In article ,
Richard wrote:
When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT,
happy to pose an unacceptible risk to pedestrians, eh? There's nothing
like having principles, and that's nothing like having principles. You

When you find yourself logically out-argued, do you always resort to
character assassination on a related idea?

You don't warrant a more reasoned response as you did not answer the actual
point of the OP which demolished your erroneous line of argument.

Since your ``demolition'' claimed that thanks to your advanced driving
techniques (and an unrealistic view of their own abilities is common
amongst ADT enthusiasts) you could stop a car in zero time and zero
distance, you'll excuse me if I don't feel demolished.

ian

Since your ``demolition'' claimed that thanks to your advanced driving
techniques (and an unrealistic view of their own abilities is common
amongst ADT enthusiasts) you could stop a car in zero time and zero
distance, you'll excuse me if I don't feel demolished.

Please read the previous response which explains why your erroneous
assumption that ADT is about driving fast with faster reactions is wrong,
and hence I make no claim to stop a car in zero time or zero distance.

Would you care to explain who could ever construct an argument you would
accept given that as soon as you find a point logically countered you resort
to:

1) Claiming that because you drive you have no right to argue for public
transport
2) Claiming that because you don't drive you are too naive and stupid to
argue for public transport

It's the newsgroup equivalent of shouting "you're wrong 'cos you're fat".

In article ,
Richard wrote:
1) Claiming that because you drive you have no right to argue for public
transport

If you drive, you have no right to argue that people shouldn't drive.
It's that simple. You also have no right to abuse the majority of car
drivers on the implicit claim that you're better.

2) Claiming that because you don't drive you are too naive and stupid to
argue for public transport

I don't think I've ever levelled that at David or Charlie. I guess I
might have levelled it against (shudder) Duhg, but that doesn't count.

It's the newsgroup equivalent of shouting "you're wrong 'cos you're fat".

Fat people don't make good adverts for diet plans.

ian

1) Claiming that because you drive you have no right to argue for public
transport

If you drive, you have no right to argue that people shouldn't drive.
It's that simple. You also have no right to abuse the majority of car
drivers on the implicit claim that you're better.

There is a more subtle element that you would be able to see if you stopped
trying to align everyone else's arguments into your own categories of
pro-car/anti-car.

My own situation is that for my jobs and studies I have had to travel across
the country (very extensively and frequently).

Where possible I travel by public transport, for the reasons identified.

Due to the current state of public transport there are some journeys I have
to make by car. This does not stop me arguing for an *increase* in the
provision of public transport and a *decrease* in the use of cars.

If I had ever claimed that all other people shouldn't drive at all, you
might have a valid argument based on inconsistency of approach.

Neither does this stop me from arguing that the current road laws should be
enforced.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit into your black and white "public transport &
zero cars"/"cars & no public transport" constructs.

2) Claiming that because you don't drive you are too naive and stupid to
argue for public transport

I don't think I've ever levelled that at David or Charlie. I guess I
might have levelled it against (shudder) Duhg, but that doesn't count.

You've used this argument against me several times to conclude points of
argument.

In article ,
Richard wrote:
My own situation is that for my jobs and studies I have had to travel across
the country (very extensively and frequently).

You don't _have_ to. You _choose_ to. Arguing that a lifestyle which
only operates because of cars justifies using cars is circular, and
people are quick to jump on Huge (say) with that very point. You could
study elsewhere. You could get a job stacking shelves.

Due to the current state of public transport there are some journeys I have
to make by car.

You don't have to make them. Or does someone have a gun pointed to your
head?

Neither does this stop me from arguing that the current road laws should be
enforced.

So you're the one driver who never speeds. How long have you been
driving? Are you claiming that from now until your death you will
_never_ cause an accident? Ah, arrogance.

ian

In article ,
David Nixon wrote:
what the average pedestrian will do, WITHIN LIMITS! If you
have genuinely passed an observed run, fair play, but part of
the remit is to spread good driving practice where possible,
not just to lecture people from an absolute position of

That's exactly what Advanced Driving is about. Advanced Drivers I've
had the misfortune to be a passenger with drive too quickly, shout
``look at that idiot'' at people minding their own business and argue
that their sooper-sekrit advanced techniques (the straight-ahead masonic
hand sign, the not using their indicators to prove they're observing,
the rest of the mumbo jumbo) allow their excess speed and close gap
driving. Car bores are bad enough, advanced driving bores (``My
driving's better than yours'') are amongst the worst.

Richard's claim is he'll never have an accident, but everyone else is a
danger to themselves and others. He's not alone amongst IAM people in
this belief.

ian

Richard's claim is he'll never have an accident, but everyone else is a
danger to themselves and others. He's not alone amongst IAM people in
this belief.

This is not a correct interpretation of my statements.

I agree that self-glorification is tiresome to read and often arrogant.

However you directly criticised my personality and I think I am justified in
defending myself, even if that includes claims that my lower average speed
is likely to reduce my risk of being involved in an injury accident.

Perhaps I should start criticising you personally and see how long it takes
you to start defending yourself in a way which then comes across as
arrogant.

"Ronnie Clark" wrote in message
...
The risk of me causing an injury accident is demonstrably lower than for
the
general population. This is because injury accidents are closely related
to
speed, and I demonstrably drive much slower than the general population
in
most situations.

I have to disagree with you there. Speed is not a killer, merely a
difference in speed.

?? newun.

A fleet of cars all travelling at 90 mph down a stretch
of road (where the lie of the road permits) is just as safe as them doing
60.

No, because the ground and street furniture and trees are all going at 0mph.
Bigger difference in speed.

Even if we are talking about a light nudge at 60 or 90 that barely dents the
bodywork, a small possibility of losing control is enough to make a big
difference between the two.

The risk of me causing an injury accident is demonstrably lower than for
the
general population. This is because injury accidents are closely related
to
speed, and I demonstrably drive much slower than the general population in
most situations.

I have to disagree with you there. Speed is not a killer, merely a
difference in speed. A fleet of cars all travelling at 90 mph down a stretch
of road (where the lie of the road permits) is just as safe as them doing
60. If you are driving, as you say, demonstrably slower than the general
population then you yourself are at risk of causing an accident through
being the one doing 30 when everyone else is doing 40 - you are introducing
the difference in speed which causes accidents.

The risk of me causing an injury accident is higher than it would be if I
didn't travel, or travelled by public transport, which is something which I
am only sometimes able to do currently. This is one reason why I argue for
improved and extended public transport.

There needs to be far more effective and widespread road-based feeder
services for things like railways and airports. I'm rather lucky that
despite the backwater village of no hope I found myself doomed to live in
for the last 20 years, there is a fairly decent connection to the local
railway station, a journey of 25 minutes by bus, and 15 minutes by car.

I'd be willing to wager that there's not many small villages that have such
fortuitous rail connections.

Ronnie
--
http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk

As the wise man says:
"Remember - there is no more important safety rule than to wear these:
safety glasses"

Richard writes

Pedestrians rarely step out without warning. This is a fallacy. And I have
seen pedestrians crossing at junctions walk upto the junction, look both
ways, step out and be hit by a car that wasn't indicating; the driver then
claimed 'she just stepped out' when in reality she had walked to the
junction, looked both ways and stepped into the road where she has right of
way over vehicles turning.

Part of the driver's role is to anticipate what pedestrians might do and
drive at an appropriate speed to be able to stop if a pedestrian does step
out. If children are particularly close to the road, you slow down to be
able to stop if necessary.

If you have to pass close to a line of parked vehicles which block your view
of anyone trying to cross, you slow down.

This is not particularly advanced driving, it's the basics, which you and a
majority of drivers seem to ignore.

By god you are so bloody virtuous .
In all the above and your previous posts there has not been anything
so
holier than thou in among the drivel that you have written.
You don't seem to get it do you but you have put yourself up and you
will be crucified for making statements similar to that above.
--
dave hill