drive safer and more
carefully. If you need to not wear a seatbelt just so that you drive more
carefully, then you're a bad driver. There's plenty of good drivers out
there who wear a belt, and also watch out for pedestrians and other
vulnerable road users.

Generally, as a whole, maybe people will drive more less carefully after
wearing belts - but that shouldn't mean that individuals who are aware of
this fact, and also try to drive safely, can't buck that trend.

You may also find that if they re-did the research now, things may be
different. Initially, maybe people did drive more dangerously after
seatbelts were required - but now, seatbelts are as much a part of driving
as checking the car's out of gear before starting or adjusting your mirrors.

Incidentally, the only people I see around here who don't wear seatbelts are
the boy racers zooming up and down the highstreet/main roads at
significantly above the speed limit. I must admit though, I have little
concern about them not wearing their belts - karma comes to mind...
Though of course - that's a wrong attitude to take and it'll be people like
my wife and her friends who will have to patch them up after any accidents.

D



Well said. Safety is as mich an attidude of extreme alterness introduced
nby sheer terror as anything else. However I have been driving long
enough to be suitably terrified every time I get behind teh wheel,
seatbelt or not.

AND having been a fairly keen motor racing spectator in the past, as
well as seeing the effect on un-belted pasengres in accidents, I would
never ever embark on a trip without getting the belts on, apart from the
300 yard one to the corner shop, where I have to admit the occasional
lapse. Which even I admit is stupid.

Simon Gardner wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Safety is as mich an attidude of extreme alterness introduced
nby sheer terror as anything else.


I would
never ever embark on a trip without getting the belts on


You will no doubt have noticed that your two statements are mutually
contradictory.



No. they are not.

My experience is such that even the addition of a seat belt does not
affect the terror.

:-)

"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Hearn" wrote
"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
"David Hearn" wrote:
"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
(David) wrote:

I can't readily access this paper myself, but isn't this all
about
'risk compensation' - the theory that if a driver is strapped in
he
feels safer, and therefore more able and likely to drive more
dangerously (which he duly does, to the detriment of pedestrians
and
cyclists)?

Yup. It's why I don't wear a seatbelt when driving.

Refs:
"Target Risk" by Prof Gerald J.S. Wilde [PDE Publications, 1994]
"Risk" by Dr John Adams [Taylor and Francis, 1995]


The point is I am reducing the probability of having an accident in
the
first place and thus reducing the probability of others being injured.

snipped the rest

I admit that I haven't read the sources as I cannot find a copy online.

Then you haven't looked properly.

Now - your last point almost makes a supernatural claim: not wearing a
seatbelt will stop you from having an accident in the first place.

Where did you think that I said that?

At the end of your last post! Quoting the end of this/your post:

"BUT, I am reducing the probability of having an accident in the first
place"




Just to repeat my points in case you missed it:

1.) Majority of people may drive less carefully due to wearing a
seatbelt.
2.) Individual drivers can consciously try to drive carefully and safely
even wearing a seatbelt.

You appear to dispute the 2nd point by your quoted statement:

The point is I am reducing the probability of having an accident in
the
first place and thus reducing the probability of others being injured.

Correct. Whatever such individual driver "consciously" tries, the fact
remains that she will drive less carefully because of the aforesaid "risk
compensation" - generally known as the risk homeostasis effect.

Thus by not wearing a seat belt, I am increasing the probability of
serious
injury or death to myself. BUT, I am reducing the probability of having an
accident in the first place and thus both decreasing the likelihood of
ever
being involved in an accident and thus I am reducing the risk to other
road
users.

Anyway - I dispute the fact that you claim that a driver, by putting on a
seat belt, cannot drive as well as he would have done had he not worn a
seatbelt - *even if he consciously tries to*

I could agree with everything you said had it not been for you not accepting
that a driver can consciously drive carefully whilst wearing a seatbelt.

Maybe its best to agree to disagree...

D

Simon Gardner wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Simon Gardner wrote:

You reduce your terror by putting on a seat belt thus you reduce safety (to
others).



No, *I* don't.


You may. Thatsd down to your inability to affect your emotional and
conscious state when driving.

David Hearn wrote:
Now - your last point almost makes a supernatural claim: not wearing a
seatbelt will stop you from having an accident in the first place.

Where did you think that I said that?

At the end of your last post! Quoting the end of this/your post:

"BUT, I am reducing the probability of having an accident in the first
place"

"stop you having an accident" (which is what you said) is not the same
as "reducing the probability of having an accident" (which is what he
said).

R.

Hi Simon Gardner
In you wrote:
You reduce your terror by putting on a seat belt thus you reduce safety (to
others).

I don't think anyone is able to perform their best when terrified. I'd
rather be driving on the roads with lots of relaxed, yet alert, people than
a dozen terrified nervous twitchers.

--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.

"David Hearn" wrote in message ...
"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David) wrote:

I can't readily access this paper myself, but isn't this all about
'risk compensation' - the theory that if a driver is strapped in he
feels safer, and therefore more able and likely to drive more
dangerously (which he duly does, to the detriment of pedestrians and
cyclists)?

Yup. It's why I don't wear a seatbelt when driving.

You ARE kidding? You mean you are aware of risk compensation, yet
still you drive more dangerously when wearing a seatbelt?

Oh, and make sure you turn off any air-bag that you may have fitted.
Airbags are only safe if you're using a seatbelt. Not having a seatbelt may
well blow/burn your face off in even of an accident happening and you being
thrown forward onto the wheel.

I thought the reason airbags were developed was due to the refusal of
American drivers to wear seatbelts; ie airbags were intended really an
alternative to seatbelts rather than an adjuct. (Could be wrong!)

David

"Paul Mc Cann" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:16:07 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snipped


Ahh, but it's that comon sense thing again which is so sadly lacking.
What's
the statistic?
90% of pedestrians involved in an accident with a vehicle after the
hours of
darkness are drunk?

Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.


I seem to have missed Richards reply to this..
However, the mention of common sense came froma rply by someone called
Richard to Laurence Paynes post. and I was merely pointing out that it was
bollox.
The pedestrian stat was from The Speedtrap bible
http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Facts&Figures/Facts&Figures_Home.htm referring
to the TRL report 323:

"Incidence of commonest precipitating factors, by type of accident.
This is perhaps a more telling chunk of information which aims to show the
most common factors involved in different types of accident, such as
vehicle-pedestrian, single-vehicle etc. Excessive speed doesn't feature
directly in this information because it is considered to be a subcategory of
"loss of control" (see above). The government and road safety campaigners
will always tell us that pedestrians are killed because of speeding
motorists. This simply is not the case. Would you believe a staggering 84%
of pedestrians involved in accidents are killed or seriously injured due to
their own incompetance? In the TRL report, the prime factors involved in
pedestrian fatalities are listed as:
a.. Pedestrian entered carriageway without due care (84%)
b.. Vehicle unable to avoid pedestrian in carriageway (12%)
c.. "Other" (4%)

So in the real world, it's not motorists tearing up and down town centre
roads at speed that is to blame for pedestrian fatalities, but pedestrians
stepping in front of moving vehicles without bothering to look where they're
going.
An amusing little sub-note for you here - another report further
subcategorises "entering the carriageway without due care", and shows that
after dark, 77% of all adult pedestrian fatalities are caused when the
pedestrian is above the legal drink-drive limit - ie. is technically
classified as drunk - and staggered into the path of an oncoming vehicle."



So it was a mere 77%. The point was that speeding is blamed for the deaths
of lots of peds when the reality is that they die because they don't look
where they are going.



people driving who are on the phone, reading the paper, seemingly have
no
indicators or fog light off switches, who will change lanes and open
doors
with no thought whatsoever for the consequences, is astounding. But
hey,
none of them are speeding ,so that's alright.

Just where did this discussion go from doing all you can to avoid a
collision, to speeding?

R.

Not sure, I just jumped in at the tail end. I suspect it was certain peoples
venting about reckless speeders tailgating and driving like maniacs that
provoked it. I was merely attempting to point out that there are many things
far worse than speeding form a causing accidents perspective that don't get
addressed because it's difficult to police and there isn't as much revenue
to be gained...




When helmets were introduced during the first world war there was in
immediate jump in head injuries prompting speculation that they were
more harm than good.

Reality was that the increased head injuries would previously have
been recorded as deaths.

Which, depending on the final state of the victim, may not have been a bad
thing.

Paul

Everyone behaves the same.

???

There's plenty of good drivers out
there who wear a belt, and also watch out for pedestrians and other
vulnerable road users.

Indeed. And if they aren't wearing one, they are even more cautious. It's
innate.

It might be for some but it's an argument I've never understood.

And I'm not convinced by statistics, even those which show that women are
safer drivers than men!

Mary

Everyone behaves the same.

???

There's plenty of good drivers out
there who wear a belt, and also watch out for pedestrians and other
vulnerable road users.

Indeed. And if they aren't wearing one, they are even more cautious.
It's
innate.

It might be for some

No. It is for everyone.

You know that for sure?

You've observed ALL the belted and non-belted drivers in the world during
every one of their journeys?

Cor.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:

It might be for some but it's an argument I've never understood.

What amazes me about those who feel that they are safer without belts
(because THEY are driving safely) is that they forget that there are others
out there who may not be driving safely, and can ram into them or otherwise
cause an accident.

Sheila

Hi Simon Gardner
In you wrote:
Indeed. And if they aren't wearing one, they are even more cautious. It's
innate.

It might be for some

No. It is for everyone.

Omniprescent? Or just relying on generalisations, as all statisticians do?

--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
"Wow, with bodily functions like yours, who needs TV for entertainment?"

In message , S Viemeister
writes
Mary Fisher wrote:

It might be for some but it's an argument I've never understood.

What amazes me about those who feel that they are safer without belts
(because THEY are driving safely) is that they forget that there are others
out there who may not be driving safely, and can ram into them or otherwise
cause an accident.


I am living proof that seat belts are not always safer

--
geoff

geoff wrote in message ...



I am living proof that seat belts are not always safer

but on the whole, more lives are saved by seatbelts than those lost so
in general it's a good idea to wear one.

David wrote:


I thought the reason airbags were developed was due to the refusal of
American drivers to wear seatbelts; ie airbags were intended really an
alternative to seatbelts rather than an adjuct. (Could be wrong!)


That is my understanding also.

Then they discovered they helped with belts as well.

Americamns don't wear belts, or havbe them swing away when th edors
open, because they can't reach round their enormous guts.



David

Mary Fisher wrote:

Everyone behaves the same.


???

There's plenty of good drivers out
there who wear a belt, and also watch out for pedestrians and other
vulnerable road users.

Indeed. And if they aren't wearing one, they are even more cautious. It's
innate.


It might be for some but it's an argument I've never understood.

And I'm not convinced by statistics, even those which show that women are
safer drivers than men!



Indeed. Possibly its related to teh fact that they are statistically
more likley to do short hops, not under quite so much time pressure, and
the damage they do in the supermarket car parks never gets into the
statistics :-)

Anecdotally women can be as good as men in driving. They just aren't
often interested in being good. Men try harder, but that often makes
them worse...*shrug* its a funny old world.



Mary

S Viemeister wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:

It might be for some but it's an argument I've never understood.


What amazes me about those who feel that they are safer without belts
(because THEY are driving safely) is that they forget that there are others
out there who may not be driving safely, and can ram into them or otherwise
cause an accident.

Sheila


Precisely.

If you REALLY want to feel insecure, the obvious example is to ride a
motorcycle. Arguably motortcyclists are amomngst the bets drivers there
are - they have to be. The death rate is still higher tho.

Personally, I would willingly trade the additional paranoia of not
having a belt, ffor self induced paranoia, and the knowledge that if te
worst DOES come to the worst, I personally meay be able to walk shakily
away from a twisted lump of metal.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:39:26 +0100, "Nick Finnigan" wrote:


on line at http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/ but I
doubt it will change anyones views on seatbelt wearing.

Possibly not - how many times do you change religion - but section 8.2 was a
very interesing read for (anti-religious) me.


Geo

In article , Simon Gardner (sg) writes:

sg I wish to minimise risk to other road users.

Sell your car.

--
Mail me as _O_
|

Simon Gardner wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Arguably motortcyclists are amomngst the bets drivers there
are - they have to be. The death rate is still higher tho.


... still missing the point.


Personally, I would willingly trade the additional paranoia of not
having a belt, ffor self induced paranoia, and the knowledge that if te
worst DOES come to the worst, I personally meay be able to walk shakily
away from a twisted lump of metal.


That's right. You personally may be able to. At the same time every other
bugger is thereby placed at greater risk from you. You increase the
likelihood of the "twisted lump of metal" occuring.

That's the point.

You wish to minimise risk to yourself. I wish to minimise risk to other
road users. We have different objectives and each adopt the strategy best
suited to our respective objectives.



Not very Dawrinina of you, but even if its true - and staitistics only
show co-incidence, not necessarily correlation and certainly not
necessarily causality - then isn';t it time the pedestrians had seat
belts of their own?

:-0)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:ise

If you REALLY want to feel insecure, the obvious example is to ride a
motorcycle. Arguably motortcyclists are amomngst the bets drivers there
are - they have to be. The death rate is still higher tho.

Usually due to being run over by following vehicles...

Niel, former instructor/examiner motorcyclist...

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
David wrote:


I thought the reason airbags were developed was due to the refusal of
American drivers to wear seatbelts; ie airbags were intended really an
alternative to seatbelts rather than an adjuct. (Could be wrong!)


That is my understanding also.

Then they discovered they helped with belts as well.

Americamns don't wear belts, or havbe them swing away when th edors
open, because they can't reach round their enormous guts.

AKA their own private air bags

ha ha
--
geoff

I am living proof that seat belts are not always safer

I'm living proof that they sometimes are.

Mary

--
geoff

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:12:18 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
"Mary Fisher" wrote:

I am living proof that seat belts are not always safer

I'm living proof that they sometimes are.

Safer for whom? Nobody doubts that they increase the safety of the driver.
In what sense are you the "living proof" that they increase the safety of
anyone else rather than decrease it?


This is all very fine and large, Simon, and I can appreciate your
statistical arguments, but to be honest I don't know that many people,
who when push comes to shove would knowlingly put themselves in a
position of increased danger on the road to the benefit of others.

I'm talking of Mr Average Motorist here, rather than perhaps emergency
services and others who might do that from choice.

With these specifics taken out of the equation, it doesn't strike me
that most people would go unbelted on the argument that it is safer
for the other guy. I can see the logic, but it is
counter-intiuitive,

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:18:38 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:12:18 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
"Mary Fisher" wrote:

I am living proof that seat belts are not always safer

I'm living proof that they sometimes are.

Safer for whom? Nobody doubts that they increase the safety of the driver.
In what sense are you the "living proof" that they increase the safety of
anyone else rather than decrease it?


This is all very fine and large, Simon, and I can appreciate your
statistical arguments, but to be honest I don't know that many people,
who when push comes to shove would knowlingly put themselves in a
position of increased danger on the road to the benefit of others.

Well you know one. I'd prefer not to have the accident in the first place.
Not wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of my being involved in an
accident.


OK, I see what you are saying. Accepting what Prof. Adams says (no
reason not to); the implication is that you feel that you are less
likely to be involved in an accident because you feel that not wearing
a seatbelt will make you more likely to be careful as I understand
what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Therefore from the fatalities and accidents point of view, you can
perhaps argue that because you are being safer, you stand less chance
of being involved in an accident with the more vulnerable pedestrian.
Even if they cause an accident by being drunk, stupid or not paying
attention they would appear to be less likely to be as harmed because
you had been driving carefully? OK, fair enough.

However, if you then consider other car users who are wearing seat
belts, and the argument runs that they are being less careful as a
result, it seems to me that in that scenario, your not wearing a
seatbelt reduces the risk of you having an accident caused by you, but
not one caused by everybody else. I'm not sure of the applicable
statistics here, but although you have reduced the risk on your side,
overall for you it is not reduced that much because of everybody
else's stupidity. Let's say hypothetically that the penalty for not
wearing a seatbelt was unacceptable to you (doesn't matter what the
penalty would need to be) and as a result you did wear a seatbelt; I
am not sure that the situation would have changed since you with your
view regarding pedestrian vulnerability yu would drive carefully
anyway.

On the subject of penalties, presumably at some point you will be
stopped and prosecuted. I don't know what the penalty is off hand
(money plus points presumably). Would you just pay up or do you feel
that you would contest the issue?



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:28:17 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

It's not what I feel in particular. Every driver not wearing a seat belt is
thereby less likely to be involved in an accident. That's what the

I can't believe that people are still responding to this thread. It
has nowt to do with DIY, and quite frankly if someone feels that they
don't want to wear a seat belt then that's their business - no animals
or children are harmed by this difference of opinion - and it occurs
to me that no amount of ya-boo-sucks arguments are going to change
minds on either side.

My own position is that I happen to wear a seat belt, and insist on my
family wearing seat belts, because I am persuaded that they are a good
idea and could have a seriously beneficial effect in the event of a
collision. But if someone else has a different view that's cool, it's
their life to do as they wish with, and the only time this would cause
me a problem is if that person were a passenger in my vehicle. Aside
from that (which isn't going to happen anyway) I couldn't give a
flying toss about the argument either way.

Any chance we could all drop this rather ridiculous argument and get
back to what this forum is supposed to be about?

PoP

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
geoff wrote:

I am living proof that seat belts are not always safer



Lets hope you stay that way then.

Since th estidy cited showed that in fact it was not the drivers who
benefitted from lack of seat belts, but pedestrians and cyclists etc,
your logic has a funny ring.

I said nothing about logic, just a simple statement of fact


--
geoff