The Reid wrote in
:

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.

I don't think so. Enforcing 30mph should be a big step - apparently a
pedestrian stands twice as much chance of surviving a 30mph crash than a
40mph crash IIRC.

The emphasis is on carful driving. I've never hit a pedestrian and many
others haven't either. You can't eliminate all accidents because you
have to at least rely on people to take care. If someone walks in front
of your car because they're daydreaming there's not a lot that can be
done. But for a motorist to stop paying attention and veer off the road
into a bus queue (happened here a year or few back) is more serious.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

Mike Barnes wrote in
:

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.


I don't agree with that "utilitarian" viewpoint. You can't add up lots
of small amounts of different people's inconveniences and say that's
worse than one or two fatalities. We only experience our own
inconvenience, which I'm happy to do if it avoids pedestrians being hit.


--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The Reid wrote in
:

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.

Yes, and I wonder if figures are available for accidents that could have
been avoided by keeping distance. Nothing annoys me more on a motorway
than some git moving lane so that they're 10 feet in front of me.
That's far more dangerous than driving at 80mph on an open road.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The message
from Dave Fawthrop contains these words:

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

Chatting to the checkout girl at Tesco today - apparently the "Over 18?"
flag comes up for vanilla essesnce - it's about 30% so can't be sold to
kids.

They'd have to be fairly desperate to drink vanilla essence!

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

On 09 May 2006 17:43:57 GMT someone who may be Adrian Tupper
wrote this:-

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 don't agree with that "utilitarian" viewpoint. You can't add up lots
of small amounts of different people's inconveniences and say that's
worse than one or two fatalities. We only experience our own
inconvenience, which I'm happy to do if it avoids pedestrians being hit.

This discussion assumes that slowing motor traffic down means
journeys take longer. In reality what it usually means (in the
places it is done) is that occupants of motor vehicles reach the
next queue a few seconds later than they would have done.


--
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 Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

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.

You don't need to worry.
Its virtually impossible to be teetotal, just as its virtually impossible to
be a vegetarian and is impossible to be a vegan.

The message
from Adrian Tupper
contains these words:

I don't think so. Enforcing 30mph should be a big step - apparently a
pedestrian stands twice as much chance of surviving a 30mph crash than a
40mph crash IIRC.

Rather more than twice, IIRC.

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

Guy King wrote:
The message
from Adrian Tupper
contains these words:

I don't think so. Enforcing 30mph should be a big step - apparently a
pedestrian stands twice as much chance of surviving a 30mph crash than a
40mph crash IIRC.

Rather more than twice, IIRC.

If you believe the UK Department for Transport he

URL:http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm

the statistics a

" * You are more likely to kill a pedestrian driving at 40mph than
30mph.
* Specifically, if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 20 mph,
the pedestrian has a 95% chance of survival.
* If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the
survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at
40mph, the pedestrian's chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to
80% for a child)."

Regards,

Sid

wrote in message
oups.com...

" * You are more likely to kill a pedestrian driving at 40mph than
30mph.
* Specifically, if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 20 mph,
the pedestrian has a 95% chance of survival.
* If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the
survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at
40mph, the pedestrian's chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to
80% for a child)."

Unless you are one of those nutters with roo bars on their 4x4 as they are
specifically designed to kill children.

On Tue, 09 May 2006 17:31:19 +0100, The Reid
wrote:

I also note falling asleep is now a common form of motorway
accident.

Thought that had been a common cause all time motorway has existed.

On 09 May 2006 17:45:49 GMT, Adrian Tupper
wrote:

Yes, and I wonder if figures are available for accidents that could have
been avoided by keeping distance. Nothing annoys me more on a motorway
than some git moving lane so that they're 10 feet in front of me.
That's far more dangerous than driving at 80mph on an open road.

In Norway such driving is heavily fined :-) You are caught if you
cannot say one - two - three with a pause btw. each word from tjhe
time the prevous pass a point until you yourself pass the same point.
On motor roads there some times are such warning points.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You don't need to worry.

Oh I'm not worried. I'm not physically allergic to alcohol or anything
like that. I just liked it rather too much. ;-)

Its virtually impossible to be teetotal, just as its virtually
impossible to be a vegetarian and is impossible to be a vegan.

Yes - I'd agree with that.

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

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

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
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.

Lots in fresh bread.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:02:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| 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.
|
|Lots in fresh bread.

No alcohol at all in the finished product.
It has all been evaporated off in the cooking.
--
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 , Alf
Christophersen writes
On 09 May 2006 17:45:49 GMT, Adrian Tupper
wrote:

Yes, and I wonder if figures are available for accidents that could have
been avoided by keeping distance. Nothing annoys me more on a motorway
than some git moving lane so that they're 10 feet in front of me.
That's far more dangerous than driving at 80mph on an open road.

In Norway such driving is heavily fined :-) You are caught if you
cannot say one - two - three with a pause btw. each word from tjhe
time the prevous pass a point until you yourself pass the same point.
On motor roads there some times are such warning points.


In that case they can come and apply that to the driving that doesn't
happen on the A14 in Cambridgeshire. Mind you, it'd never be enforced as
all the bobbies, the ones outside of the box, are in the station being
too PC.

And to think we're gonna get the misguided bus..as effective as ****ing
on a house fire;(.......
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:02:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| 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.
|
|Lots in fresh bread.

No alcohol at all in the finished product.
It has all been evaporated off in the cooking.
Mm. I'll bake you some sometime.

Most definitely NOT all evaporated off...need to leave it about an hour
to get rid of it all.

Following up to Adrian Tupper

Yes, and I wonder if figures are available for accidents that could have
been avoided by keeping distance. Nothing annoys me more on a motorway
than some git moving lane so that they're 10 feet in front of me.

after undertaking you.

a problem that could be corrected by drivers who think themself
safe non aggressive drivers but who sit in the middle lane with
the left one free thus both allowing the undertake to be possible
and causing the L3 queue in the first place.

That's far more dangerous than driving at 80mph on an open road.

On an emptyish daytime dry motorway I dont think 80 or 90 carried
any significant risk at all and we arent driving the cars we were
when the 70 limit came in.
--
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 David Hansen

This discussion assumes that slowing motor traffic down means
journeys take longer. In reality what it usually means (in the
places it is done) is that occupants of motor vehicles reach the
next queue a few seconds later than they would have done.

that may be true of urban traffic, its not true on the sort of
journey where time taken is of any significance.
--
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 Adrian Tupper

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.

I don't think so. Enforcing 30mph should be a big step - apparently a
pedestrian stands twice as much chance of surviving a 30mph crash than a
40mph crash IIRC.

even better don't hit as many or do so very slowly because you
slowed where you couldn't see. Nobody does this or encourages it.

The emphasis is on carful driving. I've never hit a pedestrian and many
others haven't either. You can't eliminate all accidents because you
have to at least rely on people to take care. If someone walks in front
of your car because they're daydreaming there's not a lot that can be
done.

Yes there is, drive very slowly where that is possible, faster
where it isn't.

But for a motorist to stop paying attention and veer off the road
into a bus queue (happened here a year or few back) is more serious.

and wont be ended by strict speed limit enforcement, in fact
removing driver judgment from the equation will possibly do the
opposite for concentration.
--
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 Adrian Tupper

I don't agree with that "utilitarian" viewpoint. You can't add up lots
of small amounts of different people's inconveniences and say that's
worse than one or two fatalities. We only experience our own
inconvenience, which I'm happy to do if it avoids pedestrians being hit.

so you *would* support a 10 mph urban speed limit?
--
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 dennis@home

Unless you are one of those nutters with roo bars on their 4x4 as they are
specifically designed to kill children.

or probably most high fronted 4x4s with or without roo bars.
although the official vehicle safety info doesnt show this,
marking down some cars like the Audi TT because you may bang your
head on something very hard just under the bonnet. I dont know if
they take account of being knocked down rather than up and they
ignored my enguiry.
Then theres poorer steering, poorer braking.......
--
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 Reid wrote:
Following up to Adrian Tupper

I don't agree with that "utilitarian" viewpoint. You can't add up lots
of small amounts of different people's inconveniences and say that's
worse than one or two fatalities. We only experience our own
inconvenience, which I'm happy to do if it avoids pedestrians being hit.

so you *would* support a 10 mph urban speed limit?

hah. I'd love to see them out with radar guns busting all the joggers
doing 11mph on the pavement.

AND all the cyclists doing 15mph.

I did hear an apocryphal story of a horse clocked at 35mph galloping
through a '30mph' village once..

On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:28:25 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

I did hear an apocryphal story of a horse clocked at 35mph galloping
through a '30mph' village once..

Motor vehicle speed limits don't apply to human or animal powered
vehicles.


--
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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Reid wrote:
Following up to Adrian Tupper
I don't agree with that "utilitarian" viewpoint. You can't add up
lots of small amounts of different people's inconveniences and say
that's worse than one or two fatalities. We only experience our own
inconvenience, which I'm happy to do if it avoids pedestrians being hit.

so you *would* support a 10 mph urban speed limit?

hah. I'd love to see them out with radar guns busting all the joggers
doing 11mph on the pavement.

AND all the cyclists doing 15mph.

Does the law apply to cyclists and pedestrians in the same way as
it does to motors?

Following up to The Natural Philosopher

No alcohol at all in the finished product.
It has all been evaporated off in the cooking.
Mm. I'll bake you some sometime.

Most definitely NOT all evaporated off...need to leave it about an hour
to get rid of it all.

I saw numbers for that, sauces etc with alcohol only burn off
*most* in routine cooking, so Daves an alky after all, but why
does he care about trace alcohol anyway? Oh yes, I remember.
--
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 The Reid

I don't think so. Enforcing 30mph should be a big step - apparently a
pedestrian stands twice as much chance of surviving a 30mph crash than a
40mph crash IIRC.

even better don't hit as many or do so very slowly because you
slowed where you couldn't see. Nobody does this or encourages it.

also (picking up your 30 point)
It might be a good idea to move all the speed enforcement away
from 70 limit roads to 30 ones and instead of having speed
cameras on wide roads where people tend to ignore speed limits
concentrate them on 30 and 20 roads that are a pedestrian
accident risk
I think a government initiative that went "OK, lets drop the
ignored 70 Mway limit and let people get on with journeys but
lets give up some of the time saved by driving slowly where there
are people, putting a speed camera outside every school and in
every shopping road and a 30 limit through every village, (they
wont make money of course as only the small % of people speed in
those places, but it will save lives without slowing journeys or
making driving a pain in the butt, I would have thought)
--
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 David Hansen

I did hear an apocryphal story of a horse clocked at 35mph galloping
through a '30mph' village once..

Motor vehicle speed limits don't apply to human or animal powered
vehicles.

If I get a NIP in the post, can I return it on the basis my car
uses horsepower?
--
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 Reid wrote in
:

Following up to The Reid

I don't think so. Enforcing 30mph should be a big step - apparently
a pedestrian stands twice as much chance of surviving a 30mph crash
than a 40mph crash IIRC.

even better don't hit as many or do so very slowly because you
slowed where you couldn't see. Nobody does this or encourages it.

also (picking up your 30 point)
It might be a good idea to move all the speed enforcement away
from 70 limit roads to 30 ones and instead of having speed
cameras on wide roads where people tend to ignore speed limits
concentrate them on 30 and 20 roads that are a pedestrian
accident

Yes, I believe the pedestrian should be protected more. Idiots speeding
through residential areas are probably the worst offenders of all.

I think a government initiative that went "OK, lets drop the
ignored 70 Mway limit and let people get on with journeys but
lets give up some of the time saved by driving slowly where there
are people, putting a speed camera outside every school and in
every shopping road and a 30 limit through every village, (they
wont make money of course as only the small % of people speed in
those places, but it will save lives without slowing journeys or
making driving a pain in the butt, I would have thought)

They may make money. It's not unusual for the limit to be 20mph outside
schools and I think this is frequently ignored.


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

The Reid wrote in
:

Following up to Adrian Tupper

I don't agree with that "utilitarian" viewpoint. You can't add up
lots
of small amounts of different people's inconveniences and say that's
worse than one or two fatalities. We only experience our own
inconvenience, which I'm happy to do if it avoids pedestrians being
hit.

so you *would* support a 10 mph urban speed limit?

We already have 20mph in sensitive places and I don't think moving to
10mph is going to help. If it does, then I would rather the road is
closed completely and traffic is routed somewhere away from pedestrians
as a 10mph road is next to useless for most.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

David Hansen wrote in
:

On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:28:25 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

I did hear an apocryphal story of a horse clocked at 35mph galloping
through a '30mph' village once..

Motor vehicle speed limits don't apply to human or animal powered
vehicles.

Interesting. Mind you, I'm not aware of any of these causing serious
accidents.

(but someone will no doubt find a story or a statistic)

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The Reid wrote in
:

Following up to Adrian Tupper

Yes, and I wonder if figures are available for accidents that could
have
been avoided by keeping distance. Nothing annoys me more on a
motorway
than some git moving lane so that they're 10 feet in front of me.

after undertaking you.

Usually. But I dispise them regardless the angle they come from.

a problem that could be corrected by drivers who think themself
safe non aggressive drivers but who sit in the middle lane with
the left one free thus both allowing the undertake to be possible
and causing the L3 queue in the first place.

Undertaking is OK IMO in such circumstances. Just don't pull out until
you're safely enough in front to do so.


That's far more dangerous than driving at 80mph on an open road.

On an emptyish daytime dry motorway I dont think 80 or 90 carried
any significant risk at all and we arent driving the cars we were
when the 70 limit came in.

Indeed. But as I say, as long as drivers keep a safe distance. Many a
pile-up can be prevented.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

Guy King wrote in
:

The message
from Dave Fawthrop contains
these words:

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

Chatting to the checkout girl at Tesco today - apparently the "Over
18?" flag comes up for vanilla essesnce - it's about 30% so can't be
sold to kids.

They'd have to be fairly desperate to drink vanilla essence!

Probably more pleasant than sniffing evo stick.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me

The message
from Adrian Tupper
contains these words:

They'd have to be fairly desperate to drink vanilla essence!

Probably more pleasant than sniffing evo stick.

When I was a kid we used to make our own chloroform. We were too middle
class to have heard of glue-sniffing.

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

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

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

Indeed, it turns most people into driving/walking/cycling *gods*.

Or, at least, they *think* they are...

Owain writes:
When you flush the toilet, aerosolised **** wafts around the room.

It has that air of authenticity, but the mythbusters went to town on this
one. Try as they might, they had to admit defeat. Flying bacteria didn't
manage any mass migration onto their array of toothbrushes.

Myth busted!! Pity though, as it's a goodun.
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

"John Savage" wrote in message
om...
Owain writes:
When you flush the toilet, aerosolised **** wafts around the room.

It has that air of authenticity, but the mythbusters went to town on this
one. Try as they might, they had to admit defeat. Flying bacteria didn't
manage any mass migration onto their array of toothbrushes.

Myth busted!! Pity though, as it's a goodun.

All it actually shows is that the mythbusters were unable to do it, not that
it doesn't happen.
They often do things wrong.

Take the suspension bridge they built for the marching soldiers myth.
It wasn't a suspension bridge at all.
It was supported by the deck as the "support" wires weren't anchored to the
ground so offered no support at all.

Following up to Adrian Tupper

so you *would* support a 10 mph urban speed limit?

We already have 20mph in sensitive places and I don't think moving to
10mph is going to help. If it does, then I would rather the road is
closed completely and traffic is routed somewhere away from pedestrians
as a 10mph road is next to useless for most.

I broadly agree. But I'm sure you see that you are therefore
agreeing with the utility argument, but just at a different
chosen trade off.
--
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 Adrian Tupper

but it will save lives without slowing journeys or
making driving a pain in the butt, I would have thought)

They may make money. It's not unusual for the limit to be 20mph outside
schools and I think this is frequently ignored.

they are all 30 round here, not that that's the point. The
cameras I pass on one regular daily run are thusly
several on 50 dual (was 70 until recently,so you can picture the
layout)
one on steep downhill 30 (no particular hazards)
none outside schools, shopping centres or junctions where low
speed would be good.
I'm inclined to conclude they are placed where most people speed,
rather than protecting hazards to pedestrians. The downhill 30
seems designed to catch out relatively "innocent" people who fail
to brake enough for the downhill.

I might as well have a rant about the one on the A303 while I'm
at it Picture up hill two lanes, down hill one lane (crawler lane
type layout) . At end of stretch of uphill 2 lane a blind brow.
If there's one spot in the whole country where high speed is
safer, its there. Overtake and get back in well before the brow
in case a lunatic is in wrong lane or there's some other hazard
over the hill. so what do they do? Put a speed camera on the safe
bit so people end up still overtaking when they get near the
brow. no doubt they noted accidents at that spot so concluded a
camera would cure the problem. A nice piece of concrete island
would cure it much better. the camera just has the effect of
stooping overtaking and moving overtakes somewhere less suitable.
--
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 uk.d-i-y "Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;?)" 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?

Haven't you seen South Park?

Following up to Mike Barnes

But as I say, as long as drivers keep a safe distance. Many a pile-up
can be prevented.

Of course. A pile-up is, by definition, a failure to keep a safe
distance. :-)

except for the ones who are asleep :-)
--
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