Norman Wells wrote:

I get a certain amount of pleasure from winding up those who think minor
matters of form matter more than content.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply).

Support may well be needed for the users, in which case support staff
and those who pay for them (All taxpayers) may be considered victims.
Crimes may well have been committed in order to get the money. Also,
which drugs? The users may be considered victims in some cases.

Just like alcohol, then?

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

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

John Williamson wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

I get a certain amount of pleasure from winding up those who think
minor matters of form matter more than content.

And in that regard, "It's been in my .sig for mumble years, and
this is only the second or third time it's been brought to my attention"
represents an unqualified success, does it?

On Feb 1, 12:39*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Ste" wrote in message

...

8

How does the driver know what he can ignore it if he doesn't see it?

Because he can ignore the object based on its position in the visual
field - and also whether the object is moving.

Like I said how can he know if he hasn't seen it.
It isn't even above and to the left when he is a few cars length away and he
should be looking that far ahead to be safe.

I repeat, he does not have to see and recognise the object. He can
completely discount the object, because it is stationary and falls in
an area of vision that is outside the usual area of relevance. There
could well be a gunman at the side of the road taking aim at the
driver, but the reality is that most drivers are not going to see him,
because experience suggests that no such thing generally needs to be
guarded against, and that limited resources of attention should be
properly focussed elsewhere to managing scenarios that do more
commonly occur.



Interesting things don't normally happen off to the left above head-
height, even less so when those things are not moving into the path of
the vehicle, and so where there is excessive demand for visual
processing, that capacity will be allocated to certain areas that
have, by experience, been found to be the places where interesting
things happen.

Like in the road in front of you where all gatso cameras have white lines
painted?

8

Indeed, I do often see the white lines on the road before I see the
camera itself, both because I'm looking at the road ahead as a matter
of course, and because the white lines are a relatively high contrast.



I would not have come to that verdict and the coroner should be
re-educated
as it was obviously poor driving.

No, it was intentional on the part of the agency that installed the
speed camera, that the driver should have reacted in that way - that
he should have devoted more attention to his speed, and therefore
necessarily less attention to anything else.

The driver should always be aware of his speed and the limit.

He should be aware of the pedestrian stepping out, above virtually all
other concerns. As I've said, you have simply enforced a reallocation
of concentration away from scanning for pedestrians, to additional
checks of vehicle speed (including visual checks of the speedometer).

All drivers are aware of their speed and the limit, to a certain
degree of accuracy - you don't do 70mph in the town centre without
realising it, but it is quite easy to do 35mph in a 30 limit without
realising it, which these days is enough to attract automatic
sanction. So too, most drivers do not place a great deal of emphasis
on recalling posted limits, because posted limits are redundant to the
judgments about correct speed that drivers must make constantly (if
they did not, they would soon find themselves involved in collisions,
even below the speed limit).

Additional accuracy in regulating speed therefore requires additional
mental resources. Most drivers cannot judge their speed within 1 or
2mph based simply on routine observation of the surroundings - it
requires active checking of instrumentation.

By experience of being stung by speed cameras, most drivers have
learned that their existing allocation of mental resources to speed
control has been insufficient, so they have started checking their
speedometers more often - particularly in the presence of the speed
camera, the guarding against which is the sole reason for making such
checks, and where such checks are of paramount importance if you are
to avoid certain criminal penalty.



If he can not do so while still paying attention to other things he is not
capable of driving safely and will have an accident.

But you are starting from the implicit assumption that it is necessary
that drivers be able to monitor their compliance with posted limits
within a margin of +0 mph, whilst also carrying out all the other
mental tasks associated wtih driving and to the same standard as they
do when not required to monitor their compliance with posted limits so
carefully.

The fact is, the mental resources required to monitor and maintain
one's compliance with speed limits, has to met from a necessarily
limited supply of those resources. There will *always* be situations
where circumstances are such that the full extent of potentially
relevant sensory information overwhelms your ability to process it
all, and you have to start processing what is most relevant and
discarding information that is least relevant. Most people discard the
speed camera, and concentrate on the pedestrian - until, that is, they
have paid several £60 fines and attracted several penalty points. Then
they start to treat the speed camera as more important, in relative
terms, than they did before, and other important things start to be
treated as less relevant.




The case you quote proves this to be true.

What is true, is that the driver in that case, was not capable of
driving as safely in the presence of speed cameras, as he would have
without the presence of the speed camera. Since the sole purpose of
the speed camera was (supposedly) to improve safety, it failed in that
regard.



If you can't take in all the information that you need to drive safely
then
you are driving too fast for your abilities!

This is where people like yourself wander off into fantasy land. No
driver can take in all the information at all times that they need to
drive "safely" in all possible circumstances.

Then they shouldn't drive in those circumstances.

But logically, one of the solutions to this conundrum is to remove the
speed cameras themselves, since that will achieve a change in the
prevailing circumstances, in a way that reduces the mental demands of
driving and improves safety.




Even people on foot,
moving by definition at walking pace, manage to fall off kerbs into
traffic, or even simply walk straight into traffic, or even fall down
uncovered manholes.

They don't have to pass a test to show they are competent.

That's really neither here nor there. The point is that even people
moving very slowly, manage to make mistakes that will reasonably lead
to fatality. And most people must in fact demonstrate their
competence, before being allowed out on their own to walk - children
are not simply left to wander the streets, and certainly not near busy
roads, and adults who cannot walk the streets safely are locked up for
their own protection.



You also missed out falling through manhole covers which is what happened to
me.

I can see why you are somewhat disgruntled about road safety!



In the end, people like yourself hold drivers to impossibly high
standards simply because you don't like cars and want to drive them
off the roads, not because you have any legitimate safety (or
otherwise humanistic) agenda. When drivers react adversely to your
ploys, as the driver clearly did in this case, you use that to try to
argue for further restrictions, when in fact it was the restriction
that worsened road safety in the first place.

It was poor driving, plain and simple.
If it were the case that the camera did cause the crash then how come nearly
every other driver can manage to drive past it without problems.

Because it might cause a statistical increase in danger without
causing every single driver to crash on every occasion, and above all
the particular scenario required a pedestrian to step out into the
path of traffic (itself an relatively uncommon occurrence) right in
front of the speed camera.



IME the biggest problem with cameras is that the speeders see them and then
jump on the brakes to about 5-10 mph below the limit. They don't spend lots
of time looking at their speedo so that they run into an object in the road.
The problem is easily solved by hiding the cameras.

But then you cause even more of what I've described, in terms of
reallocating mental resources away from other important tasks, to the
sole task of identifying hard-to-see speed cameras - in which,
generally, braking reactions will be even more last-minute and
extreme, instead of planned somewhat in advance.

Or perhaps I'll just do what you want, and accelerate to 25mph in a
30mph zone, and then turn Radio 4 on and concentrate on that instead!

Whatever your lectures about unsafe driving, I (along with most other
drivers) am satisfied that my driving is of a reasonably safe
standard, even though I (and most others) exceed posted limits as a
matter of routine, and that it is not necessary to drive any safer. I
accept intellectually that my driving is not perfectly safe, but
emotionally my standard of driving causes me no particular concern -
if it did, I would change it so as to alleviate my concerns.

By menacing me with the criminal law, you do not make me more
concerned with safety - you simply make me more concerned with
avoiding the sanctions of the criminal law. And if, for example, you
successfully force me to reduce my speed so as to avoid criminal law
penalties, then the surfeit of driving safety that I would then be
enjoying, would simply allow me to bankroll more dangerous styles of
driving (in particular, those styles that require less skill and less
concentration), because there would be no point me engaging in the
various safety-improving behaviours that I do presently, that I do
only to alleviate what would otherwise be an unacceptable level of
danger given the speeds that I currently drive at.




I've pointed out myself before now that the prevalence of red-light
cameras in particular (and combined speed/red-light cameras), simply
means that I have now reallocated attention away from checking the
junction and road ahead (including the behaviour of pedestrians at any
associated crossings), to carefully scanning the side of the road for
the presence of a camera whilst actively inhibiting my desire to
accelerate, and being braced for an emergency stop on a much more
cautionary basis than usual.

Why, if you are driving legally there is no need to worry about the cameras.

I am not sure that I will be driving legally. If there is no red-light
camera, then I fully intend to proceed in circumstances where, if
there is a camera, I would not proceed - not necessarily because I am
sure that I am about to run a red light, but because I know it is on
the margin and I am not willing to risk being on the wrong side of the
margin, whereas without the camera I would be willing to take that
risk. So too, if there is no speed camera, then I will usually be
driving faster than if there is a speed camera, at a speed that I have
determined to be appropriate.



There are millions of drivers who don't have a problem with cameras because
they don't speed and don't try to jump amber lights.

Quite. The fact is, I do speed and I do jump amber lights, so I do
have that problem.



Hidden cameras would remove the drivers that do have a problem with speeding
and jumping lights.

Not unless the cameras were completely undetectable, and even then, as
I've said, I might well actually overtly comply with the law, but in a
way that nevertheless subverts its underlying aim. For example, I
might simply start slamming on at amber at every junction - causing
the very accidents the camera was supposed to prevent, in which no
doubt the driver behind will occasionally swerve to avoid rear-ending
me, and straight into the bus stop full of children.



If a pedestrian then steps out and gets run down, then that is the
choice that people like yourself have made - you can't have my
attention allocated to both tasks, because I do not have enough of it
to allocate to all possible factors,

You are driving beyond you abilities then.

I would certainly be driving beyond the abilities that you are
demanding.



You need to slow down and stop being an idiot.

I have no intention of doing so, unless I am forced, and if I am
forced then I fully intend to offset my enforced cooperation with an
increase in risky behaviours elsewhere, of the kind that you will not
be able to detect as reliably as my speed or red-light jumping.



and you've made it clear by
installing a camera and imposing draconian penalties, that you want my
attention to be focussed first and foremost on maintaining a lower
speed, and stopping earlier at the amber, than I would otherwise
choose to do without the presence of the camera.

I haven't, I would hide them.
However I can't see why they are a problem to anyone who knows how to drive
properly.

"Proper driving", according to the vast majority of drivers, does not
include a strict adherence to the posted limit. Your commitment to the
idea that such adherence is essential to proper driving, seems to be
based on the idea that the posted limit is a better reflection of a
reasonably safe speed than the majority of drivers' own judgments, but
not all of us are so respectful to authority or blindly trusting of
supposed experts.



According to what you have stated however, a driver who had spotted
the pedestrian and given full attention to avoiding hitting that
pedestrian, but who had not spotted the bright yellow camera would be
a worse driver.

Yes, he would have been a worse driver than one that didn't need to worry
about the speed camera because he knew how fast he was going and what the
speed limit was. You would be amazed at how easy that is.

Drivers like yourself (I assume you are a driver in the first place)
are simply dickheads.

The fact is, most of us do not spend all our time on the roads
monitoring speed limits and our compliance with them - even by your
own logic, it is easier to observe the speed camera and make a
temporary adjustment of speed, than to observe every change of posted
limit and keep one's speed constantly in accordance with that limit.

I don't have a problem with knowing how fats I am going or what the limit
is.

I can only imagine you either put a lot more mental effort than I do
into monitoring speed, or you drive appreciably slower than I do in
general (so that, even with the inaccuracy, you are almost invariably
driving under the limit), or (a remote but real possibility) you are
simply not telling the truth.



I don't see why another driver should either.
If they do then they have a problem with their ability and need to address
it by either getting better or by changing how they drive.
If that means they have to drive at 20 mph then so be it.

Unfortunately, few of us are going to do that unless we are forced -
and like I say, if we are forced to drive so slowly, we'll just react
by driving otherwise more dangerously, so that we are returned to the
situation in which the vast majority of drivers, are driving in a
manner that they themselves consider to be reasonably safe (and no
more safe than that).



The general observed nature of the road at any time, is enough for
most drivers to infer what is an acceptable speed, with a much greater
degree of accuracy and appropriateness than any crude posted speed
limit can achieve. It is the hallmark of a good driver to be able to
do this.

A good driver obeys the rules. that way nobody gets caught by him doing
something he should not.

On the contrary, I think a good driver should break the rules. I think
this comes down to more fundamental differences in our general
approach to authority. I do not respect any rules, unless I accept
their underlying reason for being, and I often go out of my way to
break those rules whose underlying reason I do not accept. I think
perhaps you just take them on blind trust.



I wonder, do you ever have any trouble on unrestricted rural roads,
given that the posted limit will be of little guidance in choosing an
appropriate speed? If you have no trouble inferring an appropriate
speed from general observation, then why do you feel the need to
rigidly follow posted limits at all?

I don't. The limit is a maximum not a required minimum.

But how do you choose the minimum? If your judgment of the minimum
exceeds the legal limit, do you say to yourself "I must be wrong", or
do you say "the person who put up the sign must be wrong"?

On Feb 1, 1:27*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:29:48 +0000, Steve Walker

wrote:
Good for you. But have you had to juggle normal life and caring for
someone 24/7. I can say that I have not first hand, but certainly second
hand. Even caring for my family when my wife was ill (not requiring 24/7
care) was enough to lose me my employment and saddle me with massive
debts which I am now working extended hours to clear. A couple more
months and we would have lost our home.

Why should that situation be anyone's problem apart from you, your
friends and your family?

When my wife was in a similar situation, it would certainly have
caused me just as much hardship as it did you *if* I had provided all
the necessary care personally. *There were however plenty of friends
and family members who between them were able and willing to provide
the additional necessary care without significant detriment to
themselves.

The idea that complete strangers had any sort of duty to solve the
problem by paying for her care did not even cross my mind.

A better way to conceive of the question, is whether 'complete
strangers' have the right to penalise you for engaging in behaviours
that are pro-social and reasonably necessary. For example, should it
be the case that your boss is entitled to exclude you from your means
of earning, because you took a certain period of time off to care for
your wife and family? Should your bank be able to evict you from your
home, because you temporarily need to miss a payment for the same
reason?

You might say there was some sort of agreement that gave the employer
or bank the right to do this, but in fact I doubt Steve gave any real
assent to such behaviour - both his employer and his bank, were able
to use their relative position of power, to impose choices and
contractual terms on him that he considered unreasonable (or perhaps,
later realised how unreasonable they were), but was forced to accept
because of the inequality of power.

On Feb 1, 2:57*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:56:31 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

In the end, people like yourself hold drivers to impossibly high
standards simply because you don't like cars and want to drive them
off the roads, not because you have any legitimate safety (or
otherwise humanistic) agenda.

Why, I'll have you know Dennis is the UK's safest driver. He must be,
he's told us so many times.

Liar.
I have always stated the opposite, i.e. all drivers are idiots, I never
excluded anyone.

I'm afraid we can't proceed in life on the basis that everyone is
incompetent at everything, and therefore no one can be permitted to do
anything.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:02:07 GMT, (Cynic) wrote:

If the hunted survives, he gains a pardon and is immediately
conscripted into a Liquidation Squad operating in Afghanistan.

And what if he succeeds in killing the hunters?

He survives, as above. The hunting participants and their families
have no comeback, having entered into the contest with no rights,
except to kill the killer.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:21:35 +0000, ®i©ardo wrote:

Do you realise how heavy the 30mm cannon is?

Yes. Which is why it would be a weapon of choice for very few.

On Feb 1, 7:59*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:16:03 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=

wrote:
IME the law-abiding people are not at all resented by the others
*unless* they act in a way that show that they regard themselves as
better than their neighbours, or are suspected of "grassing". *So long
as they live their lives as they wish, and are tolerant and reasonably
pleasant toward those who wish to live differently, there is no
problem at all.
And just how do people "act in a way that show that they regard
themselves as better than their neighbours"?

In the same way as you might get that impression from someone. *By
remaining aloof and refusing to socialise (or refusing to allow your
kids to play with their kids). *By making judgemental comments. *By
being critical of their behaviour. *By being arrogant. *Etc.

--
Cynic

That's it. Sink to the lowest level. Eh.
That remark just shows what a dolt you are.

On Feb 1, 8:08*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:24:58 +0000, John Williamson

wrote:
I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. *Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?
And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?
Name one crime *which would result in a prison term* which does not have
any victims.

Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply). *Looking at an indecent cartoon image of a child. *Having
completely consensual sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old.
Downloading a copy of "The anachist's cookbook".

--
Cynic

Now you are a complete buffon. Every one of those has victims.

On Feb 1, 11:13*pm, "Norman Wells" wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

I get a certain amount of pleasure from winding up those who think
minor matters of form matter more than content.

And in that regard, "It's been in my .sig for mumble years, and
this is only the second or third time it's been brought to my attention"
represents an unqualified success, does it?

Oh FFS, grow up.

On Feb 2, 12:58*am, Ste wrote:
On Feb 1, 2:57*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:56:31 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

In the end, people like yourself hold drivers to impossibly high
standards simply because you don't like cars and want to drive them
off the roads, not because you have any legitimate safety (or
otherwise humanistic) agenda.

Why, I'll have you know Dennis is the UK's safest driver. He must be,
he's told us so many times.

Liar.
I have always stated the opposite, i.e. all drivers are idiots, I never
excluded anyone.

I'm afraid we can't proceed in life on the basis that everyone is
incompetent at everything, and therefore no one can be permitted to do
anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have passed my advanced driving test. And that is the first thing
you are told. You assume everyone else is an idiot. Every once in a
while it turns out to be true.
It's called defensive driving.
http://www.ddtgroup.com/

On Feb 2, 8:42*am, harry wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:58*am, Ste wrote:





On Feb 1, 2:57*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:56:31 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

In the end, people like yourself hold drivers to impossibly high
standards simply because you don't like cars and want to drive them
off the roads, not because you have any legitimate safety (or
otherwise humanistic) agenda.

Why, I'll have you know Dennis is the UK's safest driver. He must be,
he's told us so many times.

Liar.
I have always stated the opposite, i.e. all drivers are idiots, I never
excluded anyone.

I'm afraid we can't proceed in life on the basis that everyone is
incompetent at everything, and therefore no one can be permitted to do
anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have passed my advanced driving test. And that is the first thing
you are told. *You assume everyone else is an idiot. *Every once in a
while it turns out to be true.
It's called defensive driving.http://www.ddtgroup.com/

I have passed my test in a large articulated vehicle (in which many of
the 'advanced' techniques of car driving are not just preferable but
necessary, requiring not just a higher standard of driving in terms of
my own vehicle, but additional guarding against, and compensation for,
the incompetence of other road users). Additionally, I am also an
experienced tanker driver of hazardous goods - and tanks have their
own particular (but certainly not unmanageable) problems.

At various times I have probably driven more miles in a month than you
drive in a year, on different types of roads all around the country.
For good measure, I also have a copy of Roadcraft on my bookshelf -
although it is a long time since I actually read it, because I
understand and implement its principles as a matter of routine.

I feel quite confident to say, that I have forgotten more about the
practice of driving, than you will ever know - and I was biding my
time for the right opportunity to point this out to you. I do not have
to assume everyone else on the road is an idiot - it is quite
glaringly obvious to me that many people are incompetent drivers,
every time I set out on the road.

In message
, Ste
writes

snip
I have passed my advanced driving test. And that is the first thing
you are told. *You assume everyone else is an idiot. *Every once in a
while it turns out to be true.
It's called defensive driving.http://www.ddtgroup.com/

I have passed my test in a large articulated vehicle (in which many of
the 'advanced' techniques of car driving are not just preferable but
necessary, requiring not just a higher standard of driving in terms of
my own vehicle, but additional guarding against, and compensation for,
the incompetence of other road users). Additionally, I am also an
experienced tanker driver of hazardous goods - and tanks have their
own particular (but certainly not unmanageable) problems.

At various times I have probably driven more miles in a month than you
drive in a year, on different types of roads all around the country.
For good measure, I also have a copy of Roadcraft on my bookshelf -
although it is a long time since I actually read it, because I
understand and implement its principles as a matter of routine.

I feel quite confident to say, that I have forgotten more about the
practice of driving, than you will ever know - and I was biding my
time for the right opportunity to point this out to you. I do not have
to assume everyone else on the road is an idiot - it is quite
glaringly obvious to me that many people are incompetent drivers,
every time I set out on the road.

Might this be an appropriate time to invite *drivers* to post details of
their driving history? Somebody with more knowledge than I could perhaps
collate the results.

eg.

Driving test attempts.

Pass date.

Approx. annual mileage, lifetime

" " " , current

Driving style, aggressive

" " normal

" " defensive

insurance claims

points on licence, total

" " " , current

location, urban

" , rural

anything else?

regards



--
Tim Lamb

On 02/02/2012 01:20, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:21:35 +0000, wrote:

Do you realise how heavy the 30mm cannon is?

Yes. Which is why it would be a weapon of choice for very few.

Come on The Incredible Hulk!

;-)

--
Moving things in still pictures

"Ste" wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 12:39 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Ste" wrote in message

...

8

How does the driver know what he can ignore it if he doesn't see it?

Because he can ignore the object based on its position in the visual
field - and also whether the object is moving.

Like I said how can he know if he hasn't seen it.
It isn't even above and to the left when he is a few cars length away and
he
should be looking that far ahead to be safe.

I repeat, he does not have to see and recognise the object. He can
completely discount the object, because it is stationary and falls in
an area of vision that is outside the usual area of relevance.

You can repeat it as often as you like, it doesn't make it true.

There
could well be a gunman at the side of the road taking aim at the
driver, but the reality is that most drivers are not going to see him,

I almost killed a copper because of that.
I saw him aiming a gun at me and I ducked.
It turns out it was a test of speed guns.
They never did adopt those, something to do with being a hazard.

because experience suggests that no such thing generally needs to be
guarded against, and that limited resources of attention should be
properly focussed elsewhere to managing scenarios that do more
commonly occur.

You aren't very observant are you?




Interesting things don't normally happen off to the left above head-
height, even less so when those things are not moving into the path of
the vehicle, and so where there is excessive demand for visual
processing, that capacity will be allocated to certain areas that
have, by experience, been found to be the places where interesting
things happen.

Like in the road in front of you where all gatso cameras have white lines
painted?

8

Indeed, I do often see the white lines on the road before I see the
camera itself, both because I'm looking at the road ahead as a matter
of course, and because the white lines are a relatively high contrast.



I would not have come to that verdict and the coroner should be
re-educated
as it was obviously poor driving.

No, it was intentional on the part of the agency that installed the
speed camera, that the driver should have reacted in that way - that
he should have devoted more attention to his speed, and therefore
necessarily less attention to anything else.

The driver should always be aware of his speed and the limit.

He should be aware of the pedestrian stepping out, above virtually all
other concerns. As I've said, you have simply enforced a reallocation
of concentration away from scanning for pedestrians, to additional
checks of vehicle speed (including visual checks of the speedometer).

I haven't.
If you can judge your speed without referring to your speedo you lack
experience.
For example you don't need to look at your tacho to know when to change
gears, you use other indicators.
The same is true for speed.
This is why you need to be aware that you may speed after leaving a
motorway.


All drivers are aware of their speed and the limit, to a certain
degree of accuracy - you don't do 70mph in the town centre without
realising it, but it is quite easy to do 35mph in a 30 limit without
realising it,

Its also easy not to, you just aren't very good at it and need more
practice.

which these days is enough to attract automatic
sanction. So too, most drivers do not place a great deal of emphasis
on recalling posted limits, because posted limits are redundant to the
judgments about correct speed that drivers must make constantly (if
they did not, they would soon find themselves involved in collisions,
even below the speed limit).

Additional accuracy in regulating speed therefore requires additional
mental resources. Most drivers cannot judge their speed within 1 or
2mph based simply on routine observation of the surroundings - it
requires active checking of instrumentation.

At the worst it is a minor "distraction".


By experience of being stung by speed cameras, most drivers have
learned that their existing allocation of mental resources to speed
control has been insufficient, so they have started checking their
speedometers more often - particularly in the presence of the speed
camera, the guarding against which is the sole reason for making such
checks, and where such checks are of paramount importance if you are
to avoid certain criminal penalty.

You are now claiming most drivers are poor drivers, at least we agree on
that.




If he can not do so while still paying attention to other things he is
not
capable of driving safely and will have an accident.

But you are starting from the implicit assumption that it is necessary
that drivers be able to monitor their compliance with posted limits
within a margin of +0 mph, whilst also carrying out all the other
mental tasks associated wtih driving and to the same standard as they
do when not required to monitor their compliance with posted limits so
carefully.

No, I am stating that drivers are *required* not to speed.
How they achieve that without being unsafe is up to them.


The fact is, the mental resources required to monitor and maintain
one's compliance with speed limits, has to met from a necessarily
limited supply of those resources. There will *always* be situations
where circumstances are such that the full extent of potentially
relevant sensory information overwhelms your ability to process it
all,

If that is the case you are driving at an unsafe speed.
Why do you have a problem realising that it is not good driving to ignore
information just so you can drive faster?


and you have to start processing what is most relevant and
discarding information that is least relevant. Most people discard the
speed camera, and concentrate on the pedestrian - until, that is, they
have paid several £60 fines and attracted several penalty points. Then
they start to treat the speed camera as more important, in relative
terms, than they did before, and other important things start to be
treated as less relevant.

Many people don't discard either bit of information, they slow down so there
is time to process it.
It is called being a good driver.





The case you quote proves this to be true.

What is true, is that the driver in that case, was not capable of
driving as safely in the presence of speed cameras, as he would have
without the presence of the speed camera. Since the sole purpose of
the speed camera was (supposedly) to improve safety, it failed in that
regard.

What failed was the driver.
He was guilty of dangerous driving whatever was said.
If he couldn't handle the situation at the speed he was going he should have
slowed down to a *safe* speed.




If you can't take in all the information that you need to drive safely
then
you are driving too fast for your abilities!

This is where people like yourself wander off into fantasy land. No
driver can take in all the information at all times that they need to
drive "safely" in all possible circumstances.

Then they shouldn't drive in those circumstances.

But logically, one of the solutions to this conundrum is to remove the
speed cameras themselves, since that will achieve a change in the
prevailing circumstances, in a way that reduces the mental demands of
driving and improves safety.

All that does it make people drive faster, they then have to disregard even
more information and become even less safe.
What should be done is to hide the cameras and get people that drive too
fast off the road.

Even people on foot,
moving by definition at walking pace, manage to fall off kerbs into
traffic, or even simply walk straight into traffic, or even fall down
uncovered manholes.

They don't have to pass a test to show they are competent.

That's really neither here nor there. The point is that even people
moving very slowly, manage to make mistakes that will reasonably lead
to fatality. And most people must in fact demonstrate their
competence, before being allowed out on their own to walk - children
are not simply left to wander the streets, and certainly not near busy
roads, and adults who cannot walk the streets safely are locked up for
their own protection.

More evidence that you lack observational skills (or you live somewhere
without kids).




You also missed out falling through manhole covers which is what happened
to
me.

I can see why you are somewhat disgruntled about road safety!



In the end, people like yourself hold drivers to impossibly high
standards simply because you don't like cars and want to drive them
off the roads, not because you have any legitimate safety (or
otherwise humanistic) agenda. When drivers react adversely to your
ploys, as the driver clearly did in this case, you use that to try to
argue for further restrictions, when in fact it was the restriction
that worsened road safety in the first place.

It was poor driving, plain and simple.
If it were the case that the camera did cause the crash then how come
nearly
every other driver can manage to drive past it without problems.

Because it might cause a statistical increase in danger without
causing every single driver to crash on every occasion, and above all
the particular scenario required a pedestrian to step out into the
path of traffic (itself an relatively uncommon occurrence) right in
front of the speed camera.

Ah one of those unlikely events that you stated drivers don't lookout for.
Maybe that was the cause and not the camera.

IME the biggest problem with cameras is that the speeders see them and
then
jump on the brakes to about 5-10 mph below the limit. They don't spend
lots
of time looking at their speedo so that they run into an object in the
road.
The problem is easily solved by hiding the cameras.

But then you cause even more of what I've described, in terms of
reallocating mental resources away from other important tasks, to the
sole task of identifying hard-to-see speed cameras - in which,
generally, braking reactions will be even more last-minute and
extreme, instead of planned somewhat in advance.

You can get done by hidden cameras now, does that make you concentrate on
looking for them?


Or perhaps I'll just do what you want, and accelerate to 25mph in a
30mph zone, and then turn Radio 4 on and concentrate on that instead!

How is that what I want?
You can drive as fast as is safe up to the speed limit.
If you are only safe at 25 mph then I am quite happy for you to drive at 25
mph.
I wouldn't be happy if it was because you were composing text messages that
was making you erratic.


Whatever your lectures about unsafe driving, I (along with most other
drivers) am satisfied that my driving is of a reasonably safe
standard,

Why am I not surprised

even though I (and most others) exceed posted limits as a
matter of routine, and that it is not necessary to drive any safer. I
accept intellectually that my driving is not perfectly safe, but
emotionally my standard of driving causes me no particular concern -
if it did, I would change it so as to alleviate my concerns.

By menacing me with the criminal law, you do not make me more
concerned with safety - you simply make me more concerned with
avoiding the sanctions of the criminal law. And if, for example, you
successfully force me to reduce my speed so as to avoid criminal law
penalties, then the surfeit of driving safety that I would then be
enjoying, would simply allow me to bankroll more dangerous styles of
driving (in particular, those styles that require less skill and less
concentration), because there would be no point me engaging in the
various safety-improving behaviours that I do presently, that I do
only to alleviate what would otherwise be an unacceptable level of
danger given the speeds that I currently drive at.

Such self confidence, if only self confidence were matched by skill and
understanding the world would be a much better place and we wouldn't have
several people a day killed on our roads.


I've pointed out myself before now that the prevalence of red-light
cameras in particular (and combined speed/red-light cameras), simply
means that I have now reallocated attention away from checking the
junction and road ahead (including the behaviour of pedestrians at any
associated crossings), to carefully scanning the side of the road for
the presence of a camera whilst actively inhibiting my desire to
accelerate, and being braced for an emergency stop on a much more
cautionary basis than usual.

Why, if you are driving legally there is no need to worry about the
cameras.

I am not sure that I will be driving legally. If there is no red-light
camera, then I fully intend to proceed in circumstances where, if
there is a camera, I would not proceed - not necessarily because I am
sure that I am about to run a red light, but because I know it is on
the margin and I am not willing to risk being on the wrong side of the
margin, whereas without the camera I would be willing to take that
risk. So too, if there is no speed camera, then I will usually be
driving faster than if there is a speed camera, at a speed that I have
determined to be appropriate.

Incorrectly determined to be appropriate.




There are millions of drivers who don't have a problem with cameras
because
they don't speed and don't try to jump amber lights.

Quite. The fact is, I do speed and I do jump amber lights, so I do
have that problem.

That is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Maybe you should look for instruction.

Hidden cameras would remove the drivers that do have a problem with
speeding
and jumping lights.

Not unless the cameras were completely undetectable, and even then, as
I've said, I might well actually overtly comply with the law, but in a
way that nevertheless subverts its underlying aim. For example, I
might simply start slamming on at amber at every junction - causing
the very accidents the camera was supposed to prevent, in which no
doubt the driver behind will occasionally swerve to avoid rear-ending
me, and straight into the bus stop full of children.



If a pedestrian then steps out and gets run down, then that is the
choice that people like yourself have made - you can't have my
attention allocated to both tasks, because I do not have enough of it
to allocate to all possible factors,

You are driving beyond you abilities then.

I would certainly be driving beyond the abilities that you are
demanding.

You are not a safe driver whatever your self confidence may say.
I suggest you seek instruction before you do something you regret.
Try the IAM.




You need to slow down and stop being an idiot.

I have no intention of doing so, unless I am forced, and if I am
forced then I fully intend to offset my enforced cooperation with an
increase in risky behaviours elsewhere, of the kind that you will not
be able to detect as reliably as my speed or red-light jumping.

Are you claiming to be insane now?

and you've made it clear by
installing a camera and imposing draconian penalties, that you want my
attention to be focussed first and foremost on maintaining a lower
speed, and stopping earlier at the amber, than I would otherwise
choose to do without the presence of the camera.

I haven't, I would hide them.
However I can't see why they are a problem to anyone who knows how to
drive
properly.

"Proper driving", according to the vast majority of drivers, does not
include a strict adherence to the posted limit. Your commitment to the
idea that such adherence is essential to proper driving, seems to be
based on the idea that the posted limit is a better reflection of a
reasonably safe speed than the majority of drivers' own judgments, but
not all of us are so respectful to authority or blindly trusting of
supposed experts.

The speed limits are not there just for safety.
There are other valid reasons for them.




According to what you have stated however, a driver who had spotted
the pedestrian and given full attention to avoiding hitting that
pedestrian, but who had not spotted the bright yellow camera would
be
a worse driver.

Yes, he would have been a worse driver than one that didn't need to
worry
about the speed camera because he knew how fast he was going and what
the
speed limit was. You would be amazed at how easy that is.

Drivers like yourself (I assume you are a driver in the first place)
are simply dickheads.

The fact is, most of us do not spend all our time on the roads
monitoring speed limits and our compliance with them - even by your
own logic, it is easier to observe the speed camera and make a
temporary adjustment of speed, than to observe every change of posted
limit and keep one's speed constantly in accordance with that limit.

I don't have a problem with knowing how fats I am going or what the limit
is.

I can only imagine you either put a lot more mental effort than I do
into monitoring speed, or you drive appreciably slower than I do in
general (so that, even with the inaccuracy, you are almost invariably
driving under the limit), or (a remote but real possibility) you are
simply not telling the truth.

Where am I not telling the truth?

BTW I am usually overtaking most of the cars on the M6 as they don't have a
calibrated speedo and are driving at what they think is 70 mph.
I have also exceeded the speed limit on the M6, but only when there is a
police car behind me.

I don't see why another driver should either.
If they do then they have a problem with their ability and need to
address
it by either getting better or by changing how they drive.
If that means they have to drive at 20 mph then so be it.

Unfortunately, few of us are going to do that unless we are forced -
and like I say, if we are forced to drive so slowly, we'll just react
by driving otherwise more dangerously, so that we are returned to the
situation in which the vast majority of drivers, are driving in a
manner that they themselves consider to be reasonably safe (and no
more safe than that).



The general observed nature of the road at any time, is enough for
most drivers to infer what is an acceptable speed, with a much greater
degree of accuracy and appropriateness than any crude posted speed
limit can achieve. It is the hallmark of a good driver to be able to
do this.

A good driver obeys the rules. that way nobody gets caught by him doing
something he should not.

On the contrary, I think a good driver should break the rules. I think
this comes down to more fundamental differences in our general
approach to authority. I do not respect any rules, unless I accept
their underlying reason for being, and I often go out of my way to
break those rules whose underlying reason I do not accept. I think
perhaps you just take them on blind trust.

Ah we agree there, you shouldn't assume the posted limit is safe.

I wonder, do you ever have any trouble on unrestricted rural roads,
given that the posted limit will be of little guidance in choosing an
appropriate speed? If you have no trouble inferring an appropriate
speed from general observation, then why do you feel the need to
rigidly follow posted limits at all?

I don't. The limit is a maximum not a required minimum.

But how do you choose the minimum? If your judgment of the minimum
exceeds the legal limit, do you say to yourself "I must be wrong", or
do you say "the person who put up the sign must be wrong"?

The minimum can't exceed the maximum.
Maybe that's your problem you don't understand maximums and minimums.

"harry" wrote in message
...


I have passed my advanced driving test. And that is the first thing
you are told. You assume everyone else is an idiot. Every once in a
while it turns out to be true.
It's called defensive driving.
http://www.ddtgroup.com/

You can't do that it requires you to be observant and to concentrate. ;-)

"Ste" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 8:42 am, harry wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:58 am, Ste wrote:





On Feb 1, 2:57 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:56:31 -0800 (PST), Ste

wrote:

In the end, people like yourself hold drivers to impossibly high
standards simply because you don't like cars and want to drive them
off the roads, not because you have any legitimate safety (or
otherwise humanistic) agenda.

Why, I'll have you know Dennis is the UK's safest driver. He must
be,
he's told us so many times.

Liar.
I have always stated the opposite, i.e. all drivers are idiots, I
never
excluded anyone.

I'm afraid we can't proceed in life on the basis that everyone is
incompetent at everything, and therefore no one can be permitted to do
anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have passed my advanced driving test. And that is the first thing
you are told. You assume everyone else is an idiot. Every once in a
while it turns out to be true.
It's called defensive driving.http://www.ddtgroup.com/

I have passed my test in a large articulated vehicle (in which many of
the 'advanced' techniques of car driving are not just preferable but
necessary, requiring not just a higher standard of driving in terms of
my own vehicle, but additional guarding against, and compensation for,
the incompetence of other road users). Additionally, I am also an
experienced tanker driver of hazardous goods - and tanks have their
own particular (but certainly not unmanageable) problems.

Now you are worrying me.

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...

Might this be an appropriate time to invite *drivers* to post details of
their driving history? Somebody with more knowledge than I could perhaps
collate the results.

You could, but there are quite a few here that would claim anyone that says
they have driven a million miles and never had points, convictions, claims,
etc. is liar.

8

anything else?

Last eyesight test would be a good one.

On Feb 2, 12:21*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Ste" wrote in message

...





On Feb 2, 8:42 am, harry wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:58 am, Ste wrote:

On Feb 1, 2:57 pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:56:31 -0800 (PST), Ste

wrote:

In the end, people like yourself hold drivers to impossibly high
standards simply because you don't like cars and want to drive them
off the roads, not because you have any legitimate safety (or
otherwise humanistic) agenda.

Why, I'll have you know Dennis is the UK's safest driver. He must
be,
he's told us so many times.

Liar.
I have always stated the opposite, i.e. all drivers are idiots, I
never
excluded anyone.

I'm afraid we can't proceed in life on the basis that everyone is
incompetent at everything, and therefore no one can be permitted to do
anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have passed my advanced driving test. And that is the first thing
you are told. *You assume everyone else is an idiot. *Every once in a
while it turns out to be true.
It's called defensive driving.http://www.ddtgroup.com/

I have passed my test in a large articulated vehicle (in which many of
the 'advanced' techniques of car driving are not just preferable but
necessary, requiring not just a higher standard of driving in terms of
my own vehicle, but additional guarding against, and compensation for,
the incompetence of other road users). Additionally, I am also an
experienced tanker driver of hazardous goods - and tanks have their
own particular (but certainly not unmanageable) problems.

Now you are worrying me.

You seem to be ruled by fear of other people.

On Feb 1, 4:16*pm, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 01/02/2012 13:35, Cynic wrote:









On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:39:30 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
*wrote:

My response was to the suggestion that judges etc. should live on a
sink estate for 2 years. *I took that to mean that they should live
*in the same conditions* as the people on such an estate.

And where have I suggested that they wouldn't be, as, if they were
living on the estate they'd be in similar housing to everyone else.
However, not everyone wants to conform by displaying tattoos, shaving
their heads, buying a pit bull terrier, running an unlicensed motor
vehicle and saying f*ck for every third word. They will consequently
stand out and get their windows smashed and their car scratched.

Obviously you're too stupid, or too distant from real life to understand
that such things are triggered by far less than obvious signs of wealth.

Either that or you have an overly fertile imagination.

I do in fact know and visit several people on such estates who do
*not* have loads of tattoos, and who mostly conform to the law in all
respects AFAICT. *They do indeed have neighbours who have all sorts of
weird body decorations and who frequently and blatantly break the law.

IME the law-abiding people are not at all resented by the others
*unless* they act in a way that show that they regard themselves as
better than their neighbours, or are suspected of "grassing". *So long
as they live their lives as they wish, and are tolerant and reasonably
pleasant toward those who wish to live differently, there is no
problem at all.

And just how do people "act in a way that show that they regard
themselves as better than their neighbours"? I think the "grassing"
comment sums up a lot - keep your mouth shut or else we'll burgle you next!


That sort of thing gets learnt, there was a kid oin teh bus yesterday,
he was about waiste hieght so my estimation he was about 6,or 7
he was telling his mum , "if you don;t buy me a present I won;t behave
tonight"

A future politition or banker I wonder ;-)

On Feb 1, 4:14*pm, harry wrote:
On Feb 1, 2:12*pm, (Cynic) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:28:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. *Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

--
Cynic

There is no such thing.

What about those homosexuals that are being hanger or stoned to death
in some countries, or teh woment hat once raped are stoned to death,
oh sorry the victim is the male rapist because it was the womens fault
he raped her.

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:56:14 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

When my wife was in a similar situation, it would certainly have
caused me just as much hardship as it did you *if* I had provided all
the necessary care personally. =A0There were however plenty of friends
and family members who between them were able and willing to provide
the additional necessary care without significant detriment to
themselves.

The idea that complete strangers had any sort of duty to solve the
problem by paying for her care did not even cross my mind.

A better way to conceive of the question, is whether 'complete
strangers' have the right to penalise you for engaging in behaviours
that are pro-social and reasonably necessary. For example, should it
be the case that your boss is entitled to exclude you from your means
of earning, because you took a certain period of time off to care for
your wife and family? Should your bank be able to evict you from your
home, because you temporarily need to miss a payment for the same
reason?

You might say there was some sort of agreement that gave the employer
or bank the right to do this, but in fact I doubt Steve gave any real
assent to such behaviour - both his employer and his bank, were able
to use their relative position of power, to impose choices and
contractual terms on him that he considered unreasonable (or perhaps,
later realised how unreasonable they were), but was forced to accept
because of the inequality of power.

Hmmm - it seems a very strange way of looking at things. But if that
is the way you believe things should work, here's a scenario I would
like you to consider:

You make a contract with a company for them to build you a
conservatory. All the materials are duly delivered, but nobody shows
up to actually build your conservatory. Nevertheless, you are charged
for the job. When you protest, you are told that the person who was
assigned to build your conservatory had to stay at home because his
wife became ill. He obviously still needs money to live, so you must
still pay for the job that he would have done had he not been obliged
to care for his wife.

Would that be acceptable to you? If not, why should it be acceptable
to any employer?

--
Cynic

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:27:09 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

IME the law-abiding people are not at all resented by the others
*unless* they act in a way that show that they regard themselves as
better than their neighbours, or are suspected of "grassing". So long
as they live their lives as they wish, and are tolerant and reasonably
pleasant toward those who wish to live differently, there is no
problem at all.

And just how do people "act in a way that show that they regard
themselves as better than their neighbours"?

In the same way as you might get that impression from someone. By
remaining aloof and refusing to socialise (or refusing to allow your
kids to play with their kids). By making judgemental comments. By
being critical of their behaviour. By being arrogant. Etc.


Ah, being just like them!

Which "them" do you refer to?

--
Cynic

On Feb 1, 8:31*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:24:58 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. *Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

Name one crime *which would result in a prison term* which does not have
any victims.

Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply).

Support may well be needed for the users,

and it may well not be. it may in fact be better for everyone.
I hearrd 'people' that grow cannibis and sprinkle finely cut glass mon
the buds as they grow
which increases the wieght of the end product.
But a 70 year-old growing his own and a bit for a friend might not
require medical treatment
for glass inhalation.
it might also be better for club goers to get their drugs in bulk from
a relible source
rather than someone just out for a profit and cutting it with rat
poisen.


in which case support staff
and those who pay for them (All taxpayers) may be considered victims.

Can they be considered victims if they're over charged/ripped off ?

Crimes may well have been committed in order to get the money.

And they may not have been.
Rememebr alcojhol and tobacco are also drugs which are mixed and sold
illegally
to 'victims'


Also,
which drugs? The users may be considered victims in some cases.

Looking at an indecent cartoon image of a child.

Possible. Although the idea for the cartoon must have come from somewhere..

There was TV comedy program about that some time agoi and the officals
admitted they
didnt; actually know the anser but iof someone got turned on by a
cartoon image
of a naked child it could be considered illegal.
The same was said of naked animals.


Having

completely consensual sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old.

Some believe that the current age of consent is too low. Although the
boundary between being 15 years 364 days and 16 years of age is
arbitrary, and differs between cultures and over time.

And teh mmore important point is the age gap between them.
How old were romeo and juilet ?


Downloading a copy of "The anachist's cookbook".

Possible, but not necessarily incurring a prison sentence if you take no
action based on its content.

Did teh same apply to lady chatterly lover or catcher in the rye,
didn;t one of those 'cause' the death of John Lennon ;-)


*From Wikipedia:-
"In 2007, a seventeen year old British youth was arrested in Britain and
faced charges under Terrorism Law in the UK for possession of this book,
*among other things*. He was cleared of all charges in October 2008,
after alleging that he was a prankster that just wanted to research
fireworks and smoke bombs."

I added the emphasis for clarity.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
You could, but there are quite a few here that would claim anyone that
says they have driven a million miles and never had points,
convictions, claims, etc. is liar.

Would be very easy to do if you live in some remote part of the country.
I've had some half dozen insurance claims over the years due to damage
when my car was parked. And a couple of others where I was run into, and
the other person's insurance paid. Only one damage only claim which was my
fault - and that didn't involve another vehicle.

--
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

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

On Feb 2, 12:15*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Ste" wrote in message


There
could well be a gunman at the side of the road taking aim at the
driver, but the reality is that most drivers are not going to see him,

I almost killed a copper because of that.
I saw him aiming a gun at me and I ducked.
It turns out it was a test of speed guns.
They never did adopt those, something to do with being a hazard.

because experience suggests that no such thing generally needs to be
guarded against, and that limited resources of attention should be
properly focussed elsewhere to managing scenarios that do more
commonly occur.

You aren't very observant are you?

I observe what experience has taught me I have to observe. General
experience suggests to me that stationary and inanimate objects set
back at least several feet from the kerb, have extremely low
relevance, so I spent disproportionately less time looking there, than
for example looking directly ahead at my expected course.



I would not have come to that verdict and the coroner should be
re-educated
as it was obviously poor driving.

No, it was intentional on the part of the agency that installed the
speed camera, that the driver should have reacted in that way - that
he should have devoted more attention to his speed, and therefore
necessarily less attention to anything else.

The driver should always be aware of his speed and the limit.

He should be aware of the pedestrian stepping out, above virtually all
other concerns. As I've said, you have simply enforced a reallocation
of concentration away from scanning for pedestrians, to additional
checks of vehicle speed (including visual checks of the speedometer).

I haven't.
If you can judge your speed without referring to your speedo you lack
experience.

The question is how accurate that judgment needs to be. As I say, no
one does 70mph in a 30 limited town centre without realising it, but
I'm pretty sure I could do 35mph in a 30 without realising it.



For example you don't need to look at your tacho to know when to change
gears, you use other indicators.

Generally, you use the note of the engine, but even that is misleading
if say you are accustomed to petrol engines and then step into a
diesel, or if you are accustomed to larger engines and then step into
a car with a smaller one. And I don't know about you, but I have
driven all sorts of vehicles, and I almost exclusively use
instrumentation for ascertaining vehicle speed - any other means would
be far too haphazard in this day and age.

That said, at lower speeds in lower gears, there is quite a radical
tonal change over a relatively small range of vehicle speeds - but in
higher gears and at higher speeds, this is less so. I would struggle
to judge the difference between 50mph and 55mph in 5th or 6th gear,
based purely on the engine note.

Someone who is musically-trained might be able to make extremely quick
and accurate judgments based on tone, but I'm not one of them.



even though I (and most others) exceed posted limits as a
matter of routine, and that it is not necessary to drive any safer. I
accept intellectually that my driving is not perfectly safe, but
emotionally my standard of driving causes me no particular concern -
if it did, I would change it so as to alleviate my concerns.

By menacing me with the criminal law, you do not make me more
concerned with safety - you simply make me more concerned with
avoiding the sanctions of the criminal law. And if, for example, you
successfully force me to reduce my speed so as to avoid criminal law
penalties, then the surfeit of driving safety that I would then be
enjoying, would simply allow me to bankroll more dangerous styles of
driving (in particular, those styles that require less skill and less
concentration), because there would be no point me engaging in the
various safety-improving behaviours that I do presently, that I do
only to alleviate what would otherwise be an unacceptable level of
danger given the speeds that I currently drive at.

Such self confidence, if only self confidence were matched by skill

The self-confidence is indeed matched by skill. I'm not arrogant - I'm
not saying my driving does not involve risk, or that my skills are
perfect, or that they could not possibly be improved. I'm saying that
the risk, tiny as it is, is acceptable in my view, in the
circumstances that prevail. One cannot be obsessed with every tiny
risk in daily life.



and
understanding the world would be a much better place and we wouldn't have
several people a day killed on our roads.

I don't think the world would be a better place at all, if people like
you got full control of the levers of power, as we suffered all sorts
of unpleasant regimes designed to make us "safe".



You need to slow down and stop being an idiot.

I have no intention of doing so, unless I am forced, and if I am
forced then I fully intend to offset my enforced cooperation with an
increase in risky behaviours elsewhere, of the kind that you will not
be able to detect as reliably as my speed or red-light jumping.

Are you claiming to be insane now?

No. I'm simply making clear that whereas I will not comply willingly
with these measures to improve my safety, because I do not accept that
there will be any significant improvements in safety as against the
costs of the measures to me (whether in terms of consuming more time,
brainpower, or whatever), nor will I comply with your attempts to
enforce them against my will.

If I'm successfully forced, for example, to spend more time driving at
slower speeds, then I intend to reallocate that time to other
interesting things, like listening to the radio or making telephone
calls, so that in net effect I will recoup the time that you have
stolen from me, and the effects of that will almost certainly be to
increase danger in a way that offsets the improvement in safety
attributable to the lower driving speeds.



I wonder, do you ever have any trouble on unrestricted rural roads,
given that the posted limit will be of little guidance in choosing an
appropriate speed? If you have no trouble inferring an appropriate
speed from general observation, then why do you feel the need to
rigidly follow posted limits at all?

I don't. The limit is a maximum not a required minimum.

But how do you choose the minimum? If your judgment of the minimum
exceeds the legal limit, do you say to yourself "I must be wrong", or
do you say "the person who put up the sign must be wrong"?

The minimum can't exceed the maximum.
Maybe that's your problem you don't understand maximums and minimums.

On the contrary, I was referring to two different scales. As I say,
you *must* be able to make some sort of judgment from the general
circumstances about what is a reasonable speed, otherwise you would
often be travelling too fast (albeit below the legal maximum). What I
am asking you, is what happens in your mind when your own judgment
about what is a reasonable target speed, yields a figure that exceeds
the posted limit?

Do you insist that your own judgment is wrong, or do you insist that
the judgment of the person who posted the sign is wrong?

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:17:50 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

You can't do that it requires you to be observant and to concentrate. ;-)

You have however demonstrated that you have an inaccurate grasp of
both those concepts.

The human brain has many limitations. Limitations that apply to
*everyone*. Some of us recognise those limitations and behave in a
way that makes the best use of the limited capabilities we have.
Others refuse to accept that there *are* such limitations, and insist,
for example, that they are capable of observing and processing
everything that is within their field of vision.

Unless you are non-human, you *cannot* do such a thing, and the
delusion that you *are* in fact doing so is itself an unsafe attitude,
because it places reliance in an ability that you do not possess.

--
Cynic

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:15:30 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

I haven't.
If you can judge your speed without referring to your speedo you lack
experience.

I assume you meant, "... can't judge your speed ..."

I will take a bet that if you were to cover your speedometer and state
what speed you think you are driving as you take a drive along several
roads of varying surface type, many of your judgements will be out by
quite a margin. In particular the range between 30MPH and 50MPH is
especially hard to judge in most modern cars without fairly frequent
references to the speedo, and an error of 10MPH is very likely.

For example you don't need to look at your tacho to know when to change
gears, you use other indicators.

Mainly the engine sound. Try the foloowing: Put on a rock music CD
and turn the volume up *loud* Cover your tacho and speedo. See how
well you cope with changing gears at the appropriate time.

--
Cynic

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:20:03 +0000, wrote:

If the hunted survives, he gains a pardon and is immediately
conscripted into a Liquidation Squad operating in Afghanistan.

And what if he succeeds in killing the hunters?

He survives, as above. The hunting participants and their families
have no comeback, having entered into the contest with no rights,
except to kill the killer.

And what happens if nobody is prepared to risk death in order to
avenge a person's murder by engaging is such a hunt of the killer?
does the murderer then win by default and get a pardon?

--
Cynic

On Feb 2, 2:17*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:56:14 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:





When my wife was in a similar situation, it would certainly have
caused me just as much hardship as it did you *if* I had provided all
the necessary care personally. =A0There were however plenty of friends
and family members who between them were able and willing to provide
the additional necessary care without significant detriment to
themselves.

The idea that complete strangers had any sort of duty to solve the
problem by paying for her care did not even cross my mind.

A better way to conceive of the question, is whether 'complete
strangers' have the right to penalise you for engaging in behaviours
that are pro-social and reasonably necessary. For example, should it
be the case that your boss is entitled to exclude you from your means
of earning, because you took a certain period of time off to care for
your wife and family? Should your bank be able to evict you from your
home, because you temporarily need to miss a payment for the same
reason?

You might say there was some sort of agreement that gave the employer
or bank the right to do this, but in fact I doubt Steve gave any real
assent to such behaviour - both his employer and his bank, were able
to use their relative position of power, to impose choices and
contractual terms on him that he considered unreasonable (or perhaps,
later realised how unreasonable they were), but was forced to accept
because of the inequality of power.

Hmmm - it seems a very strange way of looking at things. *But if that
is the way you believe things should work, here's a scenario I would
like you to consider:

You make a contract with a company for them to build you a
conservatory.

And who had more power to influence the terms of such a contract?



*All the materials are duly delivered, but nobody shows
up to actually build your conservatory. *Nevertheless, you are charged
for the job. *When you protest, you are told that the person who was
assigned to build your conservatory had to stay at home because his
wife became ill. *He obviously still needs money to live, so you must
still pay for the job that he would have done had he not been obliged
to care for his wife.

Would that be acceptable to you? *If not, why should it be acceptable
to any employer?

I should think I would be outraged. But then, if I was the builder
rather than the consumer, I would think the suggestion eminently
reasonable.

Seeing myself as being both a consumer and a producer, it is obvious
that in general I want some sort of balance between the two. And even
as the builder, I don't really want individual consumers to be stung
with covering the full cost of my family emergency. But clearly I want
some general power to take time off to deal with irregular
emergencies, without total collapse of my lifestyle and reduction to
penury.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:31:19 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

Name one crime *which would result in a prison term* which does not have
any victims.

Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply).

Support may well be needed for the users, in which case support staff
and those who pay for them (All taxpayers) may be considered victims.
Crimes may well have been committed in order to get the money. Also,
which drugs? The users may be considered victims in some cases.

Come off it! If such indirect costs of the unintended consequences of
the "victim's" consensual act had to be paid for by the actor, we
would have to charge sportsmen, DIYers, mountaineers etc. All run a
higher-than-average risk of requiring expensive assistance from other
people.

Looking at an indecent cartoon image of a child.

Possible. Although the idea for the cartoon must have come from somewhere.

And? Who is the victim of a person's idea?

Having
completely consensual sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old.

Some believe that the current age of consent is too low. Although the
boundary between being 15 years 364 days and 16 years of age is
arbitrary, and differs between cultures and over time.

Quite - so it doesn't really make sense that a 15 year old in the UK
should be considered to be a victim if s/he had consensual sex, whilst
the *same person* would not be a victim if it happened in Spain. Or a
17 year old is a victim if having sex in one US state, but not
another. The point I'm making is that not all convictions for
underage sexual activity actually have a "victim" in the true sense.

Downloading a copy of "The anachist's cookbook".

Possible, but not necessarily incurring a prison sentence if you take no
action based on its content.

It not only could, but IIUC actually *has* incurred a prison sentence.

From Wikipedia:-
"In 2007, a seventeen year old British youth was arrested in Britain and
faced charges under Terrorism Law in the UK for possession of this book,
*among other things*. He was cleared of all charges in October 2008,
after alleging that he was a prankster that just wanted to research
fireworks and smoke bombs."

Yes, he was lucky to be found NG, other people have not been so lucky.

I added the emphasis for clarity.

I strongly suspect that the "other things" were of a similar level of
activity - i.e. looking up "iffy" things on the Internet.

Anyway, I think you have conceded that it is indeed possible to be
imprisoned for a crime that has no victims.

In many cases no victim exists for the actual crime committed, because
the crime is of the type where harm is statistically more likely, not
a certainty. Drink-driving for example. If the drunk driver did not
have an accident, there is no victim of *that particular* crime.

--
Cynic

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:34:58 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 1, 8:08=A0pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:24:58 +0000, John Williamson

wrote:
I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. =A0Some would have to stay there for ever =
but
who cares?
And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?
Name one crime *which would result in a prison term* which does not have
any victims.

Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply). =A0Looking at an indecent cartoon image of a child. =A0Having
completely consensual sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old.
Downloading a copy of "The anachist's cookbook".

Now you are a complete buffon. Every one of those has victims.

If you think so, then tell me what victims there are in each case.

--
Cynic

On 02/02/2012 15:09, Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:34:58 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 1, 8:08=A0pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:24:58 +0000, John Williamson

wrote:
I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. =A0Some would have to stay there for ever =
but
who cares?
And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?
Name one crime *which would result in a prison term* which does not have
any victims.

Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply). =A0Looking at an indecent cartoon image of a child. =A0Having
completely consensual sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old.
Downloading a copy of "The anachist's cookbook".

Now you are a complete buffon. Every one of those has victims.

If you think so, then tell me what victims there are in each case.

I will raise him.

There is no victim in looking at any image - if he believes there are
.... why are they a 'victim' and what are they a 'victim' of?

WM

"Ste" wrote in message
...

Now you are worrying me.

You seem to be ruled by fear of other people.

If you had seen the driving I have seen you would be scared of other drivers
too.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"Ste" wrote in message
...

Now you are worrying me.

You seem to be ruled by fear of other people.

If you had seen the driving I have seen you would be scared of other
drivers too.

Years ago, more than many of you can remember, when my father was teaching
me the basic rudiments of driving, he said to me two things which I have
remembered which has given me a clean driving licence after more years than
some of you, MOST of you have been around. (And for the gardeners in that
newsgroup, more years being married to a gardener than some have been
around)

"Remember, the most dangerous nut in the car is the one behind the wheel"

"Imagine that the other motorist is going to do the unimaginable"

In all of my many miles of motoring, diving anything from vans and buses to
a Rolls Royce, I have seen 'many nuts behind the wheel' and motorists who
have 'done the unimaginable'

Mike

--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

On Feb 2, 1:51*pm, whisky-dave wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:14*pm, harry wrote:

On Feb 1, 2:12*pm, (Cynic) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:28:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. *Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

--
Cynic

There is no such thing.

What about those homosexuals that are being hanger or stoned to death
in some countries, or teh woment hat once raped are stoned to death,
oh sorry the victim is the male rapist because it was the womens fault
he raped her.

Why have we suddenly moved to another country?
Were you in danger of losing the argument?
Am I in order to accusey ou of racism now?

On 01/02/2012 12:10, dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
On 31/01/2012 21:19, dennis@home wrote:
Why shouldn't they agree, its a statement of fact.
If you drive faster than the limit you are speeding.
If you drive faster than its safe you are dangerous driving.
The limit is the lower of the two.

Are you seriously saying that it's always safe to drive at the limit,
regardless of conditions?

Are you seriously claiming to have read what I said?

Oh good, it's a misunderstanding!

If you drive faster than the limit you are speeding.
If you drive faster than its safe you are dangerous driving.
The limit is the lower of the two.

Sounded to me as if you meant the limit had to be lower that the safe speed.

Andy

On 02/02/2012 15:13, Nigel Oldfield wrote:

There is no victim in looking at any image - if he believes there are
... why are they a 'victim' and what are they a 'victim' of?

In that particular case, and with some images the harm is done to the
subject of the picture when it is originally produced, not when it is
viewed. It is the aim of the legislation to destroy the market for such
images.

Whether it will work is another matter.

Andy

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:57:37 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

Seeing myself as being both a consumer and a producer, it is obvious
that in general I want some sort of balance between the two. And even
as the builder, I don't really want individual consumers to be stung
with covering the full cost of my family emergency. But clearly I want
some general power to take time off to deal with irregular
emergencies, without total collapse of my lifestyle and reduction to
penury.

Can you not see that for a great many employers, paying an extra
salary every month to someone who does not actually do any work can be
just as devastating, and could easily result in bankruptcy for the
employer? That would especially be the case if such a thing became
law, because for every genuine case there would bound to be several
chancers who did not *really* have to stay at home as a carer.

If money were to be taken from someone (I suspect you would like it to
come from myself and other taxpayers) to pay for you to look after a
disabled relative, how about a situation in which your partner leaves
you or dies and you are left literally holding the baby? You will
have to find a way to care for your infant in that situation.

I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I mentioned
- friends and relatives who do not work step in and help. The second
is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility that you
will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

--
Cynic