On 20/02/2018 15:48, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:11:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Ah. A year or so ago I met a fuel anker on such a road and was
treavveling too fast to stop, But the trusty 4WD scraped past at 45
degrees with two wheels up the bank.

Being most 4X4's are quite tall, with the two n/s wheels up a bank it
would be setting the vehicle at 45 degree angle *towards* the tanker
(by a fair percentage of the height of the vehicle).

The only way that could have happened and it helping was if it was a
lower car based 4X4?

Cheers, T i m


You don't have to believe everything he says.
I do however think he is a nutter for driving beyond his abilities.

In article , T i m
writes
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:11:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Ah. A year or so ago I met a fuel anker on such a road and was
treavveling too fast to stop, But the trusty 4WD scraped past at 45
degrees with two wheels up the bank.

Being most 4X4's are quite tall, with the two n/s wheels up a bank it
would be setting the vehicle at 45 degree angle *towards* the tanker
(by a fair percentage of the height of the vehicle).

The only way that could have happened and it helping was if it was a
lower car based 4X4?

Cheers, T i m
Factory recommended max tilt angle for Defender 90 hardtop is 40
degrees.
Most drivers chicken out long before that.
--
bert

Michael Chare wrote:

On 19/02/2018 20:12, Tim Lamb wrote:

Also, they are frightened of scratching the paint so drive well clear of
any hedge.


Quite right. I would like a law to stop land owners having trees etc
within a couple of feet or a roads edge.

On the contrary, anything that discourages people from driving
considerably faster than the speed that would allow them to stop in the
distance they can see is an excellent thing. I just hope they hit an
oil tanker round the blind bends rather than mow me down when I'm
walking.


--

Roger Hayter

T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:55:25 -0000, "Mark" wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
Plenty of places round here where if you meet a farm tractor, like as
not you back up until there is room (often made by people driving up
the bank to make an unofficial passing place).


I regularly that my Tank for a drive up our single track lane as a traffic
calming measure, amazing how useless some SUV type people are at reversing
http://imgbox.com/WlTt9IfA

Nice. ;-) [1]


This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

This is simply not true if the tank is driven at a sensible speed. The
only people who will suffer will be those driving at a stupid or
inconsiderate as well as stupid speed.






Of course this game only ends when we are all driving tanks. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[1] We have spend some good time at the Bovington Tank Museum, behind
the scenes at Duxford with a 'Friend of Duxford' and the Muckleburgh
Military Collection (and rode in a what I think was a BV 206)?


--

Roger Hayter

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:44:04 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:11:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Ah. A year or so ago I met a fuel anker on such a road and was
treavveling too fast to stop, But the trusty 4WD scraped past at 45
degrees with two wheels up the bank.

Being most 4X4's are quite tall, with the two n/s wheels up a bank it
would be setting the vehicle at 45 degree angle *towards* the tanker
(by a fair percentage of the height of the vehicle).

The only way that could have happened and it helping was if it was a
lower car based 4X4?


Factory recommended max tilt angle for Defender 90 hardtop is 40
degrees.

He may have been in an Audo TT Quatro or summat.

Most drivers chicken out long before that.

Ah, but this is TNP. A legend in his own lunchtime. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Michael Chare wrote:

On 19/02/2018 20:12, Tim Lamb wrote:

Also, they are frightened of scratching the paint so drive well clear of
any hedge.

Quite right. I would like a law to stop land owners having trees etc
within a couple of feet or a roads edge.

On the contrary, anything that discourages people from driving
considerably faster than the speed that would allow them to stop in the
distance they can see is an excellent thing. I just hope they hit an
oil tanker round the blind bends rather than mow me down when I'm
walking.

Which side of the road do you walk on?

Don't forget the context of this thread is single track roads.
Generally both sides with the dogs, but erring to the outside of bends.
This is a bit difficult to define with multiple bends though.


--

Roger Hayter

T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:44:04 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:11:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Ah. A year or so ago I met a fuel anker on such a road and was
treavveling too fast to stop, But the trusty 4WD scraped past at 45
degrees with two wheels up the bank.

Being most 4X4's are quite tall, with the two n/s wheels up a bank it
would be setting the vehicle at 45 degree angle *towards* the tanker
(by a fair percentage of the height of the vehicle).

The only way that could have happened and it helping was if it was a
lower car based 4X4?


Factory recommended max tilt angle for Defender 90 hardtop is 40
degrees.

He may have been in an Audo TT Quatro or summat.

Most drivers chicken out long before that.

Ah, but this is TNP. A legend in his own lunchtime. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

When the unexpected happens one can get all 4 wheels up the bank!


--

Roger Hayter

On 19/02/2018 17:22, David wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:07:11 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article 2,
DerbyBorn wrote:

Was thinking as I drove along a lane with deep ruts where the tarmac met
the grass - and wondering what damage it may have done to the vehicle -
that such lanes are a problem - the tarmak crumbles at the edges and
keeps breaking away.
Clearly constucting a road with curbs (kurbs?) woudld be costly - but
having seen a machine continuously casting a centre barrier I wondered
if a machine could do it.

Road would be blocked for a long period, and there are thousands of
miles of these roads. The main reason for the ruts is that such roads
are too narrow for today's vehicles, especially the stupid SUVs that too
many people affect. Combine that with too many of the drivers being
unable to judge the width of their vehicle so they don't go over as far
as they could, forcing the other driver into the ruts.

Trying to think of a SUV which is wider than a farm tractor, a sheep
trailer, a cattle truck, bin lorry, delivery lorry, farmer's pick up truck
etc.

Oh, hang on, if you are not in Chelsea but instead out in the country you
might be a farm worker driving on your local roads.

SUVs can be a problem in towns, where much smaller vehicles can make
sense, but country lanes are one place where they are used properly.


We have a Smart Car and an SUV which looks huge.

In fact, the difference in width between the two isn't that much at all.

Looks can be very misleading. Our previous SUV was a CRV, the new one
is an Outlander hybrid. The latter looks far longer/larger. In fact it
is about 4" longer. 4" in the length of a car- could you estimate to that?


The 'country roads' problem doesn't seen to happen in France. We drive a
huge motorhome + trailer (Smart car) down country roads in France when
needed. We meet other large vehicles, tractors, .... never a problem. We
did loose a mirror once, on a wide road. I saw the Dutch motorhome
driving in the middle of it, pulled right over on the verge, stopped,
and he still hit the mirror.


--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:01:28 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:55:25 -0000, "Mark" wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
Plenty of places round here where if you meet a farm tractor, like as
not you back up until there is room (often made by people driving up
the bank to make an unofficial passing place).


I regularly that my Tank for a drive up our single track lane as a traffic
calming measure, amazing how useless some SUV type people are at reversing
http://imgbox.com/WlTt9IfA

Nice. ;-) [1]


This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

This is simply not true if the tank is driven at a sensible speed.

So let's say the 'tank' is doing 30 mph and runs head-on into a small
family car (filled with family) also doing 30 mph in the opposite
direction, the occupants of both vehicles will suffer the same
deceleration etc (all other things being equal)?

The
only people who will suffer will be those driving at a stupid or
inconsiderate as well as stupid speed.

I would suggest it will be those in the 'lighter vehicle' who will
come off worst, irrespective of any driving.

'Immovable object'?

How often does a motorcyclist come out better off when colliding with
a car or a car with a truck, bus or train?

My point is the use of a 'bigger vehicle' as a means of making you or
your family safer is only relevant when you collide with a similar
size vehicle (when it just evens the odds) or when you are hit by a
bigger vehicle (when it improves your odds).

It's not 'right' to use someone else's family as part of your crumple
zone. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Michael Chare wrote:

On 19/02/2018 20:12, Tim Lamb wrote:

Also, they are frightened of scratching the paint so drive well
clear of any hedge.

Quite right. I would like a law to stop land owners having trees etc
within a couple of feet or a roads edge.

On the contrary, anything that discourages people from driving
considerably faster than the speed that would allow them to stop in the
distance they can see is an excellent thing. I just hope they hit an
oil tanker round the blind bends rather than mow me down when I'm
walking.

Which side of the road do you walk on?

Don't forget the context of this thread is single track roads.
Generally both sides with the dogs, but erring to the outside of bends.
This is a bit difficult to define with multiple bends though.

:-)

Glad to hear that - a sensible approach. I live in dread that some
pedestrian on one of the local lanes will have just read the admonition
in the Highway Code about walking facing the traffic, and I'll meet
them going round a left hand bend. Most of the roads round here are
unsafe for pedestrians.

In Cambridge, of course, it was **** cyclists jumping red lights.

No, sorry, the road is perfectly safe for pedestrians. It is the
behaviour of car drivers that is unsafe for pedestrians. Round here,
where we only have one car every ten to thirty minutes they do tend to
be a bit more reasonable than in the home counties, though.



--

Roger Hayter

T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:01:28 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:55:25 -0000, "Mark" wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
Plenty of places round here where if you meet a farm tractor, like as
not you back up until there is room (often made by people driving up
the bank to make an unofficial passing place).


I regularly that my Tank for a drive up our single track lane as a traffic
calming measure, amazing how useless some SUV type people are at reversing
http://imgbox.com/WlTt9IfA

Nice. ;-) [1]


This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

This is simply not true if the tank is driven at a sensible speed.

So let's say the 'tank' is doing 30 mph and runs head-on into a small
family car (filled with family) also doing 30 mph in the opposite
direction, the occupants of both vehicles will suffer the same
deceleration etc (all other things being equal)?

The
only people who will suffer will be those driving at a stupid or
inconsiderate as well as stupid speed.

I would suggest it will be those in the 'lighter vehicle' who will
come off worst, irrespective of any driving.

'Immovable object'?

How often does a motorcyclist come out better off when colliding with
a car or a car with a truck, bus or train?

My point is the use of a 'bigger vehicle' as a means of making you or
your family safer is only relevant when you collide with a similar
size vehicle (when it just evens the odds) or when you are hit by a
bigger vehicle (when it improves your odds).

It's not 'right' to use someone else's family as part of your crumple
zone. ;-(

Cheers, T i m
The point I am making is that if you drive at a sensible speed it will
only ever be the other person responsible for the collision. I suspect
most tank owners don't drive at 30mph round blind bends. Noblesse
oblige.

--

Roger Hayter

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 01:03:42 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

snip


My point is the use of a 'bigger vehicle' as a means of making you or
your family safer is only relevant when you collide with a similar
size vehicle (when it just evens the odds) or when you are hit by a
bigger vehicle (when it improves your odds).

It's not 'right' to use someone else's family as part of your crumple
zone. ;-(

The point I am making is that if you drive at a sensible speed it will
only ever be the other person responsible for the collision.

And the point I was making it matters little who was 'responsible' for
a collision if it was a conscious decision by one party to make their
family safer by increasing the risk to others?

I suspect
most tank owners don't drive at 30mph round blind bends.

I hope you understood 'tank' = 'overlarge vehicle bought because it's
'safer' than a smaller one', not an actual tank?

Cheers, T i m

On 21/02/2018 00:04, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:01:28 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:55:25 -0000, "Mark" wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
Plenty of places round here where if you meet a farm tractor, like as
not you back up until there is room (often made by people driving up
the bank to make an unofficial passing place).


I regularly that my Tank for a drive up our single track lane as a traffic
calming measure, amazing how useless some SUV type people are at reversing
http://imgbox.com/WlTt9IfA

Nice. ;-) [1]


This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

This is simply not true if the tank is driven at a sensible speed.

So let's say the 'tank' is doing 30 mph and runs head-on into a small
family car (filled with family) also doing 30 mph in the opposite
direction, the occupants of both vehicles will suffer the same
deceleration etc (all other things being equal)?

The
only people who will suffer will be those driving at a stupid or
inconsiderate as well as stupid speed.

I would suggest it will be those in the 'lighter vehicle' who will
come off worst, irrespective of any driving.

'Immovable object'?

How often does a motorcyclist come out better off when colliding with
a car or a car with a truck, bus or train?

My point is the use of a 'bigger vehicle' as a means of making you or
your family safer is only relevant when you collide with a similar
size vehicle (when it just evens the odds) or when you are hit by a
bigger vehicle (when it improves your odds).

It's not 'right' to use someone else's family as part of your crumple
zone. ;-(

Perhaps you drive in a way such a consideration is relevant, I certainly
don't.

People, generally, don't set out to collide with other people, vehicles
or objects, as you seem to be convinced those in bigger cars are
mentally driven by some super strong sense of self-protection, you must
believe they desire to do so even less.

Besides the most important aspect of any accident- injury or worse to
people- there is also the cost. Do you seriously think just because
someone has a bigger car, they are looking for opportunities to incur
the costs of an accident? Even with insurance, they will face increased
premiums, uninsured losses, ......

You clearly have an issue with 'bigger cars' and their owners/drives and
feel the need to hide behind bogus safety concerns. I suggest you look
at the dimensions, especially the width, of some SUVs and compare them
to average or even small cars. Passing on narrow roads isn't really a
big deal - I drive a Smart Car, a SUV, and a 3.5T motorhome + trailer on
narrow roads when needed.






--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

On 20/02/18 22:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Michael Chare wrote:

On 19/02/2018 20:12, Tim Lamb wrote:
Also, they are frightened of scratching the paint so drive well
clear of
any hedge.

Quite right.Â* I would like a law to stop land owners having trees etc
within a couple of feet or a roads edge.

On the contrary, anything that discourages people from driving
considerably faster than the speed that would allow them to stop in the
distance they can see is an excellent thing.Â* I just hope they hit an
oil tanker round the blind bends rather than mow me down when I'm
walking.

Which side of the road do you walk on?

Todger is full of all the pre programmed social myths like 'stopping in
the distance they can see'.


Which fails if

- someone is caoming in the other durection at the same speed, in which
case you need to stop in half the distance you can see.

- a deer leaps out of a hedge 3 feet on front of you.

He has obviously never driven in the country. Safe driving is a lot
slower than that.

I am thinking of making up a handy set of gravestones engraved with the
saying

"He died, obeying all the rules, and therefore thinking he was safe".




--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 20/02/18 22:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:44:04 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , T i m
writes
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:11:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Ah. A year or so ago I met a fuel anker on such a road and was
treavveling too fast to stop, But the trusty 4WD scraped past at 45
degrees with two wheels up the bank.

Being most 4X4's are quite tall, with the two n/s wheels up a bank it
would be setting the vehicle at 45 degree angle *towards* the tanker
(by a fair percentage of the height of the vehicle).

The only way that could have happened and it helping was if it was a
lower car based 4X4?


Factory recommended max tilt angle for Defender 90 hardtop is 40
degrees.

He may have been in an Audo TT Quatro or summat.

Most drivers chicken out long before that.

Ah, but this is TNP. A legend in his own lunchtime. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

When the unexpected happens one can get all 4 wheels up the bank!


I am sure you know I drive an old Freelander these days

Anyway it was a curve to the right after swerving left...I was past the
tanker well before it had a chance to start toppling.

No. The Defender - which I used to have - only ever drove OVER a large
roundabout that was gridlocked.






--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 20/02/18 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Michael Chare wrote:

On 19/02/2018 20:12, Tim Lamb wrote:
Also, they are frightened of scratching the paint so drive
well clear of
any hedge.
Quite right.Â* I would like a law to stop land owners having
trees etc
within a couple of feet or a roads edge.

On the contrary, anything that discourages people from driving
considerably faster than the speed that would allow them to stop in the
distance they can see is an excellent thing.Â* I just hope they hit an
oil tanker round the blind bends rather than mow me down when I'm
walking.

Which side of the road do you walk on?

Don't forget the context of this thread is single track roads.
Generally both sides with the dogs, but erring to the outside of bends.
This is a bit difficult to define with multiple bends though.

:-)

Glad to hear that - a sensible approach. I live in dread that some
pedestrian on one of the local lanes will have just read the admonition
in the Highway Code about walking facing the traffic, and I'll meet
them going round a left hand bend. Most of the roads round here are
unsafe for pedestrians.

In Cambridge, of course, it was **** cyclists jumping red lights.

In Cambridge **** cyclists dont have ANY lights.

--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/02/18 22:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Michael Chare wrote:

On 19/02/2018 20:12, Tim Lamb wrote:
Also, they are frightened of scratching the paint so drive well
clear of
any hedge.

Quite right. I would like a law to stop land owners having trees etc
within a couple of feet or a roads edge.

On the contrary, anything that discourages people from driving
considerably faster than the speed that would allow them to stop in the
distance they can see is an excellent thing. I just hope they hit an
oil tanker round the blind bends rather than mow me down when I'm
walking.

Which side of the road do you walk on?

Todger is full of all the pre programmed social myths like 'stopping in
the distance they can see'.


Which fails if

- someone is caoming in the other durection at the same speed, in which
case you need to stop in half the distance you can see.

Of course, I was keeping it simple for those who habitually drive
considerably too fast. The worst problems are on roads that are
variable in width where people hope with a bit of luck they might get
past someone. Many tend to be a bit more sensible on very narrow roads.


- a deer leaps out of a hedge 3 feet on front of you.

Or a sheep hidden in the hedge thinks it best to return to its own side
when it sees you coming.


He has obviously never driven in the country. Safe driving is a lot
slower than that.

Agreed. The point at which I visibly irritate tractor drivers behind me
is probably about right.


I am thinking of making up a handy set of gravestones engraved with the
saying

"He died, obeying all the rules, and therefore thinking he was safe".


--

Roger Hayter

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 05:20:05 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

snip

This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

This is simply not true if the tank is driven at a sensible speed.

So let's say the 'tank' is doing 30 mph and runs head-on into a small
family car (filled with family) also doing 30 mph in the opposite
direction, the occupants of both vehicles will suffer the same
deceleration etc (all other things being equal)?

The
only people who will suffer will be those driving at a stupid or
inconsiderate as well as stupid speed.

I would suggest it will be those in the 'lighter vehicle' who will
come off worst, irrespective of any driving.

'Immovable object'?

How often does a motorcyclist come out better off when colliding with
a car or a car with a truck, bus or train?

My point is the use of a 'bigger vehicle' as a means of making you or
your family safer is only relevant when you collide with a similar
size vehicle (when it just evens the odds) or when you are hit by a
bigger vehicle (when it improves your odds).

It's not 'right' to use someone else's family as part of your crumple
zone. ;-(

Perhaps you drive in a way such a consideration is relevant, I certainly
don't.

Do you think I would Brian?

People, generally, don't set out to collide with other people, vehicles
or objects, as you seem to be convinced

Are you a Brexiteer? You seem to be 'convinced' about things without
any real clue or reason to be?

those in bigger cars are
mentally driven by some super strong sense of self-protection,

By 'those' I'm guessing you would think I suggested 'all', whereas I
*clearly* stated my logic only relates to those who bought a bigger
car as a consideration that it would make their families safer.

you must
believe they desire to do so even less.

Again, putting (bogus) words into my mouth Brian?

Besides the most important aspect of any accident- injury or worse to
people- there is also the cost.

Ok?

Do you seriously think just because
someone has a bigger car, they are looking for opportunities to incur
the costs of an accident?

What??? Whisky-dave, is this you?

Even with insurance, they will face increased
premiums, uninsured losses, ......

Duh.

You clearly have an issue with 'bigger cars' and their owners/drives and
feel the need to hide behind bogus safety concerns.

You clearly have a 'bigger car' which you purchased with the increased
safety of your family in mind?

Tell me what is bogus about the likely outcome to the human contents
of both vehicles in as big collision (all other things being equal)?

I suggest you look
at the dimensions, especially the width, of some SUVs and compare them
to average or even small cars.

Whoosh mate. Put them on a weighbridge and compare the heights of the
'bumpers' to those on a std saloon car and come back to me.
Irrespective you won't be arguing with me, you will be arguing with
official road safety research. (But you really didn't need me to
point this out did you)? eg

https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/a...arge-cars.html

"In its studies, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has
found that a heavier vehicle will typically push a lighter one
backward during the impact. As a result, there is less force on the
occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on those in the lighter
vehicle, according to IIHS. The organization's fatality data bears
this out. The lowest 2015 death rate by vehicle type is for very large
SUVs: 13 deaths per million registered vehicles. The highest is for
mini cars: 64 deaths per million registered vehicles."


Passing on narrow roads isn't really a
big deal -

I never said it was .... however, our daughter chose a Transit Connect
over a std Transit because it was narrower than the std van and
therefore not only able to access narrower places easier but also much
easier to drive in traffic as she could still get though car width
gaps.

I drive a Smart Car, a SUV, and a 3.5T motorhome + trailer on
narrow roads when needed.

I know ...

So the question is, did you buy any of them on the thought that your
family would be 'safer' in them in the event of a serious accident,
simply because of their size? If you didn't, you are not the people
I'm talking about. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

You clearly have an issue with 'bigger cars' and their owners/drives and
feel the need to hide behind bogus safety concerns. I suggest you look
at the dimensions, especially the width, of some SUVs and compare them to
average or even small cars. Passing on narrow roads isn't really a big
deal - I drive a Smart Car, a SUV, and a 3.5T motorhome + trailer on
narrow roads when needed.





easy in a LHD Mustang...tee hee

On 20/02/2018 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

Glad to hear that - a sensible approach. I live in dread that some
pedestrian on one of the local lanes will have just read the admonition
in the Highway Code about walking facing the traffic, and I'll meet
them going round a left hand bend. Most of the roads round here are
unsafe for pedestrians.

You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

In message , Roger Hayter
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/02/18 22:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Michael Chare wrote:

On 19/02/2018 20:12, Tim Lamb wrote:
Also, they are frightened of scratching the paint so drive well
clear of
any hedge.

Quite right. I would like a law to stop land owners having trees etc
within a couple of feet or a roads edge.

On the contrary, anything that discourages people from driving
considerably faster than the speed that would allow them to stop in the
distance they can see is an excellent thing. I just hope they hit an
oil tanker round the blind bends rather than mow me down when I'm
walking.

Which side of the road do you walk on?

Todger is full of all the pre programmed social myths like 'stopping in
the distance they can see'.


Which fails if

- someone is caoming in the other durection at the same speed, in which
case you need to stop in half the distance you can see.

Of course, I was keeping it simple for those who habitually drive
considerably too fast. The worst problems are on roads that are
variable in width where people hope with a bit of luck they might get
past someone. Many tend to be a bit more sensible on very narrow roads.


- a deer leaps out of a hedge 3 feet on front of you.

Or a sheep hidden in the hedge thinks it best to return to its own side
when it sees you coming.


He has obviously never driven in the country. Safe driving is a lot
slower than that.

Agreed. The point at which I visibly irritate tractor drivers behind me
is probably about right.

Probably a 40kph gearbox and a high seating position with much better
road vision than a saloon car.


I am thinking of making up a handy set of gravestones engraved with the
saying

"He died, obeying all the rules, and therefore thinking he was safe".



--
Tim Lamb

On 21/02/18 09:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/02/18 22:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Michael Chare wrote:

On 19/02/2018 20:12, Tim Lamb wrote:
Also, they are frightened of scratching the paint so drive well
clear of
any hedge.

Quite right. I would like a law to stop land owners having trees etc
within a couple of feet or a roads edge.

On the contrary, anything that discourages people from driving
considerably faster than the speed that would allow them to stop in the
distance they can see is an excellent thing. I just hope they hit an
oil tanker round the blind bends rather than mow me down when I'm
walking.

Which side of the road do you walk on?

Todger is full of all the pre programmed social myths like 'stopping in
the distance they can see'.


Which fails if

- someone is caoming in the other durection at the same speed, in which
case you need to stop in half the distance you can see.

Of course, I was keeping it simple for those who habitually drive
considerably too fast. The worst problems are on roads that are
variable in width where people hope with a bit of luck they might get
past someone. Many tend to be a bit more sensible on very narrow roads.


- a deer leaps out of a hedge 3 feet on front of you.

Or a sheep hidden in the hedge thinks it best to return to its own side
when it sees you coming.


He has obviously never driven in the country. Safe driving is a lot
slower than that.

Agreed. The point at which I visibly irritate tractor drivers behind me
is probably about right.


Because they can see over the hedges and you cant?

Yes. You are a crap driver





--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 21/02/18 10:12, Huge wrote:
On 2018-02-21, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Roger Hayter
writes

[47 lines snipped]

Agreed. The point at which I visibly irritate tractor drivers behind me
is probably about right.

Probably a 40kph gearbox and a high seating position with much better
road vision than a saloon car.

And deeply **** roadholding, cornering and braking performance.

Braking is pretty good actually





--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/02/18 09:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Todger is full of all the pre programmed social myths like 'stopping in
the distance they can see'.


Which fails if

- someone is caoming in the other durection at the same speed, in which
case you need to stop in half the distance you can see.

Of course, I was keeping it simple for those who habitually drive
considerably too fast. The worst problems are on roads that are
variable in width where people hope with a bit of luck they might get
past someone. Many tend to be a bit more sensible on very narrow roads.


- a deer leaps out of a hedge 3 feet on front of you.

Or a sheep hidden in the hedge thinks it best to return to its own side
when it sees you coming.


He has obviously never driven in the country. Safe driving is a lot
slower than that.

Agreed. The point at which I visibly irritate tractor drivers behind me
is probably about right.


Because they can see over the hedges and you cant?

Yes. You are a crap driver


Oh well, never mind.


--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

On 20/02/2018 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

Glad to hear that - a sensible approach. I live in dread that some
pedestrian on one of the local lanes will have just read the admonition
in the Highway Code about walking facing the traffic, and I'll meet
them going round a left hand bend. Most of the roads round here are
unsafe for pedestrians.

You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?

We read. We disagreed. Very few roads are unsafe for pedestrians,
giant sinkholes apart. It is negligent drivers of motorised vehicles
who are a danger.

--

Roger Hayter

On 21/02/18 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

On 20/02/2018 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

Glad to hear that - a sensible approach. I live in dread that some
pedestrian on one of the local lanes will have just read the admonition
in the Highway Code about walking facing the traffic, and I'll meet
them going round a left hand bend. Most of the roads round here are
unsafe for pedestrians.

You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?

We read. We disagreed. Very few roads are unsafe for pedestrians,
giant sinkholes apart. It is negligent drivers of motorised vehicles
who are a danger.

Christ you are an an idiot.

I bet you believe that a gun without someone to load it aim it and fire
it also is dangerous...

And that no one has ever been killed by a pedestrian or a cyclist.



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/02/18 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

On 20/02/2018 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

Glad to hear that - a sensible approach. I live in dread that some
pedestrian on one of the local lanes will have just read the
admonition in the Highway Code about walking facing the traffic, and
I'll meet them going round a left hand bend. Most of the roads round
here are unsafe for pedestrians.

You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?

We read. We disagreed. Very few roads are unsafe for pedestrians,
giant sinkholes apart. It is negligent drivers of motorised vehicles
who are a danger.

Christ you are an an idiot.

I bet you believe that a gun without someone to load it aim it and fire
it also is dangerous...

And that no one has ever been killed by a pedestrian or a cyclist.

not true

There have been a number of court cases recently where a cyclist colliding
with apedestian had resulted in that perdestrian dying.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"T i m" wrote in message
...
http://imgbox.com/WlTt9IfA

Nice. ;-) [1]


This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

Of course this game only ends when we are all driving tanks. ;-(

It does seem as this idea that I have a huge suv/offroader with 10 air bags
so im safe and every one can get out of MY way is behind some peoples
driving.

but just in case, ;(
I have an even bigger Tank which the turret gun sticks out a good 10 feet
in front as a crash barrier FV4201
unfortunately unlike the FV101 its too wide to go up the single track road
without taking out all the power and telegraph poles
and it dosent have any rubber inserts on the tracks which tends to make a
real mess of tarmac roads


-

In message , Huge
writes
On 2018-02-21, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Roger Hayter
writes

[47 lines snipped]

Agreed. The point at which I visibly irritate tractor drivers behind me
is probably about right.

Probably a 40kph gearbox and a high seating position with much better
road vision than a saloon car.

And deeply **** roadholding, cornering and braking performance.

I don't own anything that young but I don't think deeply cleated tyres
are particularly bad at road holding. Large footprint due to low
pressure radials. Acceleration not comparable with a car but they can
stop sharpish. Tractors had power steering from way back.



--
Tim Lamb

On 21/02/2018 12:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

On 20/02/2018 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

Glad to hear that - a sensible approach. I live in dread that some
pedestrian on one of the local lanes will have just read the admonition
in the Highway Code about walking facing the traffic, and I'll meet
them going round a left hand bend. Most of the roads round here are
unsafe for pedestrians.

You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?


We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
The we were on the pavement, the road was quite wide and busy. I'm not
sure what the limit was, probably 30mph. The road was certainly busy
enough and the traffic moving so freely that, had I wished to cross, I'd
have looked for a crossing or, as min, somewhere with an central
'island' etc.

Unfortunately, not everyone shows such caution. A woman of, perhaps
30-40 decided to try and run across the road. She 'made it' but only
because a car had better brakes/the driver had better reactions than her
running ability. She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

On 21/02/2018 20:26, Huge wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
http://imgbox.com/WlTt9IfA

Nice. ;-) [1]


This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

No-one gives a **** about you, D i m.


He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the idea ISN'T to crash into
anyone or anything.

I wonder where he learned to drive, the dodgems?

Brian Reay wrote:

On 21/02/2018 12:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:


You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?


We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
The we were on the pavement, the road was quite wide and busy. I'm not
sure what the limit was, probably 30mph. The road was certainly busy
enough and the traffic moving so freely that, had I wished to cross, I'd
have looked for a crossing or, as min, somewhere with an central
'island' etc.

Unfortunately, not everyone shows such caution. A woman of, perhaps
30-40 decided to try and run across the road. She 'made it' but only
because a car had better brakes/the driver had better reactions than her
running ability. She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

In Battle where? Hight Street, beginning of north trade road?
people and school kids are always crossing those roads so 30mph is too fast
having said that the is always the exception of the clot that steps out from behind a parked car in the high street

-

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:08:22 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 21/02/2018 20:26, Huge wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
http://imgbox.com/WlTt9IfA

Nice. ;-) [1]


This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

No-one gives a **** about you, D i m.


He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the idea ISN'T to crash into
anyone or anything.

And you don't seem to grasp the concept that I have grasped more of
the concepts than you from the beginning. But then I'm not trying to
justify myself?

'Huge' (describing his ego) is just a sad troll.

I wonder where he learned to drive, the dodgems?

Why on earth are you spouting such nonsense Brian?

I didn't make up the stats ... ? (eg)

https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/a...arge-cars.html

https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-...ly-safer-cars/

"However, the average SUV poses nearly twice the risk to drivers of
other vehicles as do the average midsize and large cars. The net
result is that the combined risk of the average SUV (129) is about 25
to 30 percent higher than that of the average midsize (105) or large
car (100)."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/auto...oad/index.html

"You might notice that this list is heavy on SUVs, with few small or
subcompact cars.

That's really just a matter of physics. If two vehicles, both of which
perform equally well in crash tests, meet each other in a real-world
wreck, the occupants of the smaller, lighter vehicle will likely fare
worse."

Those facts are *nothing* to do with driving skills and everything to
do with relative masses. As a maths teacher I would have thought you
would be able to deal with statistics and some science?

So, I repeat, anyone deliberately choosing a big vehicle because it is
safer than a small vehicle is only enjoying that 'advantage' at the
cost of those in the smaller vehicles.

What seems ironic / coincidental is that it's only those who may well
fall under my question who is desperately trying to avoid the science.

Fact, the occupants of bigger vehicles typically survive better than
the occupants of smaller vehicles (when everything else is equal).

Fact, if you buy a bigger vehicle because or with the consideration
that you and your will be 'safer' in an accident, you are
statistically only going to be doing so at the cost to someone else.

Fact, the above has *nothing* to do with anyone's personal driving
style (so you can wind you neck in). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:49:53 -0000, "Mark" wrote:

snip

Of course this game only ends when we are all driving tanks. ;-(

It does seem as this idea that I have a huge suv/offroader with 10 air bags
so im safe and every one can get out of MY way is behind some peoples
driving.

Well I believe studies have shown that the driving standard drops as
the perceived (driver) safety increases. The number of accidents went
up after the mandatory use of safety belts was introduced etc.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/...564465,00.html

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/...k-at-the-data/

https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf



but just in case, ;(
I have an even bigger Tank which the turret gun sticks out a good 10 feet
in front as a crash barrier FV4201

Didn't I hear suggestion of our current MBT, the Challenger 2 (?) is
now pretty long in the tooth and really needs replacing?

The K2 Black Panther looks like it's as nasty as an Apache or a
Warthog?

unfortunately unlike the FV101 its too wide to go up the single track road
without taking out all the power and telegraph poles

Or park in your attached garage I'm guessing.

and it dosent have any rubber inserts on the tracks which tends to make a
real mess of tarmac roads

I bet, especially on a nice 180.

I'm assuming there wouldn't be that much traction on a solid paved
road, compared with something a bit softer anyway?

Do you also have the means to transport these things Mark, should the
need arise?

Cheers, T i m

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
news
On 21/02/2018 12:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

On 20/02/2018 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:

Glad to hear that - a sensible approach. I live in dread that some
pedestrian on one of the local lanes will have just read the admonition
in the Highway Code about walking facing the traffic, and I'll meet
them going round a left hand bend. Most of the roads round here are
unsafe for pedestrians.

You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?


We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
The we were on the pavement, the road was quite wide and busy. I'm not
sure what the limit was, probably 30mph. The road was certainly busy
enough and the traffic moving so freely that, had I wished to cross, I'd
have looked for a crossing or, as min, somewhere with an central 'island'
etc.

Unfortunately, not everyone shows such caution. A woman of, perhaps 30-40
decided to try and run across the road. She 'made it' but only because a
car had better brakes/the driver had better reactions than her running
ability. She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

always the wummin driver .....

"Mark" wrote in message news
Brian Reay wrote:

On 21/02/2018 12:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:


You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?


We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
The we were on the pavement, the road was quite wide and busy. I'm not
sure what the limit was, probably 30mph. The road was certainly busy
enough and the traffic moving so freely that, had I wished to cross, I'd
have looked for a crossing or, as min, somewhere with an central
'island' etc.

Unfortunately, not everyone shows such caution. A woman of, perhaps
30-40 decided to try and run across the road. She 'made it' but only
because a car had better brakes/the driver had better reactions than her
running ability. She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

In Battle where? Hight Street, beginning of north trade road?
people and school kids are always crossing those roads so 30mph is too
fast
having said that the is always the exception of the clot that steps out
from behind a parked car in the high street

how come old punters cross the road with their back always turned against
the driver ...?

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

"Mark" wrote in message
news
Brian Reay wrote:

On 21/02/2018 12:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:


You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?


We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
The we were on the pavement, the road was quite wide and busy. I'm not
sure what the limit was, probably 30mph. The road was certainly busy
enough and the traffic moving so freely that, had I wished to cross, I'd
have looked for a crossing or, as min, somewhere with an central
'island' etc.

Unfortunately, not everyone shows such caution. A woman of, perhaps
30-40 decided to try and run across the road. She 'made it' but only
because a car had better brakes/the driver had better reactions than her
running ability. She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

In Battle where? Hight Street, beginning of north trade road?
people and school kids are always crossing those roads so 30mph is too
fast
having said that the is always the exception of the clot that steps out
from behind a parked car in the high street

how come old punters cross the road with their back always turned against
the driver ...?

Is it because they don't want to see what is about to kill them ...

On 22/02/2018 00:02, Mark wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

On 21/02/2018 12:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:


You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?


We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
The we were on the pavement, the road was quite wide and busy. I'm not
sure what the limit was, probably 30mph. The road was certainly busy
enough and the traffic moving so freely that, had I wished to cross, I'd
have looked for a crossing or, as min, somewhere with an central
'island' etc.

Unfortunately, not everyone shows such caution. A woman of, perhaps
30-40 decided to try and run across the road. She 'made it' but only
because a car had better brakes/the driver had better reactions than her
running ability. She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

In Battle where? Hight Street, beginning of north trade road?
people and school kids are always crossing those roads so 30mph is too fast
having said that the is always the exception of the clot that steps out from behind a parked car in the high street

Not sure of the road name- main road running through Battle, I think
there was a supermarket tucked away behind on one side. There was a
modernish development with a French road name which we thought was a bit
funny. We'd had lunch in the place opposite the Abbey (been there a few
times- very good) and were having a walk.

Nice place, I've been that way a few times in the last year or so.
Powder Mills do very good lunches.

--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
news
On 22/02/2018 00:02, Mark wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

On 21/02/2018 12:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:


You mean the drivers around there are unsafe for pedestrians!

You unable to read?


We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
The we were on the pavement, the road was quite wide and busy. I'm not
sure what the limit was, probably 30mph. The road was certainly busy
enough and the traffic moving so freely that, had I wished to cross, I'd
have looked for a crossing or, as min, somewhere with an central
'island' etc.

Unfortunately, not everyone shows such caution. A woman of, perhaps
30-40 decided to try and run across the road. She 'made it' but only
because a car had better brakes/the driver had better reactions than her
running ability. She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

In Battle where? Hight Street, beginning of north trade road?
people and school kids are always crossing those roads so 30mph is too
fast
having said that the is always the exception of the clot that steps out
from behind a parked car in the high street

Not sure of the road name- main road running through Battle, I think there
was a supermarket tucked away behind on one side. There was a modernish
development with a French road name which we thought was a bit funny.
We'd had lunch in the place opposite the Abbey (been there a few times-
very good) and were having a walk.

Nice place, I've been that way a few times in the last year or so. Powder
Mills do very good lunches.

https://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Powderm...ance&lang=just the kind of place you would like...tee hee

On 22/02/2018 00:47, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:08:22 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 21/02/2018 20:26, Huge wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
http://imgbox.com/WlTt9IfA

Nice. ;-) [1]


This (driving a 'tank') is often used by folk as a way of 'protecting
them and their family' but they are either unaware ... or are and
simply don't care that the only way that will work is if they crash
into something smaller, putting other peoples families at greater
risk. ;-(

No-one gives a **** about you, D i m.


He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the idea ISN'T to crash into
anyone or anything.

And you don't seem to grasp the concept that I have grasped more of
the concepts than you from the beginning. But then I'm not trying to
justify myself?

'Huge' (describing his ego) is just a sad troll.

I wonder where he learned to drive, the dodgems?

Why on earth are you spouting such nonsense Brian?

I didn't make up the stats ... ? (eg)

https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/a...arge-cars.html

https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-...ly-safer-cars/

"However, the average SUV poses nearly twice the risk to drivers of
other vehicles as do the average midsize and large cars. The net
result is that the combined risk of the average SUV (129) is about 25
to 30 percent higher than that of the average midsize (105) or large
car (100)."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/auto...oad/index.html

"You might notice that this list is heavy on SUVs, with few small or
subcompact cars.

That's really just a matter of physics. If two vehicles, both of which
perform equally well in crash tests, meet each other in a real-world
wreck, the occupants of the smaller, lighter vehicle will likely fare
worse."

Those facts are *nothing* to do with driving skills and everything to
do with relative masses. As a maths teacher I would have thought you
would be able to deal with statistics and some science?

So, I repeat, anyone deliberately choosing a big vehicle because it is
safer than a small vehicle is only enjoying that 'advantage' at the
cost of those in the smaller vehicles.

What seems ironic / coincidental is that it's only those who may well
fall under my question who is desperately trying to avoid the science.

Fact, the occupants of bigger vehicles typically survive better than
the occupants of smaller vehicles (when everything else is equal).

Fact, if you buy a bigger vehicle because or with the consideration
that you and your will be 'safer' in an accident, you are
statistically only going to be doing so at the cost to someone else.

Fact, the above has *nothing* to do with anyone's personal driving
style (so you can wind you neck in). ;-)


Your own reference states:

"Regardless of what you drive, all experts agree that how you drive is
the most important safety factor. Human performance and behavior factors
contribute to more than 90 percent of crashes, according to NHTSA."

(From:
https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/a...arge-cars.html
)


If you don't hit another car, large or small, then size really doesn't
matter.




--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud