On 27/03/2012 20:13, John Williamson wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/03/2012 18:12, charles wrote:
In , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have
to do
anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are allowed
to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out regular
checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his
bike.
I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.

That's more to do with a bike being a bloody silly form of transport
surely?

Hides

Grins I'll happily ride a bike anywhere on mainland Europe, except
maybe Italy. I won't willingly ride a bike in *any* large British town
or city. It's (IMHO) the bad standard of driving in the UK that makes
bikes more dangerous than necessary.

Italy's ok. The traffic light grand prix amid the scooters in a big city
is quite fun, as is being able to get through smaller gaps than they can :-)

TBH Britain's ok too if you keep your wits about you. There's a fair
number of arseholes, but it's generally possible to avoid them.

John Williamson wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/03/2012 18:12, charles wrote:
In , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if
you are caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in
20 drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to
pass the driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not
have to do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping
your nose clean, until your 70th birthday. And even then it's
pretty much "self assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people
are allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery
with out regular checks on their competancy to operate that
bit of machinery. (*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK
road
"accidents". If virtually anything else under the control of
people killed that many there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a
village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off
his bike. I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked
off my bike.

That's more to do with a bike being a bloody silly form of transport
surely?

Hides

Grins I'll happily ride a bike anywhere on mainland Europe, except
maybe Italy. I won't willingly ride a bike in *any* large British town
or city. It's (IMHO) the bad standard of driving in the UK that makes
bikes more dangerous than necessary.

It is easy to spot a cyclist that is also a good motorist (they can be
both).

However

The good cyclist has no proper protection from the bad motorist.

The bad cyclist has no proper protection from the good motorist.


--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.
I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.
I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to
do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

Having never lived in a village with a big speeding problem I really cannot
comment on how bad it could be. But IMHO the problems are not the speeders
doing 7 mph above the legal speed limit (often the limit is too low for the
circumstances) but those that are driving under or at the legal speed limit
when the safe limit due to the road conditions at the time is 15MPH or less.


All the accidents I have witnessed bar one were at sub legal speeds.

Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his
bike. I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.

Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were they
prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?

Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling to
school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed limit*, and he
was hit so hard that his skull came through his face.

/Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been driving
safely, yes? Irony/

I witnessed a fatal accident as a kid when a rather senile old dear
walked straight in front of a car. Doing less than 30mph.

Nothing the driver could have done, and no law was broken.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes

Then they came for the drinkers, and I did not speak out - because I
was not a drinker;

The same with drinking, they want to control excessive drinking.
It is not right that some people just drink to get drunk.
They cause trouble for others.


Really dennis - do go on

we're listening

--
geoff

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/03/2012 18:12, charles wrote:
In , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to do
anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are allowed
to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out regular
checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his bike.
I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.

That's more to do with a bike being a bloody silly form of transport
surely?


Around cars it surely is.
One or the other, not both.

Mind you being able to drive at up to 45mph* without a helmet and with
no test or license on a public road is, to say the least, weird.

And as usual in our last visit to Cambridge after dark, cycle lights
were in the vast minority as were cyclists not on the pavement, cycling
across pedestrian crossings when it suited them and undertaking cars at
traffic lights and the like.


* my personal fastest ever on a bicycle, as established by glancing at
the speedo of the van I overtook coming down the North Downs.


Hides





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his bike.
I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.

Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were they
prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?

Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling to
school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed limit*, and he was
hit so hard that his skull came through his face.

/Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been driving
safely, yes? Irony/

Why do idiots always try to justify speeding by coming up with people
driving dangerously at less than the speed limit?
Just what do they think it proves other than their stupidity?

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote

8

It is not right that some people just drink to get drunk.

Its their choice.

They cause trouble for others.

Some of them dont.

Enough of them do for there to be a problem to react to.


Yes dennis, that's the last time we let you loose on a glass of white
wine


--
geoff

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his
bike. I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my
bike.

Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were they
prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?

Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling to
school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed limit*, and he
was hit so hard that his skull came through his face.

/Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been driving
safely, yes? Irony/

I witnessed a fatal accident as a kid when a rather senile old dear walked
straight in front of a car. Doing less than 30mph.

Hmm..
I have had a couple of senile old dears walk out in front of me while I was
doing 40 mph.
However I saw them and took avoiding action.
Senile old dears don't usually move very fast so you have plenty of time to
see them and do something about it.
They aren't like the cyclists that shoot across the road from walkways and
places like that.

dennis@home wrote:


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his
bike. I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my
bike.

Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were they
prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?

Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling to
school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed limit*, and he
was hit so hard that his skull came through his face.

/Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been driving
safely, yes? Irony/

Why do idiots always try to justify speeding by coming up with people
driving dangerously at less than the speed limit?
Just what do they think it proves other than their stupidity?

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his
bike. I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my
bike.

Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were
they prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?

Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling to
school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed limit*, and
he was hit so hard that his skull came through his face.

/Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been driving
safely, yes? Irony/

I witnessed a fatal accident as a kid when a rather senile old dear
walked straight in front of a car. Doing less than 30mph.

Hmm..
I have had a couple of senile old dears walk out in front of me while I
was doing 40 mph.
However I saw them and took avoiding action.
Senile old dears don't usually move very fast so you have plenty of time
to see them and do something about it.

Not if its 15 feet in front of you. She was standing on te kerb IIRC and
took three steps into the road .. the guy smoked his styres but he still
hit her at maybe 12 mph

She did a cartwheel - I remember her knickers on display, and broke her
neck. I remember the blood coming out of her nose and ears.

Bit strange for a 12 year old boy, really.



They aren't like the cyclists that shoot across the road from walkways
and places like that.

They are just as bad.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road
"accidents". If virtually anything else under the control
of people killed that many there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a
village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off
his bike. I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was
knocked off my bike.

Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were
they prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?

Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling
to school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed
limit*, and he was hit so hard that his skull came through his
face. /Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been
driving safely, yes? Irony/

I witnessed a fatal accident as a kid when a rather senile old dear
walked straight in front of a car. Doing less than 30mph.

Hmm..
I have had a couple of senile old dears walk out in front of me while
I was doing 40 mph.
However I saw them and took avoiding action.
Senile old dears don't usually move very fast so you have plenty of
time to see them and do something about it.
They aren't like the cyclists that shoot across the road from
walkways and places like that.

It does take a bit of practice to his the cyclists.

--
Adam

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.


I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help.
Not only does it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep" everytime I
exceed the stated road speed by 10% which generally means I don't bother
looking at the speedo constantly.

This has noticeably increased my being able to look at the road - a great
improvement in the country where the limits change from anything between
20mph to 70mph every 1/4 mile or more...

--
Tim Watts

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Not if its 15 feet in front of you. She was standing on te kerb IIRC and
took three steps into the road .. the guy smoked his styres but he still
hit her at maybe 12 mph

So he saw a senile old dear standing on the kerb about to step off and still
didn't slow down.


She did a cartwheel - I remember her knickers on display, and broke her
neck. I remember the blood coming out of her nose and ears.

Hmm, I bet its hard to get a person to do a cartwheel from a 12 mph impact.


Bit strange for a 12 year old boy, really.



They aren't like the cyclists that shoot across the road from walkways
and places like that.

They are just as bad.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:32:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.


I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help. Not only does
it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep" everytime I exceed the
stated road speed by 10% which generally means I don't bother looking
at the speedo constantly.

I just engage the speed limiter!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

what utter tosh.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Not if its 15 feet in front of you. She was standing on te kerb IIRC
and took three steps into the road .. the guy smoked his styres but he
still hit her at maybe 12 mph

So he saw a senile old dear standing on the kerb about to step off and
still didn't slow down.

No, he didnt because she was behind someone else.


She did a cartwheel - I remember her knickers on display, and broke
her neck. I remember the blood coming out of her nose and ears.

Hmm, I bet its hard to get a person to do a cartwheel from a 12 mph impact.

Proving you know absolutely **** all about road safety and accidents.

If seen a car turn over 180 degrees from less than 30mph impact with a
'safety chicane'


Bit strange for a 12 year old boy, really.



They aren't like the cyclists that shoot across the road from
walkways and places like that.

They are just as bad.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:07:06 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Not if its 15 feet in front of you. She was standing on te kerb
IIRC
and took three steps into the road .. the guy smoked his styres
but he
still hit her at maybe 12 mph

He didn't take any evasive action like turning that round thing in
front of him? Or is this pre ABS so he braked too hard and lost
control of the vehicle in a skid?

Pedestrians on the left (mostly schoolboys), oncoming traffic on the
right, and very much pre ABS. He wore all the front tyres down to the
canvas in one classic emergency stop. Rover 90 I think it was.


Hmm, I bet its hard to get a person to do a cartwheel from a 12 mph
impact.

Not so sure having been run over, well hoisted right up onto the
bonnet of a car and shoved off to the side by the windscreen in a low
speed collision at traffic lights that had just changed.

That was what the police said at the inquest. Less than 15mph for sure -
he only travelled a few feet post impact.


Car design is a lot better these days. And she was unlucky: landed more
or less on her head.

In the end it was just one of those things...


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:07:06 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Not if its 15 feet in front of you. She was standing on te kerb
IIRC
and took three steps into the road .. the guy smoked his styres
but he
still hit her at maybe 12 mph

He didn't take any evasive action like turning that round thing in
front of him? Or is this pre ABS so he braked too hard and lost
control of the vehicle in a skid?

Hmm, I bet its hard to get a person to do a cartwheel from a 12 mph
impact.

Not so sure having been run over, well hoisted right up onto the
bonnet of a car and shoved off to the side by the windscreen in a low
speed collision at traffic lights that had just changed.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27/03/2012 22:02, dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

Only if you redefine "too fast" as moving.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his
bike. I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my
bike.

Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were
they prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?

Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling to
school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed limit*, and
he was hit so hard that his skull came through his face.

/Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been driving
safely, yes? Irony/

Why do idiots always try to justify speeding by coming up with people
driving dangerously at less than the speed limit?
Just what do they think it proves other than their stupidity?

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

....Is the correct answer.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Bob Eager wrote
Tim Watts wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.

I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help. Not
only does it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep"
everytime I exceed the stated road speed by 10% which
generally means I don't bother looking at the speedo constantly.

I just engage the speed limiter!

I prefer to drive over the limit most of the time because we have a stupid 50Kmph limit
in most places and I like to vary how much I am over by based on the circumstances.

With our insane system where you can see quite a few speed limit changes
quite close to each other, its handy to have a warning at a percentage over
the speed limit that you specify in case you miss one of the changes.

dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

Cite please...


--
Tim Watts

Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:32:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.


I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help. Not only does
it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep" everytime I exceed the
stated road speed by 10% which generally means I don't bother looking
at the speedo constantly.

I just engage the speed limiter!


Is that a euphemism for the MiL?
--
Tim Watts

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

Cite please...

Cite a car accident where it would have happened if the car wasn't going
slower.
More than 1%?

Driving a car requires the driver to weigh up the risks of driving at a
particular speed to keep the chances of an accident low.
Some drivers are good at this and never have accidents.
Some are useless and have accidents.
Some don't consider the safety of anyone else at all, must be the shocks
they get from being an electrician.

dennis@home wrote
Tim Watts wrote
dennis@home wrote
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed
limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast. Luck is not required.

Cite please...

Cite a car accident where it would have happened if the car wasn't
going slower. More than 1%?

You can run the same silly line about the car being stopped completely.

Driving a car requires the driver to weigh up the risks of driving at a particular speed to keep the chances of an
accident low.

Even safer to stay home.

Some drivers are good at this and never have accidents.
Some are useless and have accidents.
Some don't consider the safety of anyone else at all, must be the
shocks they get from being an electrician.

"Rod Speed"/Harry Bloomfield/Harry/Rhondo/Alhoa wrote silly things in
message ...

Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.

I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help. Not
only does it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep"
everytime I exceed the stated road speed by 10% which
generally means I don't bother looking at the speedo constantly.

I just engage the speed limiter!

I prefer to drive over the limit most of the time because we have a stupid
50Kmph limit

That is a good thing as Aussies cannot drive properly.

dennis@home wrote:



"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

Cite please...

Cite a car accident where it would have happened if the car wasn't going
slower.
More than 1%?

No, you cite - you're the one making the assertion.

And you should defined "too fast". Do you mean:

a) Too fast for the conditions

b) Above the legal speed limit for the road in question?

--
Tim Watts

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

Cite please...

Cite a car accident where it would have happened if the car wasn't going
slower.

Oh dear. where it would have happendw if (subje) was (notdoing what it
was not doing)

More than 1%?


I make it by definition 100%.

i.e. dennis if the car was in fact not travelling any slower than it was
it can't affect the chances of having an accident.

*shakes head in despair*


Driving a car requires the driver to weigh up the risks of driving at a
particular speed to keep the chances of an accident low.
Some drivers are good at this and never have accidents.

Almost irrespective of speed.

Some are useless and have accidents.

Almost irrespective of speed.

Some don't consider the safety of anyone else at all, must be the shocks
they get from being an electrician.

or in your case, the mental health unit


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:24:37 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:32:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.


I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help. Not only
does it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep" everytime I exceed
the stated road speed by 10% which generally means I don't bother
looking at the speedo constantly.

I just engage the speed limiter!


Is that a euphemism for the MiL?

No, she's old enough not to notice how fast I am driving...!

This is a real one..



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:28:21 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Rod Speed"/Harry Bloomfield/Harry/Rhondo/Alhoa wrote silly things in
message ...

Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.

I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help. Not only
does it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep" everytime I
exceed the stated road speed by 10% which generally means I don't
bother looking at the speedo constantly.

I just engage the speed limiter!

I prefer to drive over the limit most of the time because we have a
stupid 50Kmph limit

That is a good thing as Aussies cannot drive properly.

Sounds a good limit to me....50,000 mph



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:24:37 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:32:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.


I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help. Not only
does it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep" everytime I exceed
the stated road speed by 10% which generally means I don't bother
looking at the speedo constantly.
I just engage the speed limiter!


Is that a euphemism for the MiL?

No, she's old enough not to notice how fast I am driving...!

Reminds me of te time we ran my late moter up to Yorkshire in the old
XJS.. and as she had made us late rather fast.. "What speed are we doing
she said?" and leaned across to see 'oh, only 50 miles an hour. It seems
faster than that'

The dear old bat was reading the revcounter, thank heavens. :-)


This is a real one..





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:28:21 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Rod Speed"/Harry Bloomfield/Harry/Rhondo/Alhoa wrote silly things in
message ...

Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.
I've found running Sygic on my 'droid to be a great help. Not only
does it go "beep" for speed cameras, it goes "beep" everytime I
exceed the stated road speed by 10% which generally means I don't
bother looking at the speedo constantly.
I just engage the speed limiter!
I prefer to drive over the limit most of the time because we have a
stupid 50Kmph limit
That is a good thing as Aussies cannot drive properly.

Sounds a good limit to me....50,000 mph

I bet Clarkson would disagree :-0)





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:



"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

Cite please...

Cite a car accident where it would have happened if the car wasn't going
slower.
More than 1%?

No, you cite - you're the one making the assertion.

Well I have, there are less than 1% of car accidents where if the driver was
driving slow enough they would not have happened.
Virtually all accidents are avoidable by one of the parties as they are
nearly all driver error.


And you should defined "too fast". Do you mean:

a) Too fast for the conditions

b) Above the legal speed limit for the road in question?

Neither, too fast for the participants to avoid the accident.

Its like this.. if you can foresee an accident happening, you would slow
down to avoid it.
Some drivers do this better than others.
They are the ones that the poor drivers say are driving too slow.
The fact the poor drivers have been held up prevents the accident happening
so they never get to see what the hazard was reinforcing their mistaken
beliefs that the good driver was driving too slow.

Its when the poor drivers get to make the decisions that they crash.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Reminds me of te time we ran my late moter up to Yorkshire in the old
XJS.. and as she had made us late rather fast.. "What speed are we doing
she said?" and leaned across to see 'oh, only 50 miles an hour. It seems
faster than that'

The dear old bat was reading the revcounter, thank heavens. :-)

What gear?
In top that would make it about 150 mph which the old XJS couldn't do.

On 27/03/2012 18:25, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:06:19 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third
time.

But still no conviction?

no.

Couldn't be the evidence from the hairdryer would not be admissable.

But, the registration number of the vehicle involved is
circulated to all police forces. They will be on the look out
for you.

What a load of ****e.

****e that plods will be told the number and be watching for it. Not
so the ANPR system...

I wonder how that would work.

The ANPR camera reports to the police that is has spotted a car that has
been reported 3 times for speeding in a quiet village. It's now driving in a
town centre doing 10MPH like ever other car in the traffic jam that has just
passed the ANPR camera.

Anyway the answer is simple. The volunteer speed camera operatives should be
given the address of the speeder and then made to speed past his house 3
times in their cars.

I cannot see many people getting caught 3 times by the volunteers and still
not managing to lose their license by being caught speeding elsewhere by the
police (unless they live local)

It might be they just speed up when the see the line dennis wannabes in
the hope of getting a few ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:



"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

That 99% of accidents are caused by stupid drivers or bad luck, not
failure to keep exactly to arbitrary speed limits?

No, 99% of accidents are caused because the driver was going too fast.
Luck is not required.

Cite please...

Cite a car accident where it would have happened if the car wasn't going
slower.
More than 1%?

No, you cite - you're the one making the assertion.

Well I have, there are less than 1% of car accidents where if the driver
was driving slow enough they would not have happened.
Virtually all accidents are avoidable by one of the parties as they are
nearly all driver error.


And you should defined "too fast". Do you mean:

a) Too fast for the conditions

b) Above the legal speed limit for the road in question?

Neither, too fast for the participants to avoid the accident.


Right. so in principle if you are sitting in a stationary queue of cars
ion a motorway and some kid decides to drop a concrete block on your
car, you were not in fact traveling too slow to avoid it, but too fast?
And you slow to a stop on every single roundabout IN CASE someone
decides to come out and hit you in the side of the car. In fact since
you cant predict what the other person is going to do, and really they
might do it while you were stationary, really teh only safe place is in
your garage, and hope that doesn't fall down.




Its like this.. if you can foresee an accident happening, you would slow
down to avoid it.

exactly. Or speed up, or turn the wheel, or not get in the car at all.


Some drivers do this better than others.
They are the ones that the poor drivers say are driving too slow.
The fact the poor drivers have been held up prevents the accident
happening so they never get to see what the hazard was reinforcing their
mistaken beliefs that the good driver was driving too slow.

Its when the poor drivers get to make the decisions that they crash.

Or cause someone else to crash.





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Reminds me of te time we ran my late moter up to Yorkshire in the old
XJS.. and as she had made us late rather fast.. "What speed are we
doing she said?" and leaned across to see 'oh, only 50 miles an hour.
It seems faster than that'

The dear old bat was reading the revcounter, thank heavens. :-)

What gear?
In top that would make it about 150 mph which the old XJS couldn't do.


I really cant remember. Might have been 4th. Twas the 3.6 liter 5 speed
manual.

For sure IIRC the old girl was stuck on 130mphh top speed. IIRC we were
doing between 110 and 120..:-)






--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

dennis@home wrote:



"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

Cite a car accident where it would have happened if the car wasn't going
slower.
More than 1%?

No, you cite - you're the one making the assertion.

Well I have, there are less than 1% of car accidents where if the driver
was driving slow enough they would not have happened.
Virtually all accidents are avoidable by one of the parties as they are
nearly all driver error.

That's not a citation. That's an unsubstantiated assertion.


And you should defined "too fast". Do you mean:

a) Too fast for the conditions

b) Above the legal speed limit for the road in question?

Neither, too fast for the participants to avoid the accident.

Its like this.. if you can foresee an accident happening, you would slow
down to avoid it.

Well, yes - unless your a physcopath.

But what does "foreseeable" mean? Does it mean driving so that you can stop
in the event of any accident, however unlikely? If so, you'd better drive at
5mp max on the motorway as you cannot predict with absolute certainly that
someone is not going to suddenly open the door of the car in front and jump
out in front of you.

To me, it means extra care and less speed near parked cars where kids are
around and not flying round a bend on a narrow country lane.

However, it does not mean slowing down to less than 40mph on a 40mph road in
the dry just because some adults are walking on the pavement, just on the
offchance one of them should have a brain fart and run into the road.

Some drivers do this better than others.
They are the ones that the poor drivers say are driving too slow.
The fact the poor drivers have been held up prevents the accident
happening so they never get to see what the hazard was reinforcing their
mistaken beliefs that the good driver was driving too slow.

Its when the poor drivers get to make the decisions that they crash.
--
Tim Watts