Guy King wrote:
The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:
PEG-6 (?)


Polyethylene glycol. The 6 tells you how long the chain is.

Does it stop your mouth from freezing?

The message
from Chris Bacon contains these words:

Polyethylene glycol. The 6 tells you how long the chain is.

Does it stop your mouth from freezing?

Only down to minus 30C

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Tom Anderson wrote in
.li:

On Sun, 7 May 2006, Adrian Tupper wrote:

David Hansen wrote in
:

On 06 May 2006 17:19:27 GMT someone who may be Adrian Tupper
wrote this:-

Indeed. I would not be happy to clean my teeth with water from
*any* tap which wasn't directly mains fed. If my hand-basins had
cold supplies from attic tanks (which they don't!), I'd use a jug
of
water
from a mains supply - such as the kitchen tap, or even bottled
water.

I'm wondering how on earth I'm still alive.

Ditto, decades of cleaning my teeth with water from cold tanks and
I'm still alive. If some of the posters are to be believed I must be
amazingly healthy to fight off all the bugs:-)

A sense of proportion is necessary. Ten people a day are killed on
UK roads.

Exactly. For some reason we tolerate loss of life on roads more than
pretty well anything else I can think of.

IMNERHO, because (a) the deaths are spread out in time and space, and
so don't seem like a single problem and (b) we all [1] know that to do
something about it, we'd have to change our own habits, or at least
put up with greater restrictions on our own lives; these factors
combine to enable us to ignore the problem very efficiently.

tom

[1] Those of us who drive motor vehicles on the highway, anyway.

We're all complicit? Yes, I suppose so. But some of us try very hard
to minimise risk. Others go 10mph or much more above speed limits,
drink alcohol before, use mobile phones during, fail to slow down in
poor weather and countless other misdemeanours. IIRC drink and drugs
account for something like half the road deaths, or contribute to them
or something.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

Owain wrote:

Frankly, I'd be more concerned about what lives on the average
toothbrush.

Especially if it's stored near a toilet.

Why?
Do "germs" in the toilet multiply and gro to the point they can leap out
of the bowl and go off on a toothbrush hunt?


--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://Water-Rower.co.uk - Worlds best prices on the Worlds best Rower.

On Sun, 7 May 2006 08:25:08 +1000, "Neryl Chyphes" wrote:

I clean my teeth with cold water (no toothpaste on the toothbrush). Then rinse.

Then clean again with toothpaste on the brush. Then rinse.

No sure where the habit came from.

Works for me.

N.

I do it the opposite way. First clean with toothpaste then brush again with
plain water. Because I don't want that buildup of toothpaste in my mouth.

Ora

Pet @ wrote:
Owain wrote:
Frankly, I'd be more concerned about what lives on the average
toothbrush.
Especially if it's stored near a toilet.

Why?
Do "germs" in the toilet multiply and gro to the point they can leap out
of the bowl and go off on a toothbrush hunt?

Apparently when a washdown WC is flushed, lots of water droplets
rise into the air, and float about, covering everything in *germs*,
yuck, so if you don't want to inhale them, hold your breath before
you pull the plug, then run out very fast as soon as you've done
so. It's really quite odd that these droplets don't really seem to
cause any problem... are the "warnings" paranoia?

On Sun, 7 May 2006, Chris Bacon wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 6 May 2006, Chris Bacon wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:
David P wrote:
However what about brushing your teeth? Most people would brush their
teeth using water from the cold tap in the bathroom.

Use caustic soda for excellent results.

Some toothpaste (e.g. Maclean's Whitening, which I have some of
in the cupboard) does contain caustic soda.

I think those have got sodium bicarbonate; caustic soda is sodium
hydroxide, which is altogether different.

Yes, I know. Let me get the tube for you:

My apologies.

Although whether it contains any actual sodium hydroxide, it having been
mixed with the (presumably fairly acidic) other ingredients, is a
debatable point, albeit one where the debate heads straight into the
semantics of ionic compounds ...

Caustic soda would be a very effective tooth-cleaning agent; the
problem is that it would also be a rather effective flesh-dissolving
agent as well.

It only mentions keeping teeth healthy, not gums wuggf umnumnum blblbblb
mmfff.

And *that*s why it's not called 'fingerpaste'.

tom

--
There's no future.

Chris Bacon wrote:

Apparently when a washdown WC is flushed, lots of water droplets
rise into the air, and float about, covering everything in *germs*,
yuck, so if you don't want to inhale them, hold your breath before
you pull the plug,

There's a plug on your toilet?
Funky, most of us have to make do with a flush.
g



Greg

--

Work In Progress
No spam: ficus = no(n)

On Mon, 8 May 2006, Adrian Tupper wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote in
.li:

On Sun, 7 May 2006, Adrian Tupper wrote:

David Hansen wrote in
:

A sense of proportion is necessary. Ten people a day are killed on
UK roads.

Exactly. For some reason we tolerate loss of life on roads more than
pretty well anything else I can think of.

IMNERHO, because (a) the deaths are spread out in time and space, and
so don't seem like a single problem and (b) we all [1] know that to do
something about it, we'd have to change our own habits, or at least put
up with greater restrictions on our own lives; these factors combine to
enable us to ignore the problem very efficiently.

[1] Those of us who drive motor vehicles on the highway, anyway.

We're all complicit? Yes, I suppose so. But some of us try very hard
to minimise risk.

I was thinking more along the lines of intrusive safety measures; if we
valued human life more than our own convenience, we'd impose blanket 10
mph speed limits in towns, and enforce them, enforce all existing
safety-related rules properly, punish all driving offences by
disqualification, re-test everyone every five years, etc. To do that, we'd
have to pay more tax, put up with agonisingly slow drives, and forego
those minor infractions most of us commit. But we don't, so we haven't.

Others go 10mph or much more above speed limits, drink alcohol before,
use mobile phones during, fail to slow down in poor weather and
countless other misdemeanours.

Very true. I salute your adult approach to driving.

IIRC drink and drugs account for something like half the road deaths, or
contribute to them or something.

Hmm, hadn't heard that statistic. Let me see ... according to:

http://www.ias.org.uk/factsheets/drink-driving.pdf

Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504644-05.hcsp

Class A drugs and marijuana are involved in 6% and 12% respectively of
deaths, although if we're anything like the US:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

Most of those cases will involve alcohol too.

tom

--
There's no future.

Tom Anderson wrote:
Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504644-05.hcsp

The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
of pedestrians & cyclists.

I'm posting from uk.d-i-y - is this thread an imposition elsewhere?

Owain wrote:

When you flush the toilet, aerosolised **** wafts around the room. This
is particularly bad if your toothbrush is between the toilet and the
extractor fan.

Perhaps a trip to the doctors might be more in order?
Either that, or your extractor far is infinitely too powerful!
My logs sink to the bottom of the pan and the water, on flushing,
sluices it away silently with with minimum surface disturbance.

I wouldn't like to use your bathroom if the **** hits the fan!

My bathroom has door (air intract) - toothbrushes - basin - bath -
toilet - fan (air extract)

Yeuch. so your tooth brushes get the full force of all the
Staphylococcus floating around your house?


--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://Water-Rower.co.uk - Worlds best prices on the Worlds best Rower.

Chris Bacon wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504644-05.hcsp

And another thing. That document seems to advocate reducing the limit
from 80 milligrammes/100ml of blood to 50mg/100ml, "to be in line
with Europe". AFAIK:

France has about five times the proportion of "drink related" incidents
than the UK;

France has a lower limit (50) at which a simple fine is levvied, and
another limit (80) at which drivers may be banned.

Anyone know whether above are actually true?

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
of pedestrians & cyclists.

It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Apparently when a washdown WC is flushed, lots of water droplets
rise into the air, and float about, covering everything in *germs*,
yuck, so if you don't want to inhale them, hold your breath before
you pull the plug, then run out very fast as soon as you've done
so. It's really quite odd that these droplets don't really seem to
cause any problem... are the "warnings" paranoia?

Of course they are. There's a very good reason that the human body has a
broad-spectrum and highly capable immune system. Bacteria and viruses are
absolutely ubiquitous, and the stronger your immune system, the better your
chance of surviving a drug-resistant pandemic. I'm not saying that people
should go out of their way to expose themselves to germs, but the recent
obsession with hand-washing, antibacterial soaps, and doctors prescribing
antibiotics at every turn cannot be good for the collective humane immune
response, and is based on both the cleanliness industries and the drug
industries using paranoia to boost sales.

Interesting aside.... I don't know if this program has made it to the
international scene, but in the US there are a couple of Hollywood special
effects guys that do a quasi-science TV show called "Myth Busters". One of
the myths they examime is what surfaces in the house have the most germs.
Kitchen counters and floors are abominable, as are bathroom floors. Oddly
enough, the toilet (WC) seat is one of the cleanest places in the house.
Anyway, as part of this show, they showed that fecal coliform bacteria have
a disconcerting habit of spreading to all parts of the bathroom as a result
of the small amount of aerosol generated when flushing.

Eric Lucas

On 8 May 2006 23:36:56 +0200, Chris Bacon wrote:

|Tom Anderson wrote:
| Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to:
|
| http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504644-05.hcsp
|
|The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
|bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
|the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
|of pedestrians & cyclists.

A tiny sniff of alcohol has significant effects on driving/walking/cycling
ability.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:28:18 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

|In article ,
| Chris Bacon wrote:
| The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
| bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
| the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
| of pedestrians & cyclists.
|
|It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.

How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

On Mon, 8 May 2006 21:59:36 +0100 someone who may be Tom Anderson
wrote this:-

I was thinking more along the lines of intrusive safety measures; if we
valued human life more than our own convenience, we'd impose blanket 10
mph speed limits in towns, and enforce them, enforce all existing
safety-related rules properly, punish all driving offences by
disqualification, re-test everyone every five years, etc.

When the Health & Safety Executive were empire building a decade or
so ago they thought that transport was a good way to do this. They
got their grubby little hands on railway safety (and made the once
world respected Railway Inspectorate something of a laughing stock
after they had installed their Factory Inspectors in it). They then
looked at extending their empire to road safety, but ran away
screaming when they considered it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On 8 May 2006 23:36:56 +0200, Chris Bacon wrote:

|Tom Anderson wrote:
| Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to:
|
| http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504644-05.hcsp
|
|The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
|bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
|the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
|of pedestrians & cyclists.

A tiny sniff of alcohol has significant effects on driving/walking/cycling
ability.

I don't think you mean what you wrote.

A 'tiny sniff of alcohol', meaning nasal inhalation of a small amount
of alcohol vapour has no measurable effect on performance. Point me to
a study that disagrees. Mass spectometry of the blood will show
presence of alcohol, and uninformed wishful thinking makes the crass
leap from 'alcohol was detected in the blood' to 'there was enough
alcohol to affect performance'.

I am well aware of studies that show ingestion of one 'unit' of ethanol
(10 ml) has measurable effect on performance. What I haven't seen is
any statement that the effect is greater than the natural variation of
performance in a population. Safety nuts think the only acceptable risk
is zero risk, which is both irrational and unachievable.

The spinning and bending of the truth that converts the killing of a
pedestrian by a teetotal Quaker driving into them after the pedestrian
had a dose of cough medicine into an alcohol related accident shows the
contempt campaigners (and government departments and quangos with an
agenda) have for the truth.

Sid

Following up to Tom Anderson

if we
valued human life more than our own convenience, we'd impose blanket 10
mph speed limits in towns, and enforce them, enforce all existing
safety-related rules properly, punish all driving offences by
disqualification, re-test everyone every five years, etc. To do that, we'd
have to pay more tax, put up with agonisingly slow drives, and forego
those minor infractions most of us commit. But we don't, so we haven't.

its a matter of balance, being reasonably safe while being able
to get a reasonable move on etc. If safety was *everything* we
would just stay at home as much as possible. We could stop people
having anything to drink if driving that day or week, that should
shut the rest of the country pubs and stop people having a bottle
of wine with thier dinner and it might save one life a year or
so. Why not ban cars and other risky things altogether and make
life so dull most people would probably kill themselves anyway?

What we could do of course, instead of more and more arbitary
rules and more enforecement but *only* when it can be done
mechanically, actually try and get people to pay attention and
drive according to what they can see.
How many of you have ever seen people slow when passing parked
cars (for instance) rather than either driving to the speed limit
or ignoring it? Its the same in heavy fog/spray on the motorway,
how many carry on at the same speed as when its clear, I usually
drive well aove the speed limit on clear motorways, if it starts
pouring with rain, I find dozens of people going past me at 70,
unable to see anything ahead, I have to put my low visability
light on (probably illegally) in the hope they wonr pile into the
back of me.
In town you would need a 10 mph speed limit to make it safe, as
you say, which is impractical. What you actually need is people
to drive past obstacles that could conceal a person or car *very*
slowly and make up the time on empty bits of road (I mean empty,
not most peoples false perception of empty).
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Chris Bacon

so if you don't want to inhale them, hold your breath before
you pull the plug, then run out very fast as soon as you've done
so. It's really quite odd that these droplets don't really seem to
cause any problem... are the "warnings" paranoia?

yes.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Chris Bacon

The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
of pedestrians & cyclists.

about one in five drink drive prosecutions are "morning after", I
wonder how many of those are people are causing risk? Lowering
the limit would catch auntie with her glass of sherry, what you
want to do is catch more of the people who are actually drunk and
likely to drive in a risk tolerant way (the real danger in drink
driving) I dont see why reaction times are that important, unless
youre a totally useless driver, which is of course why we have a
lot of the rules in the first place, I suppose.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The message
from The Reid contains these words:

about one in five drink drive prosecutions are "morning after", I
wonder how many of those are people are causing risk?

I once had a bloke turn up for a minibus test who was incapable after
the night before. He flatly denied he was drunk so we walked down the
police station and took a voluntary breath test.

The dibble said "I ain't got my hat on, so this is unofficial, but if
you go and get in that bus I'll see you from here and be out to nick
you". He was way over the limit.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Following up to

Safety nuts think the only acceptable risk
is zero risk, which is both irrational and unachievable.

but its not stopping them trying for it.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On 9 May 2006 01:21:05 -0700, wrote:

|
|Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| On 8 May 2006 23:36:56 +0200, Chris Bacon wrote:
|
| |Tom Anderson wrote:
| | Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to:
| |
| | http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504644-05.hcsp
| |
| |The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
| |the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
| |of pedestrians & cyclists.
|
| A tiny sniff of alcohol has significant effects on driving/walking/cycling
| ability.
|
|I don't think you mean what you wrote.

Just quoting OP
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

On Tue, 9 May 2006, The Reid wrote:

Following up to Tom Anderson

if we valued human life more than our own convenience, we'd

its a matter of balance, being reasonably safe while being able to get a
reasonable move on etc.

Exactly. We balance safety against freedom to move; the balance at present
indicates that we value the convenience we currently have more than a
couple of thousand lives a year. Or rather, the convenience we would stand
to lose if we tightened up on safety against the hundreds of lives we'd
save by doing it.

If safety was *everything* we would just stay at home as much as
possible.

A strawman argument, as you well know.

tom

--
Argumentative and pedantic, oh, yes. Although it's properly called
"correct" -- Huge

On Tue, 09 May 2006 02:20:00 GMT, wrote:


Interesting aside.... I don't know if this program has made it to the
international scene, but in the US there are a couple of Hollywood special
effects guys that do a quasi-science TV show called "Myth Busters". One of
the myths they examime is what surfaces in the house have the most germs.
Kitchen counters and floors are abominable, as are bathroom floors. Oddly
enough, the toilet (WC) seat is one of the cleanest places in the house.
Anyway, as part of this show, they showed that fecal coliform bacteria have
a disconcerting habit of spreading to all parts of the bathroom as a result
of the small amount of aerosol generated when flushing.

A UK programme called something like "So you think you are safe"
appeared recently on Sky 3 demonstrating the same thing. Toilet
flushing will never be the same again.

My pet hates are doors on the entrances into public/restaurant/pub
loos that open inwards. You just KNOW some dirty ******* won't wash
their hands so making it almost a complete waste of time for anyone
else to do it. Outward opening doors, as long as they don't have
stupid latches, can at least be opened with a convenient nudge of the
bum or upper arm, keeping your hands relatively clean (assuming
autoshut off taps and decent soap)

--

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.

How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years.

It occurs naturally in some foodstuffs. And IIRC is generated by some
bodily processes.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Following up to Tom Anderson

its a matter of balance, being reasonably safe while being able to get a
reasonable move on etc.

Exactly. We balance safety against freedom to move; the balance at present
indicates that we value the convenience we currently have more than a
couple of thousand lives a year. Or rather, the convenience we would stand
to lose if we tightened up on safety against the hundreds of lives we'd
save by doing it.

As one of the safer countries roadwise, we are probably near the
point where saving more lives requires disporortionate arbitary
restrictions like driving at 10mph, thats why I advocate using
more intelligent approaches like the use of matching speed to
conditions.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Matt

You just KNOW some dirty ******* won't wash
their hands so making it almost a complete waste of time for anyone
else to do it

just press the hand drier button as you pass like everybody else.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Tue, 09 May 2006 13:29:50 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

|In article ,
| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| |It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.
|
| How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years.
|
|It occurs naturally in some foodstuffs. And IIRC is generated by some
|bodily processes.

As a dedicated foodie, **very** little. Home made mince meat which smells
of alcohol has the alcohol boiled off when June made Mince Pies.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

In article
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:28:18 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

|In article ,
| Chris Bacon wrote:
| The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
| bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
| the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
| of pedestrians & cyclists.
|
|It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.

How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years.

Alcohol can occur naturally in fruit juice. I'd guess you absorb some
if you use aftershave too, or inhale fumes from products that use
alcohol as a solvent.

On Tue, 09 May 2006 13:37:17 +0100, The Reid
wrote:

|Following up to Tom Anderson
|
| its a matter of balance, being reasonably safe while being able to get a
| reasonable move on etc.
|
|Exactly. We balance safety against freedom to move; the balance at present
|indicates that we value the convenience we currently have more than a
|couple of thousand lives a year. Or rather, the convenience we would stand
|to lose if we tightened up on safety against the hundreds of lives we'd
|save by doing it.
|
|As one of the safer countries roadwise, we are probably near the
|point where saving more lives requires disporortionate arbitary
|restrictions like driving at 10mph, thats why I advocate using
|more intelligent approaches like the use of matching speed to
|conditions.

If you look at the roads, you will see that they are improving road safety
by small things like putting yellow lines and skid resistant surfaces
approaching roundabouts etc.

Not to mention speed cameras which slow most drivers down.

Also treating casualties better with the good old NHS.
You have all done a First Aid course so that you can do the *right* things
if you come across an accident.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

In article ,
Matt wrote:
My pet hates are doors on the entrances into public/restaurant/pub
loos that open inwards. You just KNOW some dirty ******* won't wash
their hands so making it almost a complete waste of time for anyone
else to do it.

Then give the handle a wash at the same time as your hands...

--
*Constipated People Don't Give A Crap*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| |It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.
|
| How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years.
|
|It occurs naturally in some foodstuffs. And IIRC is generated by some
|bodily processes.

As a dedicated foodie, **very** little.

True - but still measurable.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On 9 May 2006 01:21:05 -0700, wrote:

|
|Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| On 8 May 2006 23:36:56 +0200, Chris Bacon wrote:
|
| |Tom Anderson wrote:
| | Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to:
| |
| | http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504644-05.hcsp
| |
| |The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes
| |the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood
| |of pedestrians & cyclists.
|
| A tiny sniff of alcohol has significant effects on driving/walking/cycling
| ability.
|
|I don't think you mean what you wrote.

Just quoting OP

I apologise. I should have directed the blunderbuss at the OP. The
point stands 'though.

Cheers,

Sid.

In uk.d-i-y, The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tom Anderson

its a matter of balance, being reasonably safe while being able to get a
reasonable move on etc.

Exactly. We balance safety against freedom to move; the balance at present
indicates that we value the convenience we currently have more than a
couple of thousand lives a year. Or rather, the convenience we would stand
to lose if we tightened up on safety against the hundreds of lives we'd
save by doing it.

As one of the safer countries roadwise, we are probably near the
point where saving more lives requires disporortionate arbitary
restrictions like driving at 10mph, thats why I advocate using
more intelligent approaches like the use of matching speed to
conditions.

Indeed, the current strategy of slowing traffic down seems to waste a
small amount of many lives (extra time spent getting where you're going
is largely wasted time) to save lives. There has to be a balance.

--
Mike Barnes

On Tue, 09 May 2006 14:55:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

|In article ,
| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| | |It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.
| |
| | How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years.
| |
| |It occurs naturally in some foodstuffs. And IIRC is generated by some
| |bodily processes.
|
| As a dedicated foodie, **very** little.
|
|True - but still measurable.

Not in the case of most cooked foodstuffs where the alcohol evaporates
during the cooking. Uncooked stuff does not get a chance to become
alcoholic when kept in the fridge.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Following up to Mike Barnes

Indeed, the current strategy of slowing traffic down seems to waste a
small amount of many lives (extra time spent getting where you're going
is largely wasted time) to save lives. There has to be a balance.

I also note falling asleep is now a common form of motorway
accident.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

In article ,
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|In article ,
| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| | |It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.
| |
| | How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years.
| |
| |It occurs naturally in some foodstuffs. And IIRC is generated by some
| |bodily processes.
|
| As a dedicated foodie, **very** little.
|
|True - but still measurable.

Not in the case of most cooked foodstuffs where the alcohol evaporates
during the cooking. Uncooked stuff does not get a chance to become
alcoholic when kept in the fridge.

I don't want to eat cold fruit etc. ;-)

I'm also teetotal, but a recent blood test for a medical showed small
traces of alcohol. The explanation from the doctor was - as I remember it
- the one I gave earlier. I suppose it could have come from mouthwash,
though.

--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

David Hansen wrote in
:

On Mon, 8 May 2006 21:59:36 +0100 someone who may be Tom Anderson
wrote this:-

I was thinking more along the lines of intrusive safety measures; if
we
valued human life more than our own convenience, we'd impose blanket
10
mph speed limits in towns, and enforce them, enforce all existing
safety-related rules properly, punish all driving offences by
disqualification, re-test everyone every five years, etc.

When the Health & Safety Executive were empire building a decade or
so ago they thought that transport was a good way to do this. They
got their grubby little hands on railway safety (and made the once
world respected Railway Inspectorate something of a laughing stock
after they had installed their Factory Inspectors in it). They then
looked at extending their empire to road safety, but ran away
screaming when they considered it.

Yes, that illustrated the point David. Every time there's a rail
"incident" we have inquiries etc etc etc. At one point there was a
suggestion that pedestrians should no longer be allowed to cross
railways at footpath crossings because someone got hit once. Apply that
one to roads, eh?


--
Adrian
Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me