On 28/03/2012 11:44, 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.

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

Even if slowing down will make the accident more likely?

What about accidents you can't foresee?

Some drivers do this better than others.

And let me guess, you are one of the better ones...

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 dennis spouts twaddle like this, one realised he is probably so
far up his own arse, that a boat hook is not going to get him out. I
suggest leaving him there

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

Ah so that was your excuse...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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.

That is not a problem for you as you obviously drive a safe distance behind
the car in front!
Anyway you can usually see them opening the door well before they can jump
just as you can see them opening the door on parked cars.


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.

But what if they are standing at the kerb?
What if a car has just pulled up opposite them?


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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 28/03/2012 11:44, 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.

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

Even if slowing down will make the accident more likely?

There are almost no circumstances where slowing would make an accident more
likely.
And if it did then there would be less energy available to do damage.


What about accidents you can't foresee?

That would be about 1%.


Some drivers do this better than others.

And let me guess, you are one of the better ones...

Better at what?
You should know I treat all drivers as idiots, there are no exceptions.


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 dennis spouts twaddle like this, one realised he is probably so
far up his own arse, that a boat hook is not going to get him out. I
suggest leaving him there

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

Ah so that was your excuse...

Its you that appears to be digging for an excuse.
What do you need an excuse for?

dennis@home wrote:

You should know I treat all drivers as idiots, there are no exceptions.

So, you can't or don't drive, then?

Or do you also treat yourself as an idiot? In which case, join the rest
of us...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

dennis@home wrote
Tim Watts wrote

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.

That is not a problem for you as you obviously drive a safe distance
behind the car in front!

Anyway you can usually see them opening the door well before they can jump just as you can see them opening the door
on parked cars.

Like hell you can with parked cars.

The most you can actually see is that there is someone in the car on
that side of the car and that isnt even possible with some like vans.

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.

Or trip and fall into the road.

But what if they are standing at the kerb?

Hardly anyone slows down so much that they can always
stop quickly enough if they do choose to step off the kerb
without looking at all except when its a kid.

What if a car has just pulled up opposite them?

I dont personally slow down in that case unless
its a kid standing on the other side of 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.

dennis@home wrote
John Rumm wrote
dennis@home wrote
Tim Watts wrote
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%?

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.

Even if slowing down will make the accident more likely?

There are almost no circumstances where slowing would make an accident more likely.

Thats completely silly. If you are going at half the legal speed
limit in situations where the legal speed limit is completely safe,
you will in fact be much more likely to produce accidents with
those who keep trying to overtake you.

Which is why driving like that is illegal in many jurisdictions.

And if it did then there would be less energy available to do damage.

Wrong with the overtakers.

What about accidents you can't foresee?

That would be about 1%.

That number is straight from your arse, we can tell by the smell.

Some drivers do this better than others.

And let me guess, you are one of the better ones...

Better at what?
You should know I treat all drivers as idiots, there are no exceptions.

Including the cops eh ? Yeah, right.

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 dennis spouts twaddle like this, one realised he is probably so far up his own arse, that a boat hook is not
going to get him out. I suggest leaving him there

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

Ah so that was your excuse...

Its you that appears to be digging for an excuse.
What do you need an excuse for?

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"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.


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


--
geoff

geoff wrote:

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"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.


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit

Yep - Denise just buried himself - I was waiting for that.
--
Tim Watts

On 29/03/2012 08:12, Tim Watts wrote:
geoff wrote:

In , "dennis@home"
writes


"Tim wrote in message
news dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural 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.


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit

Yep - Denise just buried himself - I was waiting for that.

This is dennis remember, definitions and constants can change at will to
suite the argument of the moment.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 29/03/2012 11:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/03/2012 08:12, Tim Watts wrote:
geoff wrote:

In , "dennis@home"
writes


"Tim wrote in message
news dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural 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.


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit

Yep - Denise just buried himself - I was waiting for that.

This is dennis remember, definitions and constants can change at will to
suite the argument of the moment.

"He has selective memory loss, never hearing what he doesn't want to and
malapropism-itis, which result in his confusing anyone he happens to be
talking to and even confusing himself. However, he more often than not
blames the people he is talking to for causing the confusion in the
first place. On the few occasions he does realise that he is in the
wrong, he tries to lie out of his predicament, often unsuccessfully.

A typical conversation will involve his confusing both himself and
others, while becoming drastically sidetracked from the matter in hand.
He is usually oblivious to the chaos he causes, often blaming his
interlocutors for any confusion. On the rare occasions he realises he is
at fault, he often attempts to divert the blame by lying. Inevitably
becoming confused by his own lies, his last resort is usually to claim
he was recording a stunt for a hidden camera show".

Dennis or Count Arthur Strong? You decide.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/03/2012 08:12, Tim Watts wrote:
geoff wrote:

In , "dennis@home"
writes


"Tim wrote in message
news dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural 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.


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit

Yep - Denise just buried himself - I was waiting for that.

This is dennis remember, definitions and constants can change at will to
suite the argument of the moment.

Bullsh!t I don't define "too fast" that has been done by others.
However exceeding the speed limit is too fast.
I don't expect geof or the other idiots to know the difference but I didn't
think you were as thick as they are.
However I could have been wrong and attributed you with too much
intelligence, I have been told that is my biggest fault, thinking others are
clever.

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/03/2012 08:12, Tim Watts wrote:
geoff wrote:

In , "dennis@home"
writes


"Tim wrote in message
news dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural 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.


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted
speed limit

Yep - Denise just buried himself - I was waiting for that.

This is dennis remember, definitions and constants can change at
will to suite the argument of the moment.

Bullsh!t I don't define "too fast" that has been done by others.

However exceeding the speed limit is too fast.

That is not a fact. On a quiet motorway a steady 90MPH is quite safe and is
not too fast.

Your obsession with speed limits is showing again.

--
Adam

dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Well of course 'too fast' is a conditional statement.


100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough to
escape to earth orbit.

So its alos too slow.

In short your sentence has zero meaning .

exceeding the speed limit is going too fast to avoid getting points on
yopr license. That is true. It has no meaning with respect to road
safety of course.

I have been driven at 140mph down the M1. We didn't crash, ergo it was
not too fast for the conditions, by definition.



--
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.

ARWadsworth wrote:

Your obsession with speed limits is showing again.

Denis cannot watch those road-cop programmes without creaming his pants.

--
Tim Watts

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:43:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast. If you
can't work out the difference hard luck.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it, dennis?



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

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

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


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.


Well of course 'too fast' is a conditional statement.


100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough to
escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits or
space travel.


So its alos too slow.

In short your sentence has zero meaning .

It has an exact meaning, too fast.


exceeding the speed limit is going too fast to avoid getting points on
yopr license. That is true. It has no meaning with respect to road safety
of course.

Why do you limit too fast just to safety?
It can be too fast for various other reasons.


I have been driven at 140mph down the M1. We didn't crash, ergo it was not
too fast for the conditions, by definition.

By your somewhat limited definition.
However others may not agree.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:43:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast. If you
can't work out the difference hard luck.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it, dennis?

Well it isn't yours by the looks of things.

dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:43:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast. If you
can't work out the difference hard luck.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it, dennis?

Well it isn't yours by the looks of things.

what an illogical thing to say ...;-)


--
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
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough to
escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits
or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed for
the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the centre. At
100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in theory just about
measurable, although in practice totally masked by aerodynamic effects.

100mph is a *touch* too fast to be driving through a town centre,
though, unless you're in Monaco on Grand Prix day.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough
to escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits
or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed for
the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the centre. At
100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in theory just about
measurable, although in practice totally masked by aerodynamic effects.

100mph is a *touch* too fast to be driving through a town centre,
though, unless you're in Monaco on Grand Prix day.


Note dennis changes the game from 'to earth orbit' to '[from?] earth orbit'.




--
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.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough
to escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of
orbits or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed
for the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the
centre. At 100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in
theory just about measurable, although in practice totally masked by
aerodynamic effects.

100mph is a *touch* too fast to be driving through a town centre,
though, unless you're in Monaco on Grand Prix day.


Note dennis changes the game from 'to earth orbit' to '[from?] earth
orbit'.

And is still wrong.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough to
escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits or
space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed for
the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the centre. At
100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in theory just about
measurable, although in practice totally masked by aerodynamic effects.

But escape velocity isn't what he said.
100 mph is more than enough to escape earth orbit if you have propulsion
available.
You can go up vertically at walking speed and leave earth orbit if you have
the thrust available for long enough.

Escape velocity is what a rocket has to get to so its stored kinetic energy
is enough to escape earth orbit because it can't keep its engines going.


100mph is a *touch* too fast to be driving through a town centre, though,
unless you're in Monaco on Grand Prix day.

According to some its safe if you don't have an accident doing so.
A bit like saying shooting at people is safe as long as you miss.

John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast
enough to escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of
orbits or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed
for the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the
centre. At 100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in
theory just about measurable, although in practice totally masked by
aerodynamic effects.

Do we really have to mention that denis ****ed up when I said g was
different on dennisworld?

--
Adam

Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

Your obsession with speed limits is showing again.

Denis cannot watch those road-cop programmes without creaming his
pants.

Mentally disabled people are allowed to masturbate:-)


--
Adam

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

Your obsession with speed limits is showing again.

Denis cannot watch those road-cop programmes without creaming his
pants.

Mentally disabled people are allowed to masturbate:-)



But physically incapable of doing so when constrained by a straitjacket

--
geoff

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:03:38 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:43:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed
limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast. If
you can't work out the difference hard luck.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it, dennis?

Well it isn't yours by the looks of things.

That comment just proves that you don't understand the difference between
the two statements.

Q.E.D.



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

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

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


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough to
escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits
or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed for
the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the centre. At
100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in theory just about
measurable, although in practice totally masked by aerodynamic effects.

100mph is a *touch* too fast to be driving through a town centre, though,
unless you're in Monaco on Grand Prix day.


Note dennis changes the game from 'to earth orbit' to '[from?] earth
orbit'.

Note TNP tries to hide the fact he was talking about escape velocity and not
orbits.

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


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough to
escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits
or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed for
the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the centre. At
100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in theory just about
measurable, although in practice totally masked by aerodynamic effects.

100mph is a *touch* too fast to be driving through a town centre,
though, unless you're in Monaco on Grand Prix day.


Note dennis changes the game from 'to earth orbit' to '[from?] earth
orbit'.

And is still wrong.

Where?
Are you denying physics by saying a rocket with an engine that can run long
enough can't escape the earths gravity at very slow speeds?

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:03:38 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:43:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed
limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast. If
you can't work out the difference hard luck.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it, dennis?

Well it isn't yours by the looks of things.

That comment just proves that you don't understand the difference between
the two statements.

Quite the opposite, you can't grasp that they are different and show that
geof was talking bullsh!t.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:03:38 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:43:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed
limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast. If
you can't work out the difference hard luck.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it, dennis?

Well it isn't yours by the looks of things.

That comment just proves that you don't understand the difference between
the two statements.

Quite the opposite, you can't grasp that they are different and show
that geof was talking bullsh!t.

Me?

You've got your attributes mixed up bull**** boi

--
geoff

On 29/03/2012 19:24, ARWadsworth wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"John wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/03/2012 08:12, Tim Watts wrote:
geoff wrote:

In , "dennis@home"
writes


"Tim wrote in message
news dennis@home wrote:



"The Natural 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.


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted
speed limit

Yep - Denise just buried himself - I was waiting for that.

This is dennis remember, definitions and constants can change at
will to suite the argument of the moment.

Bullsh!t I don't define "too fast" that has been done by others.

However exceeding the speed limit is too fast.

That is not a fact. On a quiet motorway a steady 90MPH is quite safe and is
not too fast.

Your obsession with speed limits is showing again.

It fits with his inability to actually apply common sense to any
situation. Like all that guff about sticking 9kW on a socket. He likes
nice black and white rules that don't require any application of thought
or interpretation. So speed limit = dangerous, without recognising its
an arbitrary number chosen as a resonable compromise for the situation.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 29/03/2012 18:43, dennis@home wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...


Err .. bull**** boi

You usually define "going too fast" as exceeding the posted speed limit


Wrong as usual geof, exceeding the speed limit is going too fast.
If you can't work out the difference hard luck.

The 30mph limit dates from 1934, the 70mph limit from 1965.

So was 30mph+ too fast then or now?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:


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


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast
enough to escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of
orbits or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed
for the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the
centre. At 100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in
theory just about measurable, although in practice totally masked by
aerodynamic effects.

100mph is a *touch* too fast to be driving through a town centre,
though, unless you're in Monaco on Grand Prix day.


Note dennis changes the game from 'to earth orbit' to '[from?] earth
orbit'.

And is still wrong.

Where?
Are you denying physics by saying a rocket with an engine that can run
long enough can't escape the earths gravity at very slow speeds?

No, I'm calling your statement which say that 100mph is fast enough to
escape Earth orbit a lie. Unless, of course, you are talking about an
extra 100 mph for an object that is already travelling at 24914 mph
relaitve to the centre of the Erath.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

dennis@home wrote:



"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough to
escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits
or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed for
the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the centre. At
100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in theory just about
measurable, although in practice totally masked by aerodynamic effects.

But escape velocity isn't what he said.
100 mph is more than enough to escape earth orbit if you have propulsion
available.

1mm/aeon is enough to escape orbit if you have propulsion available.

That's not what "escape velocity" means...


--
Tim Watts

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:25:12 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

****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.

ANPR cameras are not just static some traffic cars are fitted with
them. So the traffic plod get alerted, they might choose to follow
for a while to see what the "tagged" car does. Chances are that the
driver is an habitual speeder...

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)

Unless he has a "road angel" or similar device that warns him of the
static cameras and maybe even the mobile ones as they have to publish
(stupidly IMHO) well before hand where they are going to be.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

It fits with his inability to actually apply common sense to any
situation. Like all that guff about sticking 9kW on a socket. He likes
nice black and white rules that don't require any application of thought
or interpretation. So speed limit = dangerous, without recognising its
an arbitrary number chosen as a resonable compromise for the situation.

Its you that doesn't know why that limit was chosen that is the problem.
As I have stated before safety is not the only reason speed limits are set.
If you exceed that limit because you think its safe then you choose to
ignore all the other reasons.
The thinking of someone that doesn't care about anyone else or what effect
that has on them.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


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


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough
to escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of
orbits or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed
for the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the
centre. At 100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in
theory just about measurable, although in practice totally masked by
aerodynamic effects.

100mph is a *touch* too fast to be driving through a town centre,
though, unless you're in Monaco on Grand Prix day.


Note dennis changes the game from 'to earth orbit' to '[from?] earth
orbit'.

And is still wrong.

Where?
Are you denying physics by saying a rocket with an engine that can run
long enough can't escape the earths gravity at very slow speeds?

No, I'm calling your statement which say that 100mph is fast enough to
escape Earth orbit a lie. Unless, of course, you are talking about an
extra 100 mph for an object that is already travelling at 24914 mph
relaitve to the centre of the Erath.

So you want to start including the speed we are doing because the earth
rotates (about 1000 mph) so you can fine everyone for speeding?

Suppose you are floating stationary in space (relative to the earth as you
would be doing a few thousand mph following the earths orbit around the
sun).
You start to fall towards earth because of gravity (lets call it dead drop).
You now apply thrust away from earth and you start to move at 1 mph, you
then reduce the thrust so you always travel away from the earth at 1 mph.
After a period of time you will have gone far enough away that you are no
longer going to fall back to earth because of gravity.
I.E. you didn't need anywhere near escape velocity to actually get away.

As I said escape velocity is just the speed at which you have enough kinetic
energy stored to escape, if you are generating energy you don't need to go
at escape velocity.
You will never be any good at physics if you can't grasp something that
simple.

But just to make it easy for you, imagine its a car going uphill, you can
either start really fast and get to the top by momentum *or* you can start
the engine and go up at 5 mph (arbitrary speed chosen so you don't have to
think).

dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

It fits with his inability to actually apply common sense to any
situation. Like all that guff about sticking 9kW on a socket. He likes
nice black and white rules that don't require any application of
thought or interpretation. So speed limit = dangerous, without
recognising its an arbitrary number chosen as a resonable compromise
for the situation.

Its you that doesn't know why that limit was chosen that is the problem.
As I have stated before safety is not the only reason speed limits are set.
If you exceed that limit because you think its safe then you choose to
ignore all the other reasons.
The thinking of someone that doesn't care about anyone else or what
effect that has on them.

You are inconsistent. You repeatedly claim that travelling at speeds
even slightly higher than the indicated limit is automatically extremely
dangerous, yet you now say that safety is not the only reason for
setting a particular limit.

Which is correct? Is it always dangerous to exceed a speed limit which
has been set to, say, reduce traffic noise? Note:- We all know that it
is unlawful to do so, but is it automatically dangerous?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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



"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
100mph is too fast to go through a town center but isnt fast enough to
escape to earth orbit.

That's not true.
its more than enough to escape earth orbit.
Go on argue with me and prove that you have no understanding of orbits
or space travel.

Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000mph, roughly. Orbital speed for
the Earth at ground level is about 17,500 mph relative to the centre. At
100mph on a normal road, the reduction in weight is in theory just about
measurable, although in practice totally masked by aerodynamic effects.

But escape velocity isn't what he said.
100 mph is more than enough to escape earth orbit if you have propulsion
available.

1mm/aeon is enough to escape orbit if you have propulsion available.

That's not what "escape velocity" means...

I know.
Shame TNP doesn't know escape orbit != escape velocity.