"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:32:53 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
No it doesn't. Cars per hour is similar, but since they are all going
faster, they all take less time to get there. Overall you get more
journey miles per hour at higher speeds.

If you follow the 2 second rule then a lane of traffic can pass 1800
vehicles per hour regardless of speed.

This is true but the two second rule is set assuming 70 mph as the top
limit.
If it were 100 mph it would need to be a 4 second rule to have a similar
safety margin.

On 2007-05-12 16:59:55 +0100, "Dave Liquorice" said:

On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:33:10 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Look at the bright side though, free food! ;-)

If you eat dead animals...

Look at it this way..... humans are made of...... meat.....

On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:32:53 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
No it doesn't. Cars per hour is similar, but since they are all going
faster, they all take less time to get there. Overall you get more
journey miles per hour at higher speeds.

If you follow the 2 second rule then a lane of traffic can pass 1800
vehicles per hour regardless of speed.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Its not me that keeps bringing up motorways and 100+ mph driving.

Do you not? Too busy telling everyone they can't drive and you are
the only one who can it seems. Perhaps one day we will all be a good
as you eh?

I'd rather be alive. How he has managed it must be down to pure luck.

Its, ok, he likes to live everyone else's lives for them, so it does not
matter if he one of his own.

That is a pretty cogent POV.

dennis@home wrote:

I have always said that *all* drivers are idiots.
You will find things are much safer when you realise its true.


And so will you, when you realise that you are no exception.


The fdufference between us, is I know I can be and strive very hared not
to be.

YOU think you know all the answers. You will never ever learn anything
ever again, because of that.

I see a bad situation: I don;t think 'he was in the wrong, he nearly
killed me, he should be banned'

I think 'he was in the wrong, he nearly killed me, he should be banned,
but he won't be, and he probably never even realised how much of a
dennis he was being. Now how can I adjust my driving, not to the rules,
because he although he would swear he was slavishly adhering to them was
actually a mile wide of them, but to make sure if I ever meet a dennis
like that again, its not me he kills'

You know the chap. There you are minding your own business at 20mph when
Dennis pulls out in front of you and you have zero chance of missing.
His response? 'You must have been speeding, I was only doing 5mph'

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

You are making the same error as all the other fast drivers.
You assume it takes skill to drive too fast.
No, it take nothing more than a heavy right foot to drive TOO fast. It
takes a huge amount of skill to drive fast..and stay alive.

If it were that easy, why aren't YOU the next Hamilton? Gotta be an
easy way to earn a million..
The hospital bed was occupied.

There you go then. You couldn't do it could you?

I am not a TV presenter and I don't need to do stupid things for kicks.
They don't have that job because they are good drivers or do you think
they are?
Er..you obviously don't know who Lewis Hamilton is, do you?

Do I need to care?


Its patently obvious that you care for nothing except your own self
importance and pious righteousness. Whether you should care or not about
your ignorance, is something only the coroner at your inquest will
probably ever stop to consider.

Why you ask my opinion on the matter is beyond me. You are not in the
slightest bit interested in it, on any other.

raden wrote:
In message om, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:33:10 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Look at the bright side though, free food! ;-)

If you eat dead animals...

That's how they are normally eaten ...

My wife picks up live oysters from the beach and wolfs em down. Yuk.
Like someone else's cold fishy snot.

wrote:
On 12 May,
John Rumm wrote:

The highway code shows a minimum car to car distance of 2 seconds, which
at 70mph equates to 62m at or just over 200 feet. At 100mph that equates
to 88m.

You know you really ought to have a look at the book if you are going to
quote it, rather than just making up stuff.

Modelling the system mathematically putting in reasonable G figures, the two
second rule breaks down at about 60 mph, and is nearer 3 seconds at 70mph,
equating to 300 feet. doing the sums for 100mph would be somewhere near
double the distance. Unless you want to end up in the boot (or worse) of the
vehicle in front.

This doesn't take into account the almost doubling of kinetic energy
available for destruction at 100mph as against 70mph.

The 2 second rule is a reasonably accurate rule of thumb, over the speed
range it is intended for. If everyone would stick to it at 70mph, things
would be a lot better than they are at the moment on our roads.


The rule is not intended to prevent collisions with stationary objects
or we would all be dead. It is there as a decent enough time to assess
the behaviour of the car in front and get the brakes on as fast as he
has them on.

If there IS a pile up ahead, and cars have come to a halt, it's totally
inadequate anyway..

The best you can hope for is that you are not just slavishly following
some rule, but can see issues up to a couple of miles ahead. One reason
I don't like being the meat in a 56mph trick sandwich. No visibility,
even if you drop way back.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:33:10 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Look at the bright side though, free food! ;-)

If you eat dead animals...

Too right, they are delicious!

SWMBO is a veggi, so we sort of cancel each other out...

(although I have a feeling the chicken tikka masala she had the other
night may have been stretching the definition of a vegetable a bit!)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:32:53 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
No it doesn't. Cars per hour is similar, but since they are all going
faster, they all take less time to get there. Overall you get more
journey miles per hour at higher speeds.

If you follow the 2 second rule then a lane of traffic can pass 1800
vehicles per hour regardless of speed.

Yup. and 1800 cars per hour is 1800 car miles per hour at 1mph, and
180,000 car miles per hour at 100mph.


In short, you can get 100 times the journey miles in, in a similar time
period.

Now you may believe that car traffic will expand until congestion forces
it to stop, but there is a limit to the distances we need to travel on
a daily basis. If for no other reason than cost.

dennis@home wrote:
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:32:53 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
No it doesn't. Cars per hour is similar, but since they are all going
faster, they all take less time to get there. Overall you get more
journey miles per hour at higher speeds.
If you follow the 2 second rule then a lane of traffic can pass 1800
vehicles per hour regardless of speed.

This is true but the two second rule is set assuming 70 mph as the top
limit.
If it were 100 mph it would need to be a 4 second rule to have a similar
safety margin.


Wow, so 2 = 4 is 'similar'

An art student, obviously 'they are both numbers aren't they?'


Thank god you didn't write the highway code.

wrote:

Modelling the system mathematically putting in reasonable G figures, the two
second rule breaks down at about 60 mph, and is nearer 3 seconds at 70mph,
equating to 300 feet. doing the sums for 100mph would be somewhere near
double the distance. Unless you want to end up in the boot (or worse) of the
vehicle in front.

The rule is not designed to leave a complete stopping distance between
you and the car in front (i.e if the car in front stopped dead, two
seconds is not enough to avoid hitting it). All the separation distance
does if allow enough time to react to what is going on ahead. If they
start breaking hard, you have time to do the same etc.

(also why one looks at what is happening on the road well ahead of just
the car in front)

This doesn't take into account the almost doubling of kinetic energy
available for destruction at 100mph as against 70mph.

Agreed, and I don't think it is intended to. It does not take into
account the vastly increased mass of an artic either for example.

The 2 second rule is a reasonably accurate rule of thumb, over the speed
range it is intended for. If everyone would stick to it at 70mph, things
would be a lot better than they are at the moment on our roads.

If people allowed anything like two seconds, that would be a great
improvement for starters.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2007-05-12 21:42:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

raden wrote:
In message om, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:33:10 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Look at the bright side though, free food! ;-)

If you eat dead animals...

That's how they are normally eaten ...

My wife picks up live oysters from the beach and wolfs em down. Yuk.
Like someone else's cold fishy snot.

Wonderful things. Oysters I mean, not cold fishy snot. She is a lady
of sophistication....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

I have always said that *all* drivers are idiots.
You will find things are much safer when you realise its true.

And so will you, when you realise that you are no exception.

Do you have a problem?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/all


The fdufference between us, is I know I can be and strive very hared not
to be.

YOU think you know all the answers. You will never ever learn anything
ever again, because of that.

I see a bad situation: I don;t think 'he was in the wrong, he nearly
killed me, he should be banned'

I think 'he was in the wrong, he nearly killed me, he should be banned,
but he won't be, and he probably never even realised how much of a dennis
he was being. Now how can I adjust my driving, not to the rules, because
he although he would swear he was slavishly adhering to them was actually
a mile wide of them, but to make sure if I ever meet a dennis like that
again, its not me he kills'

You know the chap. There you are minding your own business at 20mph when
Dennis pulls out in front of you and you have zero chance of missing. His
response? 'You must have been speeding, I was only doing 5mph'

Why not try a reasoned argument instead of childish personal attacks.
I realise that its hard to argue sensibly when you are in the wrong but at
least try and remain objective.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

You are making the same error as all the other fast drivers.
You assume it takes skill to drive too fast.
No, it take nothing more than a heavy right foot to drive TOO fast.
It takes a huge amount of skill to drive fast..and stay alive.

If it were that easy, why aren't YOU the next Hamilton? Gotta be an
easy way to earn a million..
The hospital bed was occupied.

There you go then. You couldn't do it could you?

I am not a TV presenter and I don't need to do stupid things for kicks.
They don't have that job because they are good drivers or do you think
they are?
Er..you obviously don't know who Lewis Hamilton is, do you?

Do I need to care?


Its patently obvious that you care for nothing except your own self
importance and pious righteousness. Whether you should care or not about
your ignorance, is something only the coroner at your inquest will
probably ever stop to consider.

Why you ask my opinion on the matter is beyond me. You are not in the
slightest bit interested in it, on any other.


I find it interesting that you think a F1 racing driver is an example of a
good driver.

While I accept that he is probably quite skilled at controlling his F1 car
on a track it has no bearing on whether he is a good driver.

Oh and BTW he has crashed twice recently.

http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-...amilton-crash/
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-15-2006-102476.asp

Maybe he was going too fast?

On Sat, 12 May 2007 00:04:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Urbanites again. Street lights or lit motorways are an urban/built up
area thing

You are joking surely?

Not really, it depends on how your define urban/built up area. If
buildings have less than 1/4 of a mile of clear open space between them
it's urban/built up to me. B-)

On motorways the average traffic levels appear to dictate if it's lit or
not. The M6 is lit all round Manchester and probably all the way down to
the M1 but going north the illumination stops after the M55 to Blackpool
(or maybe after Lancaster). It suddenly gets rather dark, they don't run
the illumination down in level it just stops.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007 14:33:10 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Look at the bright side though, free food! ;-)

If you eat dead animals...

If God didn't mean us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of
meat.

--
Mike Barnes

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

You are making the same error as all the other fast drivers.
You assume it takes skill to drive too fast.
No, it take nothing more than a heavy right foot to drive TOO fast.
It takes a huge amount of skill to drive fast..and stay alive.

If it were that easy, why aren't YOU the next Hamilton? Gotta be an
easy way to earn a million..
The hospital bed was occupied.

There you go then. You couldn't do it could you?

I am not a TV presenter and I don't need to do stupid things for kicks.
They don't have that job because they are good drivers or do you think
they are?
Er..you obviously don't know who Lewis Hamilton is, do you?
Do I need to care?


Its patently obvious that you care for nothing except your own self
importance and pious righteousness. Whether you should care or not about
your ignorance, is something only the coroner at your inquest will
probably ever stop to consider.

Why you ask my opinion on the matter is beyond me. You are not in the
slightest bit interested in it, on any other.


I find it interesting that you think a F1 racing driver is an example of a
good driver.

While I accept that he is probably quite skilled at controlling his F1 car
on a track it has no bearing on whether he is a good driver.

Oh and BTW he has crashed twice recently.

http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-...amilton-crash/
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-15-2006-102476.asp

Maybe he was going too fast?


Or not fast enough. Cars with downforce have a middle range of speeds at
which the tyre and gravity alone wont hold them to the road, and there
isn't enough downforce either.

However that aside, it was you that raised the straw man. You said
anyone can drive fast, not anyone can crash fast.

In article om,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:

On motorways the average traffic levels appear to dictate if it's lit or
not.

A few years ago, I asked this question of a chap from TRL who
I meet very occasionally. Traffic levels do figure, but it's
not that simple. It depends on the expected accident levels
when the motorway was built or at last major refit. But it
also depends how much money is available and if it runs out
before the job is completed (as happened on some dark sections
of the M25 which were supposed to be lit). Streetlamps do make
a significant contribution to accident reduction particularly
at intersections, but going in and out of lit areas itself does
seem to raise accident rates, so you can't just put them at
the odd accident blackspot.

I suspect the economics may be changing too. 20 years ago, they
were in effect almost free to run in terms of power, as they
used the spare overnight capacity of our nuclear plant which
was otherwise wasted. This isn't true anymore and they do cost
a lot to run nowadays. As I often do motorway runs at 2am and
find the roads empty with thousands of lamps lighting my way
into the distance, I do wonder how long that may continue.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

I suspect the economics may be changing too. 20 years ago, they
were in effect almost free to run in terms of power, as they
used the spare overnight capacity of our nuclear plant which
was otherwise wasted. This isn't true anymore and they do cost
a lot to run nowadays. As I often do motorway runs at 2am and
find the roads empty with thousands of lamps lighting my way
into the distance, I do wonder how long that may continue.

Until some climate scientist works out the death rate from GW and convinces
the government that it will be higher than the death rate from dark roads?
Not that any climate scientist will want to state how many deaths are going
to happen when its all just *if* ATM.

wrote:
On 13 May,
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

I suspect the economics may be changing too. 20 years ago, they
were in effect almost free to run in terms of power, as they
used the spare overnight capacity of our nuclear plant which
was otherwise wasted. This isn't true anymore and they do cost
a lot to run nowadays. As I often do motorway runs at 2am and
find the roads empty with thousands of lamps lighting my way
into the distance, I do wonder how long that may continue.

I feel the lighting level is often excessive, and a reduction to 25% of
current levels would hardly be noticed. I feel the transition between lit and
unlit sections should be extended by am area of in between levels, to enable
eyes (and speeds) to get adjusted to the new levels.


I notice they've reduced the lighting levels in some underpasses round
here with the result that, on a sunny day, you can't see a damned thing
until your eyes adjust

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

As I often do motorway runs at 2am and
find the roads empty with thousands of lamps lighting my way
into the distance, I do wonder how long that may continue.

I find any preaching to me by government that I shoudl use low-E
lightbulbs and unplug my TV at night to be complete hogwash while the
country spends millions on lighting up the sky and creating light
pollution. A ban on all street and architectural lighting might just
convince me that they were serious rather than simply looking for
excuses to raise taxation.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 23:12:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 22:53:23 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:34:08 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.


You seem to persist that you cannot be driving *too fast* if you are
driving at the speed limit.

Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I said "not exceeding" I didn't say "at"

In terms of the application of speed limits, one is either driving
within it or one is not - that is clear.



You are wrong

No. Within the terms of what I said (as opposed to what you think I
said) I am perfectly correct.

- there are many circumstances where you can be.

That's a different issue.

Once you extend the definition of "too fast" to mean "too fast for the
road surface, the vehicle, the weather conditions and any of umpteen
other criteria" then the judgment becomes a subjective one and you are
entering into a circular argument.

One can always say that an accident wouldnt have happened if the driver
had been traveling more slowly. On the same argement you can argue
that it wouldn't have happened had he reached the point of the accident
at a different time by a couple of seconds.

However, one cannot say that this means that speed is the *cause* of
the accident. It isn't.

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.


Just for interest how many times have you been caught for speeding,
and how many times for other motoring offences?

judith wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 23:12:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 22:53:23 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:34:08 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?
If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.

You seem to persist that you cannot be driving *too fast* if you are
driving at the speed limit.
Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I said "not exceeding" I didn't say "at"

In terms of the application of speed limits, one is either driving
within it or one is not - that is clear.


You are wrong
No. Within the terms of what I said (as opposed to what you think I
said) I am perfectly correct.

- there are many circumstances where you can be.
That's a different issue.

Once you extend the definition of "too fast" to mean "too fast for the
road surface, the vehicle, the weather conditions and any of umpteen
other criteria" then the judgment becomes a subjective one and you are
entering into a circular argument.

One can always say that an accident wouldnt have happened if the driver
had been traveling more slowly. On the same argement you can argue
that it wouldn't have happened had he reached the point of the accident
at a different time by a couple of seconds.

However, one cannot say that this means that speed is the *cause* of
the accident. It isn't.

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.


Just for interest how many times have you been caught for speeding,
and how many times for other motoring offences?

Countless times for speeding, and once when they couldn't prove it, they
followed me for miles and decided I had a 'below minimum tread tyre'

The next time they tried that one I drove into the next county.

Oh and once for crossing a white line. For the same reason. It was a
convenient excuse that was a question of their word against mine.

Oh, and one speeding offence at least was on evidence that they
concocted. It simply wasn't true, and demonstrably so.

You are. it seems, guilty of whatever two police officers decide to
charge you with if you are alone in a car.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Just for interest how many times have you been caught for speeding,
and how many times for other motoring offences?

Countless times for speeding, and once when they couldn't prove it, they
followed me for miles and decided I had a 'below minimum tread tyre'

The next time they tried that one I drove into the next county.

Oh and once for crossing a white line. For the same reason. It was a
convenient excuse that was a question of their word against mine.

Oh, and one speeding offence at least was on evidence that they concocted.
It simply wasn't true, and demonstrably so.

You are. it seems, guilty of whatever two police officers decide to charge
you with if you are alone in a car.


Maybe if you didn't flag up as a persistent offender when they do a check
you wouldn't get any hassle?

On Wed, 9 May 2007 09:24:03 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-09 09:00:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 23:30:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.

You can precisely measure the distance that the driver could see and the
stopping distance of the car.

Rubbish. The stopping distance is an average across a range of cars under
certain conditions.

One cannot say that this applies to a given car under all conditions so
it's a notional value.


If the stopping distance exceeds the visibility distance he was driving
too
fast whatever the speed limit.

Irrelevant. This then enters the realms of opinion.

No it is a fact that he was travelling too fast.

No it isn't.

The only *absolute* definition of "traveling too fast" is if the speed
limit is exceeded.



The question about speed is purely physics and nothing to do with opinion at
all.

No it isn't. Published stopping distances are based on averages under
particular conditions.

To determine the complete story would require details of the precise
vehicle conditions, the road surface and conditions and just as
importantly the reaction time of the driver.

There is a substantial variation between reaction time among individuals.


The only opinions are about him being competent and if it was a reasonable
thing to do.


Incorrect. The only *definition* of "too fast" is exceeding the speed limit


You need to tell any one of the organisations who use the term
differently from you as they obviously don't know as much about such
things as yourself (NB not a mention of "speed limits")

ROSPA : Driving too fast for the conditions is a major cause of
crashes.

Roadsafe: Driving Too Fast Kills More People Than Any Other
Traffic Law Violation

RAC: When asked what their biggest fears were on motorways respondents
cited: 15 per cent - motorists driving too fast

AA Foundation for Road Safety Research: A failure that increased the
likelihood of the accident happening : Driving too fast for the
situation

UK Transport Research Laboratory: humps cause discomfort to vehicle
occupants if their vehicle is traveling too fast.

On Wed, 9 May 2007 17:45:49 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-09 15:49:09 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:

No it isn't. Published stopping distances are based on averages under
particular conditions.

The ones in the highway code also seem to assume that you are driving a
Moris 1100 with crossply tyres and non servo assisted drum brakes.
(which since the published numbers have not changed since that may have
been the case is perhaps not surprising)

I was working on one project which involved the occasional trials
session over at the TRL research labs site. Some of the guys took the
opportunity to play with some of the measurement gear on their own
cars. They found that even the most mundane modern family cars could
stop in less than half the distance presented by the highway code.

Exactly. Same here, and I live quite close to TRL.


"and I live quite close to TRL."

I wondered what it was that made you feel that you were an authority
on driving speeds.

On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:44:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

judith wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 23:12:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 22:53:23 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:34:08 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?
If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.

You seem to persist that you cannot be driving *too fast* if you are
driving at the speed limit.
Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I said "not exceeding" I didn't say "at"

In terms of the application of speed limits, one is either driving
within it or one is not - that is clear.


You are wrong
No. Within the terms of what I said (as opposed to what you think I
said) I am perfectly correct.

- there are many circumstances where you can be.
That's a different issue.

Once you extend the definition of "too fast" to mean "too fast for the
road surface, the vehicle, the weather conditions and any of umpteen
other criteria" then the judgment becomes a subjective one and you are
entering into a circular argument.

One can always say that an accident wouldnt have happened if the driver
had been traveling more slowly. On the same argement you can argue
that it wouldn't have happened had he reached the point of the accident
at a different time by a couple of seconds.

However, one cannot say that this means that speed is the *cause* of
the accident. It isn't.

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.


Just for interest how many times have you been caught for speeding,
and how many times for other motoring offences?

Countless times for speeding, and once when they couldn't prove it, they
followed me for miles and decided I had a 'below minimum tread tyre'

The next time they tried that one I drove into the next county.

Oh and once for crossing a white line. For the same reason. It was a
convenient excuse that was a question of their word against mine.

Oh, and one speeding offence at least was on evidence that they
concocted. It simply wasn't true, and demonstrably so.

You are. it seems, guilty of whatever two police officers decide to
charge you with if you are alone in a car.


The question was aimed at Andy Hall

On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:12:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

judith wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:42:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


|!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
|!the roads would be a far safer place.

In reality *both* happen.
Small fine and a few points for speeding which *may* cause an accident.
Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by speeding.
Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

You do talk some ****e.

What about the person who could not see round a bend, traveled around
the bend and found a stalled car which he ran straight in to - where
if he had been traveling more slowly he would have had time to break
and avoid the stopped car.

He caused the accident by speeding - it will probably be you next time
it happens.

No, he caused the accident by doing something silly,

which was ???????? - travelling too fast - unless you can identify
something else - feel free to do so.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:13:37 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , judith
writes
On Tue, 8 May 2007 17:59:50 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message
from "Andy McKenzie" contains these words:

Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

I beg to differ. Come into a corner or a junction too fast and your speed
has caused an accident that results. Fail to react in time to an unexpected
hazard and your speed has caused the accident. You can balance a few angels
on the head of a pin by claiming that it was driving too fast for the
conditions or the road that was to blame, rather than the speed, but the
fact is speeding can cause accidents, and makes accidents worse when they
happen.

You are confusing speeding with excessive speed. Speeding is exceeding
the speed limit.......

or traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions.

No it's not

Speeding is exceeding the speed limit set down for a particular stretch
of road

Travelling at a speed faster than that which is safe for a particular
stretch of road is dangerous driving

It can be either:
A vehicle is considered to be speeding if it travels at excessive
speed for the prevailing conditions, or above the posted speed limit.

(PS use Google if you don't believe me - no need to apologise)

The message
from judith contains these words:

Travelling at a speed faster than that which is safe for a particular
stretch of road is dangerous driving

It can be either:
A vehicle is considered to be speeding if it travels at excessive
speed for the prevailing conditions, or above the posted speed limit.

(PS use Google if you don't believe me - no need to apologise)

You shouldn't believe all you read on the internet otherwise you will
quickly become convinced that black really is white under an alias.

The anti car lobby conflate speeding with excessive speed precisely
because it turns a minor cause of death into a major one but accident
statistics would not differentiate between them if they were synonymous.

--
Roger Chapman

On 2007-05-13 21:12:03 +0100, judith said:

On Wed, 9 May 2007 17:45:49 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-09 15:49:09 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:

No it isn't. Published stopping distances are based on averages under
particular conditions.

The ones in the highway code also seem to assume that you are driving a
Moris 1100 with crossply tyres and non servo assisted drum brakes.
(which since the published numbers have not changed since that may have
been the case is perhaps not surprising)

I was working on one project which involved the occasional trials
session over at the TRL research labs site. Some of the guys took the
opportunity to play with some of the measurement gear on their own
cars. They found that even the most mundane modern family cars could
stop in less than half the distance presented by the highway code.

Exactly. Same here, and I live quite close to TRL.


"and I live quite close to TRL."

I wondered what it was that made you feel that you were an authority
on driving speeds.

Not being a woman driver helps as well.....

On 2007-05-13 21:09:00 +0100, judith said:


Incorrect. The only *definition* of "too fast" is exceeding the speed limit


You need to tell any one of the organisations who use the term
differently from you as they obviously don't know as much about such
things as yourself (NB not a mention of "speed limits")

ROSPA : Driving too fast for the conditions is a major cause of
crashes.

Roadsafe: Driving Too Fast Kills More People Than Any Other
Traffic Law Violation

RAC: When asked what their biggest fears were on motorways respondents
cited: 15 per cent - motorists driving too fast

AA Foundation for Road Safety Research: A failure that increased the
likelihood of the accident happening : Driving too fast for the
situation

UK Transport Research Laboratory: humps cause discomfort to vehicle
occupants if their vehicle is traveling too fast.

I don't need to do anything.

The only definitions that have any significance, are those in the Road
Traffic Acts. The rest are irrelevant because the organisations that
you mention have little to no influence on driver behaviour.

On 2007-05-13 19:29:01 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 23:12:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 22:53:23 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:34:08 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.


You seem to persist that you cannot be driving *too fast* if you are
driving at the speed limit.

Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I said "not exceeding" I didn't say "at"

In terms of the application of speed limits, one is either driving
within it or one is not - that is clear.



You are wrong

No. Within the terms of what I said (as opposed to what you think I
said) I am perfectly correct.

- there are many circumstances where you can be.

That's a different issue.

Once you extend the definition of "too fast" to mean "too fast for the
road surface, the vehicle, the weather conditions and any of umpteen
other criteria" then the judgment becomes a subjective one and you are
entering into a circular argument.

One can always say that an accident wouldnt have happened if the driver
had been traveling more slowly. On the same argement you can argue
that it wouldn't have happened had he reached the point of the accident
at a different time by a couple of seconds.

However, one cannot say that this means that speed is the *cause* of
the accident. It isn't.

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.


Just for interest how many times have you been caught for speeding,
and how many times for other motoring offences?

Once. 34mph in a 30 zone and zero for everything else. Disapointed?

Where do you hang your handbag now that cars no longer seem to have
manual chokes?

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Just for interest how many times have you been caught for speeding,
and how many times for other motoring offences?

Countless times for speeding, and once when they couldn't prove it, they
followed me for miles and decided I had a 'below minimum tread tyre'

The next time they tried that one I drove into the next county.

Oh and once for crossing a white line. For the same reason. It was a
convenient excuse that was a question of their word against mine.

Oh, and one speeding offence at least was on evidence that they concocted.
It simply wasn't true, and demonstrably so.

You are. it seems, guilty of whatever two police officers decide to charge
you with if you are alone in a car.


Maybe if you didn't flag up as a persistent offender when they do a check
you wouldn't get any hassle?


This was long before the days when they had such access to records.

The simply didn't like the length of my hair.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-13 21:09:00 +0100, judith said:


Incorrect. The only *definition* of "too fast" is exceeding the
speed limit


You need to tell any one of the organisations who use the term
differently from you as they obviously don't know as much about such
things as yourself (NB not a mention of "speed limits")

ROSPA : Driving too fast for the conditions is a major cause of
crashes.

Roadsafe: Driving Too Fast Kills More People Than Any Other
Traffic Law Violation

RAC: When asked what their biggest fears were on motorways respondents
cited: 15 per cent - motorists driving too fast

AA Foundation for Road Safety Research: A failure that increased the
likelihood of the accident happening : Driving too fast for the
situation

UK Transport Research Laboratory: humps cause discomfort to vehicle
occupants if their vehicle is traveling too fast.

I don't need to do anything.

The only definitions that have any significance, are those in the Road
Traffic Acts. The rest are irrelevant because the organisations that
you mention have little to no influence on driver behaviour.


...and have HUGE axes to grind.

The RAC is nearest te truth. Speed scares peopel. NOt because its
dangerous, but because they think it is.

In the 19h century learned doctors argued that a speed of over 30mph
would result in instant heart failure.

judith wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:13:37 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , judith
writes
On Tue, 8 May 2007 17:59:50 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message
from "Andy McKenzie" contains these words:
Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.
I beg to differ. Come into a corner or a junction too fast and your speed
has caused an accident that results. Fail to react in time to an unexpected
hazard and your speed has caused the accident. You can balance a few angels
on the head of a pin by claiming that it was driving too fast for the
conditions or the road that was to blame, rather than the speed, but the
fact is speeding can cause accidents, and makes accidents worse when they
happen.
You are confusing speeding with excessive speed. Speeding is exceeding
the speed limit.......
or traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions.
No it's not

Speeding is exceeding the speed limit set down for a particular stretch
of road

Travelling at a speed faster than that which is safe for a particular
stretch of road is dangerous driving

It can be either:
A vehicle is considered to be speeding if it travels at excessive
speed for the prevailing conditions, or above the posted speed limit.

well I never do the first, but often the second.
(PS use Google if you don't believe me - no need to apologise)

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-13 19:29:01 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 23:12:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 22:53:23 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:34:08 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is
it now the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.


You seem to persist that you cannot be driving *too fast* if you are
driving at the speed limit.

Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I said "not exceeding" I didn't say "at"

In terms of the application of speed limits, one is either driving
within it or one is not - that is clear.



You are wrong

No. Within the terms of what I said (as opposed to what you think I
said) I am perfectly correct.

- there are many circumstances where you can be.

That's a different issue.

Once you extend the definition of "too fast" to mean "too fast for the
road surface, the vehicle, the weather conditions and any of umpteen
other criteria" then the judgment becomes a subjective one and you are
entering into a circular argument.

One can always say that an accident wouldnt have happened if the driver
had been traveling more slowly. On the same argement you can argue
that it wouldn't have happened had he reached the point of the accident
at a different time by a couple of seconds.

However, one cannot say that this means that speed is the *cause* of
the accident. It isn't.

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.


Just for interest how many times have you been caught for speeding,
and how many times for other motoring offences?

Once. 34mph in a 30 zone and zero for everything else. Disapointed?

Where do you hang your handbag now that cars no longer seem to have
manual chokes?



Even I wouldn't stoop that low..;-)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Even I wouldn't stoop that low..;-)

You already have in this thread.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

A vehicle is considered to be speeding if it travels at excessive
speed for the prevailing conditions, or above the posted speed limit.

well I never do the first, but often the second.

In your opinion.
Obviously not in most peoples opinions.
But you know better despite your appalling safety record.