On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:02:23 +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. ;-(

snip

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."

No, really?

(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.

Irrelevant mate.

The discussion was:

"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. ;-("

*Nothing* to do with driving styles, *everything* to do with bigger is
safer.

My point (which still stands and is supported by all the research) is
that *IF* you buy a *bigger vehicle* because it would make it safer
for *your family* then statistically you are only making it safer for
*your family* at the expense of *everyone else in a std / smaller
vehicle's family*.

Given that the vast majority of 'other people' on the road will be
ordinary people in smaller vehicles again statistically someone in a
bigger vehicle is 'more likely' to hit someone in a 'smaller vehicle'
than hitting a 'larger vehicle'.

I've not mentioned anything about anything else other than that.

The idea of buying a bigger vehicle with any though of it being
'safer' for you and your family also means taking up more room (even
if it only 1"), using more fuel / mile, therefore creating more
pollution / mile and doing more damage to the road / mile (than a
typical smaller (lighter) car of the same era).

Now, if you bought a 'bigger vehicle' because you had a bigger family
or needed to tow a caravan or regularly carry bulky items (a
wheelchair etc) then you may have simply bought said vehicle for
wholly / only practical purposes. e.g. The fact that it happens to be
'safer' than and at the cost of a smaller vehicle is by the by.

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:02:23 +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. ;-(

snip

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."

No, really?

(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.

Irrelevant mate.

The discussion was:

"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. ;-("

*Nothing* to do with driving styles, *everything* to do with bigger is
safer.

My point (which still stands and is supported by all the research) is
that *IF* you buy a *bigger vehicle* because it would make it safer
for *your family* then statistically you are only making it safer for
*your family* at the expense of *everyone else in a std / smaller
vehicle's family*.

Given that the vast majority of 'other people' on the road will be
ordinary people in smaller vehicles again statistically someone in a
bigger vehicle is 'more likely' to hit someone in a 'smaller vehicle'
than hitting a 'larger vehicle'.

I've not mentioned anything about anything else other than that.

The idea of buying a bigger vehicle with any though of it being
'safer' for you and your family also means taking up more room (even
if it only 1"), using more fuel / mile, therefore creating more
pollution / mile and doing more damage to the road / mile (than a
typical smaller (lighter) car of the same era).

Now, if you bought a 'bigger vehicle' because you had a bigger family
or needed to tow a caravan or regularly carry bulky items (a
wheelchair etc) then you may have simply bought said vehicle for
wholly / only practical purposes. e.g. The fact that it happens to be
'safer' than and at the cost of a smaller vehicle is by the by.

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?

some 20 years ago, a cartoon in the Telegraph had the following words: we
want our child to have plenty of space, security & plenty of fresh air. So
wev'e bought a large 4x4 with central locking and air conditioning.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 20:48:28 UTC, Brian Reay wrote:
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?

Brexit.

On 22/02/18 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 20:48:28 UTC, Brian Reay wrote:
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?

Brexit.

Climate change


--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 22/02/18 12:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/02/18 12:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 20:48:28 UTC, Brian ReayÂ* wrote:
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.
TheÂ* 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.Â* She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

Brexit.

Climate change


Margaret Thatcher


--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:40:49 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

snip

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?

some 20 years ago, a cartoon in the Telegraph had the following words: we
want our child to have plenty of space, security & plenty of fresh air. So
wev'e bought a large 4x4 with central locking and air conditioning.

Sounds about right. ;-)

This whole 'bigger is safer' is similar to the 'loud pips save lives'
some of the bikers use, carrying a bigger knife than the next guy, or
an automatic rifle instead of a pistol.

It's all escalation that rarely has a happy ending, especially for the
guy with a small knife. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 12:46:52 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:40:49 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

snip

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?

some 20 years ago, a cartoon in the Telegraph had the following words: we
want our child to have plenty of space, security & plenty of fresh air. So
wev'e bought a large 4x4 with central locking and air conditioning.

Sounds about right. ;-)

This whole 'bigger is safer' is similar to the 'loud pips save lives'
some of the bikers use, carrying a bigger knife than the next guy, or
an automatic rifle instead of a pistol.

It's all escalation that rarely has a happy ending, especially for the
guy with a small knife. ;-(

Yep in the end size does matter ;-)

Anyway perhaps we should support trumps idea, although he only wants teachers to have guns, what about us technicains, but personally I'd prefer my own nuclear deterrent, obviously I'd only use it if theatened and as a last result in self defence or the defence of others, but if I find the student that destroyed my dremel 3000 yesterday !!!!!!!


Cheers, T i m

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
news

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.

Really ?
Rue De Bayeux
Battle, 1066, Harold and William, Tapestry ! ;(
(there used to be a Coaching inn on that site with stabling at the rear)
-

On 21/02/2018 20:48, Brian Reay wrote:

We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
TheÂ* 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.Â* She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

It depends on the visibility, if the driver could see the woman and it
was obvious she was going to be in the way then the driver should have
been able to slow down without emergency braking.
Its usually quite easy to spot pedestrians that are going to bolt if you
can see them.

On 21/02/2018 09:41, Tim Lamb wrote:

Agreed.Â* 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.

Hard luck then as you have to drive to your ability not that of someone
behind.

On 21/02/2018 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.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.

Of course, I was keeping it simple for those who habitually drive
considerably too fast.Â*Â* The worst problems are on roads that are
variable in width where people hope with a bit of luck they might get
past someone.Â* 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.Â* Safe driving is a lot
slower than that.

Agreed.Â* 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





Yet again TNP proves he is an idiot.

On 21/02/2018 01:08, T i m wrote:


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

Cheers, T i m


You did post this just after discussions about an actual tank started.

On 21/02/2018 07:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

Would that be the one that ended up in the pedestrian subway a couple of
miles from me?

dennis@home wrote:
On 21/02/2018 20:48, Brian Reay wrote:

We were walking in Battle today, a little after lunch time.
TheÂ* 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.Â* She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?

It depends on the visibility, if the driver could see the woman and it
was obvious she was going to be in the way then the driver should have
been able to slow down without emergency braking.
Its usually quite easy to spot pedestrians that are going to bolt if you
can see them.

It's a "highway", shared use between pedestrians (who have a right to
be there), horse riders (who have a right to be there), cyclists (who
I think have a right to be there) and vehicle drivers (who have
'permission' to be there if they have the right licences etc.).

The 'road' isn't just for cars/lorries.

--
Chris Green
·

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:51:59 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 21/02/2018 01:08, T i m wrote:


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

Cheers, T i m


You did post this just after discussions about an actual tank started.

You 'left brainers' rolls eyes. ;-)

Obviously, this didn't give any clues ...

"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. ;-("

Yeah, you see it every weekend, ordinary families going about their
business diving (actual) battle tanks on the main roads. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 20/02/2018 22:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

A sensible safe speed that will allow the Chelsea Tractor to stop in a
safe distance may be higher than an ordinary car, but it's a lot less
than a proper car.

Inconsiderate works both ways - when you squash something small by going
too fast, and when you hold up traffic by going too slow.

Andy

On 21/02/2018 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Braking is pretty good actually

What kind of tyres do you have?

Andy

On 22/02/2018 21:32, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/02/2018 22:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
This is simply not true if the tank is driven at a sensible speed.Â* The
only people who will suffer will be those driving at a stupid or
inconsiderate as well as stupid speed.

A sensible safe speed that will allow the Chelsea Tractor to stop in a
safe distance may be higher than an ordinary car, but it's a lot less
than a proper car.

Inconsiderate works both ways - when you squash something small by going
too fast, and when you hold up traffic by going too slow.

Andy

You aren't holding up traffic if you are travelling at the maximum safe
speed or the limit (whichever is lower).

On 22/02/2018 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/02/2018 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Braking is pretty good actually

What kind of tyres do you have?

Andy

I thought he was talking about tractors when he said that.
I doubt if he has one.
He was wrong anyway as they tend to be like JCBs and lack suspension so
they bounce about and skip when braking on uneven surfaces like rural roads.

On 22/02/18 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/02/2018 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Braking is pretty good actually

What kind of tyres do you have?

Andy
I don't have a tractor. But I do know people who do.

Most tractors run big rimmed but lowish pressure tures I thinmk. I had a
series III wiyth 'MOD' tryres - like tractor yes - on it. Pretty good
braking on those, too.



--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

dennis@home wrote:

On 22/02/2018 21:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/02/2018 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Braking is pretty good actually

What kind of tyres do you have?

Andy

I thought he was talking about tractors when he said that.
I doubt if he has one.
He was wrong anyway as they tend to be like JCBs and lack suspension so
they bounce about and skip when braking on uneven surfaces like rural roads.

The modern ones have independent suspension and are designed to be
equally at home pulling 30T trailers at 45mph+ on roads as in fields.
How small hill farmers get conned into buying them I don't know, but
they seem to be de rigeur nowadays. Still not ideal down a 1 in 3 hill
with a heavy trailer and braking from 30mph, as our neighbour recently
found out.


--

Roger Hayter

dennis@home wrote:

On 22/02/2018 21:32, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/02/2018 22:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

A sensible safe speed that will allow the Chelsea Tractor to stop in a
safe distance may be higher than an ordinary car, but it's a lot less
than a proper car.

Inconsiderate works both ways - when you squash something small by going
too fast, and when you hold up traffic by going too slow.

Andy

You aren't holding up traffic if you are travelling at the maximum safe
speed or the limit (whichever is lower).

To be fair, you may be holding up inconsiderate, homicidal morons.
Statistically that's probably quite common.



--

Roger Hayter

In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 21/02/2018 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Braking is pretty good actually

What kind of tyres do you have?

I have a J reg. David Brown on cross plies:-)
The others are radial ply rears, cross ply fronts.
Tractors of that age are usually rear wheel drive/brake only.

--
Tim Lamb

On 22/02/2018 10:09, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:02:23 +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. ;-(

snip

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."

No, really?

(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.

Irrelevant mate.

The discussion was:

"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. ;-("

*Nothing* to do with driving styles, *everything* to do with bigger is
safer.

My point (which still stands and is supported by all the research) is
that *IF* you buy a *bigger vehicle* because it would make it safer
for *your family* then statistically you are only making it safer for
*your family* at the expense of *everyone else in a std / smaller
vehicle's family*.

Given that the vast majority of 'other people' on the road will be
ordinary people in smaller vehicles again statistically someone in a
bigger vehicle is 'more likely' to hit someone in a 'smaller vehicle'
than hitting a 'larger vehicle'.

I've not mentioned anything about anything else other than that.

The idea of buying a bigger vehicle with any though of it being
'safer' for you and your family also means taking up more room (even
if it only 1"), using more fuel / mile, therefore creating more
pollution / mile and doing more damage to the road / mile (than a
typical smaller (lighter) car of the same era).

Now, if you bought a 'bigger vehicle' because you had a bigger family
or needed to tow a caravan or regularly carry bulky items (a
wheelchair etc) then you may have simply bought said vehicle for
wholly / only practical purposes. e.g. The fact that it happens to be
'safer' than and at the cost of a smaller vehicle is by the by.

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?


I wasn't aware people had to justify their choice of vehicle to anyone,
let alone you.

When were you appointed?




--

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

I thought he was talking about tractors when he said that.
I doubt if he has one.
He was wrong anyway as they tend to be like JCBs and lack suspension so
they bounce about and skip when braking on uneven surfaces like rural roads.

The modern ones have independent suspension and are designed to be
equally at home pulling 30T trailers at 45mph+ on roads as in fields.
How small hill farmers get conned into buying them I don't know, but
they seem to be de rigeur nowadays. Still not ideal down a 1 in 3 hill
with a heavy trailer and braking from 30mph, as our neighbour recently
found out.



So few roads in this country are 1 in 3 that coupled with the fact that you
would have to be an idiot to go down one with a heavy trailer at 30 mph
that it looks like you have destroyed your point by exaggeration.

GH

Marland wrote:

I thought he was talking about tractors when he said that. I doubt if
he has one. He was wrong anyway as they tend to be like JCBs and lack
suspension so they bounce about and skip when braking on uneven
surfaces like rural roads.

The modern ones have independent suspension and are designed to be
equally at home pulling 30T trailers at 45mph+ on roads as in fields.
How small hill farmers get conned into buying them I don't know, but
they seem to be de rigeur nowadays. Still not ideal down a 1 in 3 hill
with a heavy trailer and braking from 30mph, as our neighbour recently
found out.



So few roads in this country are 1 in 3 that coupled with the fact that you
would have to be an idiot to go down one with a heavy trailer at 30 mph
that it looks like you have destroyed your point by exaggeration.

GH

There wasn't a point, it was merely an event. I don't know how fast he
was going, but when he braked the trailer pushed the tractor off the
road down a bank into someone's out buildings. Too fast as it turned
out.


--

Roger Hayter

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:17:07 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

snip

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?


I wasn't aware people had to justify their choice of vehicle to anyone,
let alone you.

Where have I even tried to do that? Sounds like some sort of guilt
complex with you and yer 1.7 tonne SUV? ;-)

When were you appointed?

See above.

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:53:26 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

I think there's a good chance that T i m is actually Neil Kinnock.

WTF are you drooling on about now left brainer?

It
would explain the wooly thinking,

Non robot, yes.

the specious waffling,

It's a discussion group mate, ****ter is that way

the
outpourings of statements of the bleeding obvious,

Bwhahaha (bless).

and the total
inability to convince anyone here of anything.

Anyone, or just the close minded left brainers and / or those
Brexiteers who are so convinced they are 100% right and the other
2/3rds of the electorate are wrong?

People in glass houses ...

Cheers, T i m

On Friday, 23 February 2018 12:17:50 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:53:26 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

I think there's a good chance that T i m is actually Neil Kinnock.

WTF are you drooling on about now left brainer?

well as I've trined to explain I;d rather be a left brainer than a right brainer.

https://www.healthline.com/health/le...t-brain-theory

Left brainer :- Linear thinking, maths, logic, facts.
Right brainer :- imagination, rythum , holistic thinking, arts.

In message , T i m
writes
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:17:07 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

snip

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?


I wasn't aware people had to justify their choice of vehicle to anyone,
let alone you.

Where have I even tried to do that? Sounds like some sort of guilt
complex with you and yer 1.7 tonne SUV? ;-)
I must say, driving an ancient hilux after the Top Gear incident
generated an undeserved level of road respect:-)

--
Tim Lamb

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:07:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:17:07 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

snip

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?


I wasn't aware people had to justify their choice of vehicle to anyone,
let alone you.

Where have I even tried to do that? Sounds like some sort of guilt
complex with you and yer 1.7 tonne SUV? ;-)

I must say, driving an ancient hilux after the Top Gear incident
generated an undeserved level of road respect:-)

Yeah, daughter ex (who you met) had one exactly the some colour, age
and spec as the Top Gear one and they used to regularly drive back and
forth to Scotland in it, often full to the brim (it had a Truckman
top).

It was probably lighter than Brian's SUV and no, I wouldn't want to be
hit by either, in my regular family saloon car. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In message , T i m
writes
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:07:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:17:07 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

snip

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?


I wasn't aware people had to justify their choice of vehicle to anyone,
let alone you.

Where have I even tried to do that? Sounds like some sort of guilt
complex with you and yer 1.7 tonne SUV? ;-)

I must say, driving an ancient hilux after the Top Gear incident
generated an undeserved level of road respect:-)

Yeah, daughter ex (who you met) had one exactly the some colour, age
and spec as the Top Gear one and they used to regularly drive back and
forth to Scotland in it, often full to the brim (it had a Truckman
top).

It was probably lighter than Brian's SUV and no, I wouldn't want to be
hit by either, in my regular family saloon car. ;-)

Legally allowed to retain the OE bullbars!

--
Tim Lamb

On 23/02/2018 14:07, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , T i m
writes
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:17:07 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

snip

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?


I wasn't aware people had to justify their choice of vehicle to anyone,
let alone you.

Where have I even tried to do that? Sounds like some sort of guilt
complex with you and yer 1.7 tonne SUV? ;-)
I must say, driving an ancient hilux after the Top Gear incident
generated an undeserved level of road respect:-)


Well the new ones only get a three star rating in the crash tests.
The old ones must be really bad.

Having looked at the crash tests I wonder why the curtain bags go off in
a frontal impact.

They do get more stars if you have the active safety systems as you are
less likely to test the actual crash systems.
I did notice the system avoided an adult pedestrian but killed a child
so don't be too short.

On 21/02/2018 20:48, Brian Reay wrote:
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.
TheÂ* 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.Â* She blamed the driver, at least judging by her shouts.

Who would you blame?


The driver.

It wouldn't matter if the limit was 60 MPH (the speed limit is a limit
it is NOT a recommended speed or anything like that). An appropriate
speed would be one where you can cope with the unforeseen.


No-where do you indicate she was 'running out' between parked cars
(if she had then it would take a fuller knowledge of the facts to
ascertain blame) so the driver will have seen her for quite some
distance.

Knowing it was likely a tourist area (1066 and all that) I would have
slowed right down (better to get honked at from behind than to kill
someone).

On 21/02/2018 17:49, Mark wrote:


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

or even cobbled ones . This you Mark?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpNQbwWP3hQ

(I know it's a bridge layer not a tank [though based on a tank chassis])

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
On 23/02/2018 14:07, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , T i m
writes
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:17:07 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

snip

I made and have not made any judgment on anyone buying a 'bigger
vehicle' so anyone jumping on me is potentially doing so because of
guilt or misunderstanding?


I wasn't aware people had to justify their choice of vehicle to anyone,
let alone you.

Where have I even tried to do that? Sounds like some sort of guilt
complex with you and yer 1.7 tonne SUV? ;-)
I must say, driving an ancient hilux after the Top Gear incident
generated an undeserved level of road respect:-)


Well the new ones only get a three star rating in the crash tests.
The old ones must be really bad.

Having looked at the crash tests I wonder why the curtain bags go off
in a frontal impact.

They do get more stars if you have the active safety systems as you are
less likely to test the actual crash systems.
I did notice the system avoided an adult pedestrian but killed a child
so don't be too short.

I have no plans to replace it! Underpowered, heavy on fuel and subject
to wheel balance issues. Handy for 8 x 4 sheets and 1 ton payload
though.

--
Tim Lamb

On 22/02/2018 21:42, dennis@home wrote:

You aren't holding up traffic if you are travelling at the maximum safe
speed or the limit (whichever is lower).

Here

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/Mechanics/Kinematics/BrakingDistData.html

is the first table I found on the net with braking decelerations.

Note that the 1995 BMW M3 was doing near-as-dammit a G, and would stop
from 60 in 37 metres. While the Dodge Colt would need 51 metres.

Obviously the Dodge driver, while travelling at his maximum safe speed,
would not be going as fast as the BMW could.

So the Dodge would hold up the BMW, even when travelling at _his_
maximum safe speed.

Have you never been stuck behind a lorry?

Andy

On 23/02/2018 21:48, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/02/2018 21:42, dennis@home wrote:

You aren't holding up traffic if you are travelling at the maximum
safe speed or the limit (whichever is lower).

Here

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/Mechanics/Kinematics/BrakingDistData.html


is the first table I found on the net with braking decelerations.

Note that theÂ* 1995 BMW M3 was doing near-as-dammit a G, and would stop
from 60 in 37 metres. While the Dodge Colt would need 51 metres.

Obviously the Dodge driver, while travelling at his maximum safe speed,
would not be going as fast as the BMW could.

So the Dodge would hold up the BMW, even when travelling at _his_
maximum safe speed.

Have you never been stuck behind a lorry?

No. I have never been stuck behind a lorry, they always turn off or you
overtake them when its safe.

Well except for the six hour wait while they dug up the central
reservation on the M6 to get us clear of the several lorry pile up a few
years ago.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 23:02:22 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 23/02/2018 21:48, Vir Campestris wrote:

snip

Have you never been stuck behind a lorry?

No. I have never been stuck behind a lorry, they always turn off or you
overtake them when its safe.

snip

Then assuming it's not been 'safe' to overtake every time instantly
then you *have* been stuck behind a lorry?

Or what if you are within solid white lines or cross-hatching and
can't overtake?

Or when they (or any vehicle) go slowly (or slower that you might)
round the corners and then go to the posted limit on the straights?

I have experienced all the above even when on a 1000cc motorbike.

Cheers, T i m

soup wrote:

On 21/02/2018 20:48, Brian Reay wrote:


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?


The driver.

It wouldn't matter if the limit was 60 MPH (the speed limit is a limit
it is NOT a recommended speed or anything like that). An appropriate
speed would be one where you can cope with the unforeseen.


No-where do you indicate she was 'running out' between parked cars
(if she had then it would take a fuller knowledge of the facts to
ascertain blame) so the driver will have seen her for quite some
distance.

Knowing it was likely a tourist area (1066 and all that) I would have
slowed right down (better to get honked at from behind than to kill
someone).

its impossible to say unless you actually witnessed what happened but take a drive up the high street in google maps
its not a great place to be going very fast most times of the day
goo.gl/pPzCn5