| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
the quest for safety
carman wrote: IIRC it was a survey by West Midlands Police that found in nearly 70% of accidents it was the pedestrians fault. I don't consider the police "road lobbies". ROTFLMAO John B |
the quest for safety
"Richard" wrote in message
... Well, it seems to be working! snip While I agree with much of what you say, the risk of dying due to cars is more important to me as I can choose not to smoke, I can choose to live a healthy life, but because of the way our towns are built, I can't choose to reduce the risk of me being killed by a speeding vehicle. It would be a "badly driven vehicle" rather than a speeding vehicle. Speed as a single factor doesn't kill. The others are natural causes, or causes which we control personally. And your 80% likelihood that the pedestrian is solely at fault is CR*P chucked out by road lobbies trying to justify driving irresponsibly. IIRC it was a survey by West Midlands Police that found in nearly 70% of accidents it was the pedestrians fault. I don't consider the police "road lobbies". Mark Buying or selling a Jaguar, go to www.Jaguars4sale.com |
the quest for safety
IIRC it was a survey by West Midlands Police that found in
nearly 70% of accidents it was the pedestrians fault. I don't consider the police "road lobbies". This thing about pedestrians often being at fault wants clarification surely? If a child runs out between two cars without looking, straight under the wheels of a car doing a legal speed, with a driver keeping an alert lookout, but unable to see the child because perhaps it ran out behind a Transit van or something, it seems a trifle unfortunate for the driver to be labelled at fault. However, if some drunk teenager decides to deliberately walk in front of a speeding car to get it to stop for him in a display of bravado, and calculates it wrongly so he gets run over, should that still be the car drivers fault? I do believe that a significant proportion of the driving population do indeed drive too fast in the situations that may call for a little circumspection, but a rant about all car drivers being in the wrong by dint of being a driver seems unlikely to gain acceptance and rightly so. -- Dave; Who thinks usenet is now getting quite short tempered enough, without me joining in too! |
the quest for safety
This thing about pedestrians often being at fault wants
clarification surely? The situation is spelt out quite clearly in the highway code. Just try crossing a road at a junction to see how many drivers actually respect the highway code and how many think 'I'm in a car so I can barge pedestrians out of the way'. Until the highway code is re-written I will stand by my claim that at least 70% of drivers have distorted views of when it's "OK" to run a pedestrian over. |
the quest for safety
In article ,
Richard wrote: And your 80% likelihood that the pedestrian is solely at fault is CR*P Go and check the proportion of pedestrian casualities in which the pedestrian is drunk. A man living your healthy lifestyle presumably won't have that risk. ian |
the quest for safety
In article ,
Richard wrote: When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT, A man who says that cars pose an unacceptable risk to pedestrians is happy to pose an unacceptible risk to pedestrians, eh? There's nothing like having principles, and that's nothing like having principles. You could try ``cars are bad, that's why I don't have one'' as an idea. ``You shouldn't drive, but I do'' doesn't really impress. You're just another car driver, but you think you can impress us by saying how much you hate yourself every time you do it. You get the best of both worlds: the convenience of driving, and the moral sanctity of claiming not to drive. Tell us, Richard, the thing that makes you different from the selfish, inconsiderate, non-sustainable drivers you rail against. Charlie Hulme can live without a car. David Hansen can live without a car. Even (shudder) Mister Natural could live without a car. ian |
the quest for safety
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. When you answer that post, I will respond more logically. |
the quest for safety
"Richard" writes:
When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT, the vehicle driver was responsible for bringing his vehicle to a stop without causing injury regardless of whether a pedestrian steps out, runs out or falls from a bridge above. This strains credibility. Please give us the details of the driving test and advanced course that you did, the type of vehicle that you used and the name of your instructor. Because it seems that in combination they enabled you to subvert the laws of physics - being able to ensure that you could stop your vehicle without hitting a pedestrian even if they were to appear immediately in front if you with no warning, allowing zero stopping distance. Having made an impossible claim in the first paragraph of your post, surely nobody could be expected take the remainder of what you say seriously. -- Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP Bracknell, UK Sun Microsystems "Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports" |
the quest for safety
When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT, the vehicle driver was
responsible for bringing his vehicle to a stop without causing injury regardless of whether a pedestrian steps out, runs out or falls from a bridge above. This strains credibility. Please give us the details of the driving test and advanced course that you did, the type of vehicle that you used and the name of your instructor. Because it seems that in combination they enabled you to subvert the laws of physics - being able to ensure that you could stop your vehicle without hitting a pedestrian even if they were to appear immediately in front if you with no warning, allowing zero stopping distance. You have included only the variables that drivers tend to care about. The one variable you have ignored is speed. 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. I'm not giving out personal details but my observed driving was carried out in Coventry. |
the quest for safety
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 |
the quest for safety
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". |
the quest for safety
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 |
the quest for safety
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. |
the quest for safety
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 |
the quest for safety
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 |
the quest for safety
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. |
the quest for safety
"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 quest for safety
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" |
the quest for safety
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 |
the quest for safety
dave hill wrote:
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. But is he wrong in what he says and if not why do the ******* try to drag everyone else down to their level? |
the quest for safety
"Richard" wrote in message ...
This presumes that a pedestrian can be at fault. When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT, the vehicle driver was responsible for bringing his vehicle to a stop without causing injury regardless of whether a pedestrian steps out, runs out or falls from a bridge above. (Reasonably you would expect some leeway to be applied in cases of dangerous driving where a pedestrian deliberately runs out - but in practice far too much is applied). I've often wondered if the strict legal position is that *anyone* has a right to use the Highway, being on foot or driving a vehicle making no difference, so if I need to cross a road I should be able to walk straight out, drivers are always required to drive at a safe speed to avoid any collision which in towns would then be 10 to 15mph. This may sound unreasonable but Sweden has adopted a 'Vision Zero' in which no one is killed or seriously injured. Some towns have scrapped all traffic lights and road markings except those that state pedestrians have free reign, a BBC Radio reporter put it to the test by wearing a blindfold and wandering across roads - not so much as a toot! Average traffic speed actually increased too. Then again Sweden is a civilised country, I'm not convinced it will work here. |
the quest for safety
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. Sadly you are right but when you look at the posts I was replying to, there was no alternative. It was justify myself, or concede the point, as the crux of ian's argument was that because I am a driver I am automatically making no attempt to avoid accidents. And that in fact most accidents are unavoidable. The only response was, (and I knew it), going to see me crucified. But is it better to be modest and say, "yes, there's no way anyone could drive any better than they currently do"? |
the quest for safety
But is he wrong in what he says and if not why do the ******* try to drag
everyone else down to their level? Thanks mate, glad someone can look beyond my character, arrogant, conceited or otherwise (no-one is ever going to know over a newsgroup, apart perhaps from Steve), and consider the argument in question. |
the quest for safety
In article ,
Richard wrote: Is anyone here arguing we should require people to work close to where they live? Yes. If people live closer to their work and their children's schools, many otherwise required journeys evaporate. Having a car allows you to avoid some parts of that at the expense of making a lot of journeys. A lot of jobs would disappear. I'm sure even you wouldn't argue this. I'm a member of the Green Party and even I don't support this policy. How convenient. Car driver. Commutes long distances to work. Joins Green Party to show moral superiority. The risk of me causing an injury accident is demonstrably lower than for the general population How modest of you. The risk of me causing an injury accident is higher than it would be if I didn't travel, or travelled by public transport So you care less aboutn injuring people than about your convenience. The only difference between you and every other commuter is the smug look. ian |
the quest for safety
In article ,
Richard wrote: I agree that self-glorification is tiresome to read and often arrogant. So stop doing it, then. 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. Oh, OK then, don't. 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. I think after fifteen years of Usenet I'm a big boy and might be able to cope. ian |
the quest for safety
"Ian G Batten" wrote in message ... In article , Richard wrote: Is anyone here arguing we should require people to work close to where they live? Yes. If people live closer to their work and their children's schools, many otherwise required journeys evaporate. Having a car allows you to avoid some parts of that at the expense of making a lot of journeys. One of the reasons for long-distance commuting (by car or train) is that two people wish to live together (e.g husband and wife) but wish to follow separate careers, and so find themselves working in very different locations. One (or both) has to commute. Peter |
the quest for safety
The only response was, (and I knew it), going to see me crucified.
You anticipated the hazard, and carried on anyway. Would they tolerate that during an ADT? :oÞ~ ;o) |
the quest for safety
In article ,
Richard wrote: One of the reasons for long-distance commuting (by car or train) is that two people wish to live together (e.g husband and wife) but wish to follow separate careers, and so find themselves working in very different locations. One (or both) has to commute. They don't have to. They choose to. There's no gun to their heads. Or in my case because my job involves travelling round the country training people. There are other jobs. Vegetarians who take jobs in abatoirs don't get taken terribly seriously. No one location would be close to all my workplaces. I happen to live within walking distance of the WCML but it should not be the case that only ``Happen to live''. Didn't you think about proximity to a railway line when choosing somewhere to live? I did. a subset of the country's housing stock is suitable for travel by public transport Really? Public transport within walking distance of every house? How are you going to pay for it? public transport should be extended to provide access to as many people as is economically viable. So that's a subset, then. And what makes you think it isn't _already_ extended to as many people as is economically viable? ian |
the quest for safety
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:13:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On 16 Jul 2003 16:11:33 GMT, Ian G Batten wrote: So you're the one driver who never speeds. No, I'm the /one/ driver who never speeds, he's the /other/ one. So you have never *ever* drifted even .001 mph over the posted limit? -- This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw |
the quest for safety
"Ian G Batten" wrote in message ... public transport should be extended to provide access to as many people as is economically viable. So that's a subset, then. And what makes you think it isn't _already_ extended to as many people as is economically viable? ....or maybe even already extended to more people than is economically viable? |
the quest for safety
"Ian G Batten" wrote in message ... 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. Interestingly, the most careful and accurate road drivers I know are those who hold RAC Competition Licenses. I suspect it's a combination of 'getting it out of your system' on the track and also the first-hand knowledge of what a 'safe' accident feels like makes them reluctant to have a 'real' accident on the public road :-) |
the quest for safety
"Richard" wrote in message ... But is he wrong in what he says and if not why do the ******* try to drag everyone else down to their level? Thanks mate, glad someone can look beyond my character, arrogant, conceited or otherwise (no-one is ever going to know over a newsgroup, apart perhaps from Steve), and consider the argument in question. Don't involve me... I don't know you (do I?) __Steve__ |
the quest for safety
In article ,
Steve Moore wrote: Interestingly, the most careful and accurate road drivers I know are those who hold RAC Competition Licenses. I suspect it's a combination I've got far more paranoid on the roads since doing the Jonathan Palmer thing at Bedford. It hammered home to me that, in common with 99.9% of the population and 99.8% of IAM people, I simply don't have the reflexes or car control I naively thought I did. ian |
the quest for safety
But is he wrong in what he says and if not why do the ******* try
to drag everyone else down to their level? Thanks mate, glad someone can look beyond my character, arrogant, conceited or otherwise (no-one is ever going to know over a newsgroup, apart perhaps from Steve), and consider the argument in question. Don't involve me... I don't know you (do I?) __Steve__ Not you, the other Steve ;o) |
the quest for safety
Bagpuss wrote: So you have never *ever* drifted even .001 mph over the posted limit? Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone could spend their driving career remaining within the law? Were I to state, "I've never burgled anyone's house", would you counter with, "So you have never *ever* just nipped in through an open door and alf inched someone's ceramic ashtray?" I see little difference. Cheers mark-r -- For all things inspection: http://www.infact-holdings.com/ For all things needleworky: http://www.tandem-cottage.co.uk/ All opinions are mine, and mine alone, but I'm open to offers. |
the quest for safety
So you have never *ever* drifted even .001 mph over the posted limit?
Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone could spend their driving career remaining within the law? Were I to state, "I've never burgled anyone's house", would you counter with, "So you have never *ever* just nipped in through an open door and alf inched someone's ceramic ashtray?" I see little difference. And if he had once popped 0.001 mph over the speed limit would that devalue his point about keeping to speed limits? Seems a bit of an easy way out, saying 'everyone does it', as if that makes it OK. Lots of people assaulted each other in previous centuries, did the fact that lots of people did it make it socially desirable? |
the quest for safety
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:27:13 +0100, "Richard"
wrote: So you have never *ever* drifted even .001 mph over the posted limit? Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone could spend their driving career remaining within the law? Were I to state, "I've never burgled anyone's house", would you counter with, "So you have never *ever* just nipped in through an open door and alf inched someone's ceramic ashtray?" I see little difference. And if he had once popped 0.001 mph over the speed limit would that devalue his point about keeping to speed limits? Erm yes as its over the speed limit. Seems a bit of an easy way out, saying 'everyone does it', as if that makes it OK. Lots of people assaulted each other in previous centuries, did the fact that lots of people did it make it socially desirable? They point is someone who it being all smug "I never speed" then drift over the limit on occasions. You can't have both. I try to stick to the limits and the maximum and choose an appropriate speed, but know that I have drifted on occasion over the limit. I used to do things like 80 in empty 70 areas on occasions, but it didn't do anything for me. I've got nothing to proove so don't bother, keeping my m/cycle licence is more important to me. I'm not perfect by I try as best as possible to stick at or below the limit. I just guess Guy is Mr Perfect then. -- This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw |
the quest for safety
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:18:19 +0100, Bagpuss
wrote: So you're the one driver who never speeds. No, I'm the /one/ driver who never speeds, he's the /other/ one. So you have never *ever* drifted even .001 mph over the posted limit? Many times. In the past I've deliberately driven at speeds up to an indicated 140mph, but these days I make a habit of keeping within the posted limit. Guy === http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk: Respectable rules for responsible people |
the quest for safety
In article , Ian G Batten
writes In article , Richard wrote: Is anyone here arguing we should require people to work close to where they live? Yes. If people live closer to their work and their children's schools, many otherwise required journeys evaporate. Having a car allows you to avoid some parts of that at the expense of making a lot of journeys. There's nothing like working at home to get the mileage down! snip -- Five Cats |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:16 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk