http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33324975

Ch Insp Jo Bull spouted the following bull**** "These two boys are putting
themselves and others in extreme danger in return for a quick adrenalin
rush."

No **** Sherlock. Did you work that one out yourself?

Still boys will be boys, and if that video was included as part of a CV I
would give them a job.

--
Adam

"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33324975

Ch Insp Jo Bull spouted the following bull**** "These two boys are putting
themselves and others in extreme danger in return for a quick adrenalin
rush."

No **** Sherlock. Did you work that one out yourself?

Still boys will be boys, and if that video was included as part of a CV I
would give them a job.

Considering idiots for employment confirms that you will never be in a
position to offer such.
Well done Adam.

"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message
...

"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33324975

Ch Insp Jo Bull spouted the following bull**** "These two boys are
putting themselves and others in extreme danger in return for a quick
adrenalin rush."

No **** Sherlock. Did you work that one out yourself?

Still boys will be boys, and if that video was included as part of a CV I
would give them a job.

Considering idiots for employment confirms that you will never be in a
position to offer such.

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement in
life is building a house on Minecraft.



--
Adam

On 30/06/15 20:06, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Considering idiots for employment confirms that you will never be in a
position to offer such.

I dunno. Look at the Labia party.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 30/06/2015 20:20, ARW wrote:

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement
in life is building a house on Minecraft.

I agree with that. They did not hurt anyone else, or even get close,
as far as I can see.

However, surely they should have worn gloves, so they could hang on if
something went wrong? That would have been sensible, without reducing
the thrill. IT would also mean not leaving fingerprints. Would you
really want an apprentice who was too daft to think of that?

As it is, they'll be asking mum for new trousers, as these ones have
worn out.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33324975

Ch Insp Jo Bull spouted the following bull**** "These two boys are putting
themselves and others in extreme danger in return for a quick adrenalin
rush."

No **** Sherlock. Did you work that one out yourself?

Still boys will be boys, and if that video was included as part of a CV I
would give them a job.

I would give parts of their dead body a job as a donor ...... more useful to
somebody who values life ......

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2015 20:20, ARW wrote:

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement
in life is building a house on Minecraft.

I agree with that. They did not hurt anyone else, or even get close, as
far as I can see.

However, surely they should have worn gloves, so they could hang on if
something went wrong? That would have been sensible, without reducing the
thrill. IT would also mean not leaving fingerprints. Would you really
want an apprentice who was too daft to think of that?

As it is, they'll be asking mum for new trousers, as these ones have worn
out.


Are you suggesting that their mother does the shoplifting?

--
Adam

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ...


"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33324975

Ch Insp Jo Bull spouted the following bull**** "These two boys are
putting themselves and others in extreme danger in return for a quick
adrenalin rush."

No **** Sherlock. Did you work that one out yourself?

Still boys will be boys, and if that video was included as part of a CV I
would give them a job.

I would give parts of their dead body a job as a donor ...... more useful
to somebody who values life ......

What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives? At least
they have a life, unlike you and pounder.

In article , GB
scribeth thus
On 30/06/2015 20:20, ARW wrote:

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement
in life is building a house on Minecraft.

I agree with that. They did not hurt anyone else, or even get close,
as far as I can see.

However, surely they should have worn gloves, so they could hang on if
something went wrong? That would have been sensible, without reducing
the thrill. IT would also mean not leaving fingerprints. Would you
really want an apprentice who was too daft to think of that?

As it is, they'll be asking mum for new trousers, as these ones have
worn out.


Well one question remains unanswered. Just how the hell did they get up
there ?. Someone must have left an access way, door or hatch open
somewhere.

Perhaps that why the council didn't want to comment;!.

--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , GB
scribeth thus
On 30/06/2015 20:20, ARW wrote:

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement
in life is building a house on Minecraft.

I agree with that. They did not hurt anyone else, or even get close,
as far as I can see.

However, surely they should have worn gloves, so they could hang on if
something went wrong? That would have been sensible, without reducing
the thrill. IT would also mean not leaving fingerprints. Would you
really want an apprentice who was too daft to think of that?

As it is, they'll be asking mum for new trousers, as these ones have
worn out.


Well one question remains unanswered. Just how the hell did they get up
there ?. Someone must have left an access way, door or hatch open
somewhere.

Perhaps that why the council didn't want to comment;!.

Or they broke in and that is why the council doesn’t want to
comment because that would make it clear that that is possible.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , GB
scribeth thus
On 30/06/2015 20:20, ARW wrote:

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement
in life is building a house on Minecraft.

I agree with that. They did not hurt anyone else, or even get close,
as far as I can see.

However, surely they should have worn gloves, so they could hang on if
something went wrong? That would have been sensible, without reducing
the thrill. IT would also mean not leaving fingerprints. Would you
really want an apprentice who was too daft to think of that?

As it is, they'll be asking mum for new trousers, as these ones have
worn out.


Well one question remains unanswered. Just how the hell did they get up
there ?. Someone must have left an access way, door or hatch open
somewhere.

Perhaps that why the council didn't want to comment;!.

Or they broke in and that is why the council doesn’t want to
comment because that would make it clear that that is possible.

Don't you have bread to bake?

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 00:33:45 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , GB
scribeth thus
On 30/06/2015 20:20, ARW wrote:

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement
in life is building a house on Minecraft.

I agree with that. They did not hurt anyone else, or even get close,
as far as I can see.

However, surely they should have worn gloves, so they could hang on if
something went wrong? That would have been sensible, without reducing
the thrill. IT would also mean not leaving fingerprints. Would you
really want an apprentice who was too daft to think of that?

As it is, they'll be asking mum for new trousers, as these ones have
worn out.


Well one question remains unanswered. Just how the hell did they get up
there ?. Someone must have left an access way, door or hatch open
somewhere.

Perhaps that why the council didn't want to comment;!.

It's a cable bridge, there is no protection to stop anyone climbing
it. They assumed no one in their right minds would want to.

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ...


"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33324975

Ch Insp Jo Bull spouted the following bull**** "These two boys are
putting themselves and others in extreme danger in return for a quick
adrenalin rush."

No **** Sherlock. Did you work that one out yourself?

Still boys will be boys, and if that video was included as part of a
CV I would give them a job.

I would give parts of their dead body a job as a donor ...... more
useful to somebody who values life ......

What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives? At
least they have a life, unlike you and pounder.

I'm with Adam on that one. More bloody courage than I ever had as a kid

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 10:35:58 PM UTC+1, Richard wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message ...


"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33324975

Ch Insp Jo Bull spouted the following bull**** "These two boys are
putting themselves and others in extreme danger in return for a quick
adrenalin rush."

No **** Sherlock. Did you work that one out yourself?

Still boys will be boys, and if that video was included as part of a CV I
would give them a job.

I would give parts of their dead body a job as a donor ...... more useful
to somebody who values life ......

What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives? At least
they have a life, unlike you and pounder.

I dunno. It looked cool to me. I wouldn't have had the nerve to climb out on to the rails in the first place. But the twin burn marks on their arse would be interesting.

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
....
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25
and, before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract concept
for most.

--
Colin Bignell

On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 20:46:03 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 30/06/2015 20:20, ARW wrote:

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement
in life is building a house on Minecraft.

I agree with that. They did not hurt anyone else, or even get close,
as far as I can see.

They're probably too high (as in height rather than drugged up) for the rubber necks to cause a car crash or delays, but if they'd fallen who'd have scopped them up.


However, surely they should have worn gloves, so they could hang on if
something went wrong? That would have been sensible, without reducing
the thrill. IT would also mean not leaving fingerprints. Would you
really want an apprentice who was too daft to think of that?

Apprentice's with the ability to cover up when they've done something wrong, if they could do that they wouldn't be apprentices they'd me managment ;-)

On 2015-06-30, ARW wrote:

"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message
...

"ARW" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33324975

Ch Insp Jo Bull spouted the following bull**** "These two boys are
putting themselves and others in extreme danger in return for a quick
adrenalin rush."

No **** Sherlock. Did you work that one out yourself?

Still boys will be boys, and if that video was included as part of a CV I
would give them a job.

Considering idiots for employment confirms that you will never be in a
position to offer such.

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement in
life is building a house on Minecraft.

http://www.robcottingham.ca/cartoon/...e/minecraft-y/

"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25 and,
before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract concept for
most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.

On 01/07/2015 15:09, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25
and, before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract
concept for most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.


It is fairly well documented and is a major reason why vehicle insurance
premiums are significantly higher for the under 25s. They simply don't
have the same awareness of danger.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 15:09:42 UTC+1, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25 and,
before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract concept for
most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.

Nah, it's quite well know that youngsters take hihgher risks is poart of adolensence. Which is why yuo get kids playing chicken on railway lines.
Been research on it too.

Adolescence: A time for taking chances

Risk taking is common and expected in adolescence. Across the lifespan, adolescence is the time of greatest risk taking (Chick & Reyna, 2012). While understanding or even over-estimating the likelihood that an action will result in harm, adolescents may place higher value on the benefits that might come from taking a particular risk. Adolescents are more responsive to the rewards of risk (such as peer approval), may be less sensitive to feeling the ill effects of substance use (such as hangovers), and are still developing the capacities for judgment and self-control (Institute of Medicine [IOM] & National Research Council [NRC], 2011).

Risk plays a role in development

Taking risks does not always lead to adverse outcomes (Brookmeyer & Henrich, 2009; Willoughby et al., 2007). Some level of risk taking benefits us developmentally. As B. Bradford Brown has pointed out, certain tasks of adolescence -- exploring and establishing identity, social standing, and romantic relationships -- require young people to take risks (IOM & NRC, 2011). In this sense, risk taking can lead to real benefits, such as a secure sense of self, true friendships, and love. Risk may also help adolescents become more resilient: by facing challenges, youth learn to call on their own strengths and mobilize the resources available to them (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).

On 01/07/15 15:27, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 01/07/2015 15:09, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25
and, before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract
concept for most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.


It is fairly well documented and is a major reason why vehicle insurance
premiums are significantly higher for the under 25s. They simply don't
have the same awareness of danger.


That's always been true. But in 1985 adding a 17 year old to your policy
for an ordinary car did not cost a small mortgage!

On 01/07/2015 16:18, Tim Watts wrote:
On 01/07/15 15:27, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 01/07/2015 15:09, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25
and, before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract
concept for most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.


It is fairly well documented and is a major reason why vehicle insurance
premiums are significantly higher for the under 25s. They simply don't
have the same awareness of danger.


That's always been true. But in 1985 adding a 17 year old to your policy
for an ordinary car did not cost a small mortgage!

As a teenager, it cost me £7/10/- p.a. to insure a car in my own name
for residence in both London and Glasgow. Times change and cars get more
expensive to repair.

--
Colin Bignell

In article , EricP
scribeth thus
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 00:33:45 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , GB
scribeth thus
On 30/06/2015 20:20, ARW wrote:

They are far more suitable for work than the ones whose best achivement
in life is building a house on Minecraft.

I agree with that. They did not hurt anyone else, or even get close,
as far as I can see.

However, surely they should have worn gloves, so they could hang on if
something went wrong? That would have been sensible, without reducing
the thrill. IT would also mean not leaving fingerprints. Would you
really want an apprentice who was too daft to think of that?

As it is, they'll be asking mum for new trousers, as these ones have
worn out.


Well one question remains unanswered. Just how the hell did they get up
there ?. Someone must have left an access way, door or hatch open
somewhere.

Perhaps that why the council didn't want to comment;!.

It's a cable bridge, there is no protection to stop anyone climbing
it. They assumed no one in their right minds would want to.

If you look at that on Google maps you'll see that the support towers
have entrances at the bottom, so the only way is up through those ..

Or..

If they did climb up there externally then there're superb mountaineers
in the making, or else they'd had to climb up on the support cables
which may well be do-able but far more impressive if they did so than
sliding down them!....


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 01/07/2015 16:18, Tim Watts wrote:
On 01/07/15 15:27, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 01/07/2015 15:09, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25
and, before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract
concept for most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.


It is fairly well documented and is a major reason why vehicle insurance
premiums are significantly higher for the under 25s. They simply don't
have the same awareness of danger.


That's always been true. But in 1985 adding a 17 year old to your policy
for an ordinary car did not cost a small mortgage!

As a teenager, it cost me £7/10/- p.a. to insure a car in my own name
for residence in both London and Glasgow. Times change and cars get more
expensive to repair.


I've seen quotes into four figures for a 17 Y/O learner and even more
once you've passed the test!..
--
Tony Sayer

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 01/07/15 15:27, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 01/07/2015 15:09, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25
and, before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract
concept for most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.


It is fairly well documented and is a major reason why vehicle insurance
premiums are significantly higher for the under 25s. They simply don't
have the same awareness of danger.


That's always been true. But in 1985 adding a 17 year old to your policy
for an ordinary car did not cost a small mortgage!


My insurance premiums went down when I added an 18 year old to my policy

--
Adam

"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 01/07/2015 15:09, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25
and, before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract
concept for most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.


It is fairly well documented and is a major reason why vehicle insurance
premiums are significantly higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have
the same awareness of danger.

Having a disregard for safety doesn't equate to not valuing their lives.
They may be reckless, but I am willing to bet that they would not jump from
the top of the bridge to the roadway as the result would more than likely be
death.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...


Risk plays a role in development

So it should.




--
Adam

It is fairly well documented and is a major reason why vehicle insurance
premiums are significantly higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have
the same awareness of danger.

Having a disregard for safety doesn't equate to not valuing their lives.
They may be reckless, but I am willing to bet that they would not jump from
the top of the bridge to the roadway as the result would more than likely be
death.



From that height it certainly would be!..

--
Tony Sayer

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2015 15:09, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" wrote in message
...

On 30/06/2015 22:35, Richard wrote:
...
What makes you think that those blokes do not value their lives?...

Their age. The instinct for self-preservation kicks in around age 25
and, before that, the idea of personal death is a very abstract
concept for most.

Methinks you talketh ******** on that one.


It is fairly well documented

And is the reason the military uses them at that age.

and is a major reason why vehicle insurance premiums are significantly
higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have the same awareness of
danger.

That one is very arguable and it could just as easily be
inexperience that is the main reason for the higher claims.

And your 25 is pretty bogus too given how many over that
age are into the more stupid stuff like base jumping etc.

On 01/07/2015 21:13, Rod Speed wrote:
....
and is a major reason why vehicle insurance premiums are significantly
higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have the same awareness of
danger.

That one is very arguable and it could just as easily be
inexperience that is the main reason for the higher claims...

That is a separate premium weighting, which is applied to anybody who
has been driving for less than one year, whatever their age.


--
Colin Bignell

On 01/07/2015 17:59, ARW wrote:

My insurance premiums went down when I added an 18 year old to my policy


That tells you what the insurers think of your driving?

On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 22:59:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2015 21:13, Rod Speed wrote:
...
and is a major reason why vehicle insurance premiums are significantly
higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have the same awareness of
danger.

That one is very arguable and it could just as easily be
inexperience that is the main reason for the higher claims...

That is a separate premium weighting, which is applied to anybody who has
been driving for less than one year, whatever their age.

But they don't necessarily get that good at driving in
a year on the question of avoiding having accidents.

They must do, insurance companies wouldn't get this wrong.
In fact most people get much better at driving after the first hour.
If you watch someone starting a car up and driving off for the first time they are likely to stall, not turn quick enough or too quick same with breakaing and accelerating, after an hour they're far better than they were. Which doesn;t mean they are perfect driver after a year any more than they'd be perfect drivers after 40 years.

http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-fact...the-hard-facts

Why are young drivers more at risk?

Research shows that the combination of youth and inexperience puts younger drivers at high risk. Their inexperience means they have less ability to spot hazards, and their youth means they are particularly likely to take risks. In this way, crash risk not only reduces over time with experience but also is higher for drivers who start driving at a younger age [5].

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 6:26:46 PM UTC+1, ARW wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...


Risk plays a role in development

So it should.




--
Adam

Investigation of Irish Car insurance companies gave the lie to the increased risk of young drivers. Insurance companies will take any opportunity to increase a premium.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2015 17:59, ARW wrote:

My insurance premiums went down when I added an 18 year old to my policy


That tells you what the insurers think of your driving?




Was the only time in life that a wife has saved a husband money.


--
Adam

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 22:59:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2015 21:13, Rod Speed wrote:
...
and is a major reason why vehicle insurance premiums are
significantly
higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have the same awareness
of
danger.

That one is very arguable and it could just as easily be
inexperience that is the main reason for the higher claims...

That is a separate premium weighting, which is applied to anybody who
has
been driving for less than one year, whatever their age.

But they don't necessarily get that good at driving in
a year on the question of avoiding having accidents.

They must do, insurance companies wouldn't get this wrong.

They have always got it wrong. In the past they didn't change
anything like the premiums for those under 25 that they should
have and even now charge much too much for the safest under
25 drivers, just because there is no way to work out who they
are with no claims history to use to work that out.

In fact most people get much better at driving after the first hour.

BULL****. And I have taught a number of people to drive.

If you watch someone starting a car up and driving off for the first time
they
are likely to stall, not turn quick enough or too quick same with
breakaing
and accelerating, after an hour they're far better than they were.

But they are so distracted by that stuff that becomes automatic
with time that they are much more likely to have an accident
when something unexpected happens with the other traffic
like someone else doing something completely stupid.

Which doesn;t mean they are perfect driver after a year

In fact they are nothing like that, particularly if they are kids
who just drive a little locally like so many girls do and then
have to drive around in very heavy traffic in the business
center of a state or country capital etc.

any more than they'd be perfect drivers after 40 years.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-fact...the-hard-facts

Why are young drivers more at risk?

Research shows that the combination of youth and
inexperience puts younger drivers at high risk.

What I said.

Their inexperience means they have less ability to spot hazards,

What I said.

and their youth means they are particularly likely to take risks.

That's not necessarily true with the girls. The problem
with so many of them is that they are much too cautious.

In this way, crash risk not only reduces over time with experience

What I said.

but also is higher for drivers who start driving at a younger age [5].

But its less clear how much of that is actually the age and how much
of that is because it's the risk takers that start driving younger.

fred wrote

Investigation of Irish Car insurance companies gave
the lie to the increased risk of young drivers.

Don't believe that.

Insurance companies will take any opportunity to increase a premium.

Yes, but there is a real difference there as well.

On Thursday, 2 July 2015 22:55:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 22:59:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2015 21:13, Rod Speed wrote:
...
and is a major reason why vehicle insurance premiums are
significantly
higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have the same awareness
of
danger.

That one is very arguable and it could just as easily be
inexperience that is the main reason for the higher claims...

That is a separate premium weighting, which is applied to anybody who
has
been driving for less than one year, whatever their age.

But they don't necessarily get that good at driving in
a year on the question of avoiding having accidents.

They must do, insurance companies wouldn't get this wrong.

They have always got it wrong.

They've always managed to make a profit and that's what they are for.

In the past they didn't change
anything like the premiums for those under 25 that they should
have and even now charge much too much for the safest under
25 drivers, just because there is no way to work out who they
are with no claims history to use to work that out.

That's how it works.


In fact most people get much better at driving after the first hour.

BULL****. And I have taught a number of people to drive.

Why doesn't that suprise me. If you don't know how to drive and teh first few minutes of instruction tell you where the brake, accelarator and clutch are and how to use them then you're highly likely to be a better driver than before you knew what the pedals were for.



If you watch someone starting a car up and driving off for the first time
they
are likely to stall, not turn quick enough or too quick same with
breakaing
and accelerating, after an hour they're far better than they were.

But they are so distracted by that stuff that becomes automatic
with time that they are much more likely to have an accident
when something unexpected happens with the other traffic
like someone else doing something completely stupid.

More experinced drivers know that, which is one thing that makes them more experienced and better drivers.


Which doesn;t mean they are perfect driver after a year

In fact they are nothing like that, particularly if they are kids
who just drive a little locally like so many girls do and then
have to drive around in very heavy traffic in the business
center of a state or country capital etc.

So you agree then, the less you drive the worse you are likely to be at it in general.


any more than they'd be perfect drivers after 40 years.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Think you missed the point there, hardly suprising.


http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-fact...the-hard-facts

Why are young drivers more at risk?

Research shows that the combination of youth and
inexperience puts younger drivers at high risk.

What I said.

No it isn't this is what you said.


In fact most people get much better at driving after the first hour.

BULL****. And I have taught a number of people to drive.

You've claimed people don't get better the more they drive, or is that only when you teach them.



Their inexperience means they have less ability to spot hazards,

What I said.

nop, otherwise you'd have realised why kid drivers tend to have higher insurance premiums.


and their youth means they are particularly likely to take risks.

That's not necessarily true with the girls. The problem
with so many of them is that they are much too cautious.

sounds a bit sexist to me but no suprise you use "not necessarily true"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...volved-in.html

so cautious they crash into parked cars.





In this way, crash risk not only reduces over time with experience

What I said.

Unless you've taught them it seems.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 22:55:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 22:59:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2015 21:13, Rod Speed wrote:
...
and is a major reason why vehicle insurance premiums are
significantly
higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have the same
awareness
of
danger.

That one is very arguable and it could just as easily be
inexperience that is the main reason for the higher claims...

That is a separate premium weighting, which is applied to anybody
who
has
been driving for less than one year, whatever their age.

But they don't necessarily get that good at driving in
a year on the question of avoiding having accidents.

They must do, insurance companies wouldn't get this wrong.

They have always got it wrong.

They've always managed to make a profit

Some of them have in fact failed to do that and have
gone bust or been swallowed up by better operations.

and that's what they are for.

Just as true of any operation. Some go bust anyway.

In the past they didn't change
anything like the premiums for those under 25 that they should
have and even now charge much too much for the safest under
25 drivers, just because there is no way to work out who they
are with no claims history to use to work that out.

That's how it works.

Or doesn't work very well in that case.

In fact most people get much better at driving after the first hour.

BULL****. And I have taught a number of people to drive.

If you don't know how to drive and teh first few minutes of instruction
tell you where the brake, accelarator and clutch are and how to use them

Almost everyone knows those basics before they start learning to drive.

then you're highly likely to be a better driver
than before you knew what the pedals were for.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

If you watch someone starting a car up and driving off for the first
time
they
are likely to stall, not turn quick enough or too quick same with
breakaing
and accelerating, after an hour they're far better than they were.

But they are so distracted by that stuff that becomes automatic
with time that they are much more likely to have an accident
when something unexpected happens with the other traffic
like someone else doing something completely stupid.

More experinced drivers know that,

And learners in the second hour etc don't.

which is one thing that makes them more experienced and better drivers.

Irrelevant to your stupid claim.

Which doesn;t mean they are perfect driver after a year

In fact they are nothing like that, particularly if they are kids
who just drive a little locally like so many girls do and then
have to drive around in very heavy traffic in the business
center of a state or country capital etc.

So you agree then,

Duh.

the less you drive the worse you are likely to be at it in general.

That's not necessarily true either with cautious drivers.

any more than they'd be perfect drivers after 40 years.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Think you missed the point there,

Wrong, as always.

http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-fact...the-hard-facts

Why are young drivers more at risk?

Research shows that the combination of youth and
inexperience puts younger drivers at high risk.

What I said.

No it isn't this is what you said.

Everyone can see for themselves that it is.

In fact most people get much better at driving after the first hour.

BULL****. And I have taught a number of people to drive.

You've claimed people don't get better the more they drive,

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying
thru your teeth, as you always do when you have
got done like a ****ing dinner, as you always are.

Their inexperience means they have less ability to spot hazards,

What I said.

nop,

Yes.

otherwise you'd have realised why kid drivers
tend to have higher insurance premiums.

I already said why that is, ****wit.

and their youth means they are particularly likely to take risks.

That's not necessarily true with the girls. The problem
with so many of them is that they are much too cautious.

sounds a bit sexist to me

More fool you.

but no suprise you use "not necessarily true"

Which means its not universally true, ****wit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...volved-in.html

so cautious they crash into parked cars.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Yes, many women
drivers are hopeless at parking in tight spaces. Plenty of
men are too.

In this way, crash risk not only reduces over time with experience

What I said.

reams of your pathetic attempts at trolling any 2 year
old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

sounds a bit sexist to me but no suprise you use "not necessarily true"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...volved-in.html

so cautious they crash into parked cars.


http://www.esatclear.ie/~irish.trade/gj000012.htm

I do not believe that is sexist to say that women drivers are **** at
parking a car.

Eyes do not lie.

Have you ever seen a school run? It is full of useless women drivers trying
to park a car into a space that you could fit a bus into with your eyes
closed.



--
Adam

On Friday, 3 July 2015 20:25:34 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 22:55:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 22:59:03 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2015 21:13, Rod Speed wrote:
...
and is a major reason why vehicle insurance premiums are
significantly
higher for the under 25s. They simply don't have the same
awareness
of
danger.

That one is very arguable and it could just as easily be
inexperience that is the main reason for the higher claims...

That is a separate premium weighting, which is applied to anybody
who
has
been driving for less than one year, whatever their age.

But they don't necessarily get that good at driving in
a year on the question of avoiding having accidents.

They must do, insurance companies wouldn't get this wrong.

They have always got it wrong.

They've always managed to make a profit

Some of them have in fact failed to do that and have
gone bust or been swallowed up by better operations.

and some haven't, the ones that know what they're doing are still in business
and those that have always got it wrong are no longer in business.

In fact most people get much better at driving after the first hour.

BULL****. And I have taught a number of people to drive.

If you don't know how to drive and teh first few minutes of instruction
tell you where the brake, accelarator and clutch are and how to use them

Almost everyone knows those basics before they start learning to drive.

Knowing the basics and being able use them to good effect is where the differnce lies, but how would you know.

As you say you've taught people to drive and during your instruction they haven't got any better at driving, I'd say there's something wrong with your teaching methods if that's the case you should give up teaching.



If you watch someone starting a car up and driving off for the first
time
they
are likely to stall, not turn quick enough or too quick same with
breakaing
and accelerating, after an hour they're far better than they were.

But they are so distracted by that stuff that becomes automatic
with time that they are much more likely to have an accident
when something unexpected happens with the other traffic
like someone else doing something completely stupid.

More experinced drivers know that,

And learners in the second hour etc don't.

That's why it's called experiance and is ongoing.
What they don't learn in the 1st hour they might learn in their 2nd 3rd or 4th etc...



Which doesn;t mean they are perfect driver after a year

In fact they are nothing like that, particularly if they are kids
who just drive a little locally like so many girls do and then
have to drive around in very heavy traffic in the business
center of a state or country capital etc.

So you agree then,

Duh.

the less you drive the worse you are likely to be at it in general.

That's not necessarily true either with cautious drivers.

a cautious isn't necessarily a safer driver, in some case they can cause more accidents. Inexperienced drivers are more likely to be classed a cautious driver.


http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-fact...the-hard-facts

Why are young drivers more at risk?

Research shows that the combination of youth and
inexperience puts younger drivers at high risk.

What I said.

No it isn't this is what you said.

Everyone can see for themselves that it is.

Yep.


In fact most people get much better at driving after the first hour.

BULL****. And I have taught a number of people to drive.

You've claimed people don't get better the more they drive,

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying
thru your teeth, as you always do when you have
got done like a ****ing dinner, as you always are.

Just because you teach people for hours on end and they don't get any better that is down to crap teaching.