... our pathetic, patronisingly low 70 mph limit, set in the days when half the cars on the road had cable brakes and carthorse spring suspension.
and the drivers had the same brain & reactions we still have
A brain evolved over millions of years for controlling a mass weighing about 80Kg and travelling at at most twenty miles an hour. It's small surprise that it doesn't work so well controlling forces 160 times that magnitude.
"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a6ilv2-
Quoted message said:
A brain evolved over millions of years for controlling a mass weighing about 80Kg and travelling at at most twenty miles an hour. It's small surprise that it doesn't work so well controlling forces 160 times that magnitude.
Actually, I think my brain works far better at 80mph in a car than it does at a flat out sprint (where fear of falling flat on my face almost totally preoccupies my thoughts)..
It's not the masses or speeds that are the intrinsic problems (they are engineering ones), it's the rate at which we can process information (and react in suitable time) that are surely the critical factors
By your logic, flying a plane should be impossible because we didn't evolve to do it.
A brain evolved over millions of years for controlling a mass weighing about 80Kg and travelling at at most twenty miles an hour. It's small surprise that it doesn't work so well controlling forces 160 times that magnitude.
And 747 pilots are able to control a mass of up to 385 tonnes travelling at up to 950 km/hour. What a wonderfully adaptive organ the brain is:-)
And 747 pilots are able to control a mass of up to 385 tonnes travelling at up to 950 km/hour. What a wonderfully adaptive organ the brain is:-)
Though ATC means they aren't typically required to avoid, say, a white cargo DC10 backing out of the cloud just in front of them...
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a6ilv2-
Quoted message said:
A brain evolved over millions of years for controlling a mass weighing about 80Kg and travelling at at most twenty miles an hour. It's small surprise that it doesn't work so well controlling forces 160 times that magnitude.
Actually, I think my brain works far better at 80mph in a car than it does at a flat out sprint (where fear of falling flat on my face almost totally preoccupies my thoughts)..
It's not the masses or speeds that are the intrinsic problems (they are engineering ones), it's the rate at which we can process information (and react in suitable time) that are surely the critical factors
By your logic, flying a plane should be impossible because we didn't evolve to do it.
So by your logic speed limits on motorways should be raised to 400 knots because we (or some of us) can fly planes at that speed?
"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a6ilv2-
Quoted message said:
A brain evolved over millions of years for controlling a mass weighing about 80Kg and travelling at at most twenty miles an hour. It's small surprise that it doesn't work so well controlling forces 160 times that magnitude.
Actually, I think my brain works far better at 80mph in a car than it does at a flat out sprint (where fear of falling flat on my face almost totally preoccupies my thoughts)..
It's not the masses or speeds that are the intrinsic problems (they are engineering ones), it's the rate at which we can process information (and react in suitable time) that are surely the critical factors
By your logic, flying a plane should be impossible because we didn't evolve to do it.
So by your logic speed limits on motorways should be raised to 400 knots because we (or some of us) can fly planes at that speed?
Only if controlled by ATC or equivalent with similar bans for misbehaviour. Sounds like a grand idea to me.
"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a6ilv2-
> A brain evolved over millions of years for controlling a mass weighing > about 80Kg and travelling at at most twenty miles an hour. It's small > surprise that it doesn't work so well controlling forces 160 times that > magnitude.
Actually, I think my brain works far better at 80mph in a car than it does at a flat out sprint (where fear of falling flat on my face almost totally preoccupies my thoughts)..
It's not the masses or speeds that are the intrinsic problems (they are engineering ones), it's the rate at which we can process information (and react in suitable time) that are surely the critical factors
By your logic, flying a plane should be impossible because we didn't evolve to do it.
So by your logic speed limits on motorways should be raised to 400 knots because we (or some of us) can fly planes at that speed?
Only if controlled by ATC or equivalent with similar bans for misbehaviour. Sounds like a grand idea to me.
Well, yes, but the five mile seperation requirments might limit the throughput on the M1 - that works out at about 40 cars per hour between London and Leeds ;-)
Having said that, the M1 these days doesn't do all that much better than that sometimes.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:20:05 +0100, Tim Downie wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
By your logic, flying a plane should be impossible because we didn't evolve to do it.
So by your logic speed limits on motorways should be raised to 400 knots because we (or some of us) can fly planes at that speed?
Only if controlled by ATC or equivalent with similar bans for misbehaviour. Sounds like a grand idea to me.
Similarly an automatic drive system for almost all of the tasks. It would be simpler to do this if the cars were joined together somehow and ran on fixed tracks...
Only if controlled by ATC or equivalent with similar bans for misbehaviour. Sounds like a grand idea to me.
Similarly an automatic drive system for almost all of the tasks. It would be simpler to do this if the cars were joined together somehow and ran on fixed tracks...
Auto-pilots yes, joined together in convoys maybe, fixed tracks, never! Why do you think folk own cars in the first place? To go where *they* want to, not where the tracks are.
Now if we were to dig up all the rail tracks and replace trains with convoys of computer controlled cars, you might be onto something...
"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
ian henden said:
In this day and age, a motorway speed limit of 80 or 90 would be more appropriate .... with genuine enforcement of *properly* displayed lower speed limits on gantries *when justified* e.g. in poor weather. IOW - higher limits, but with more discipline!
"Where justified" actually includes due to higher traffic volume, that is precisely why the M25 VSL was introduced. Having an upper speed limit of 80-90 would be a disaster as it would reduce the already stretched capacity of the network, not to mention the increased accidents from morons who don't know anything about braking distance and drive Russian roulette stylee up peoples' backsides.
Disagree. Many drivers currently drive at 80 or 90, quite safely - where conditions are suitable. The M25 "high traffic volume" scenario is, as you say, one in which the lower limits are justified. Your other points about tailgating? as I said .... more discipline!!
Auto-pilots yes, joined together in convoys maybe, fixed tracks, never! Why do you think folk own cars in the first place? To go where *they* want to, not where the tracks are.
Now if we were to dig up all the rail tracks and replace trains with convoys of computer controlled cars, you might be onto something...
.... the fast track to the funny farm if there was any justice in the world. As a confirmed non-car owner, I have an obvious bias for long-haul transport being generalised not specific. The sad truth is that there is an echo of public opinion in what you say.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:51:01 +0100 someone who may be The Nottingham Duck <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
I'm glad you view terrorism so lightly. Perhaps you could e-mail your reply to the families of the victims of the London bombings.
It is revealing that you compare the blowing up of some electricity pylons in relatively open country with the blowing up of people on trains and buses in the middle of a city.
Yes,it reveals that I am fully aware of the definition of terrorism.
The _fact_ is that she planted a banoffie pie in Jeremy Clarkson's face. Whether or not the act was "cowardly" is a matter of opinion. Whether or not it was criminal depends on a number of things - how do you know it wasn't a stunt dreamed up by his publicist?
So if some 'hoodie' throws a brick at you,and claims you asked him to do it then its not aggravated assault ?
So if I go to the school fete and pay 50p to throw a water balloon at the teacher then it is agravated assault?
Quoted message said:
The woman is an [censored].If she had any 'balls'-or rather if her convctions were so strong,why not try sticking a blade into Tony Blair?
Because she believes that it is wrong to inflict pain on sentient beings? Because she thinks that Tony Blair is a decent chap? She knows the answer to that question, we don't. Are you suggesting she should try knifing the Prime Minister?
Certainly not,neither do I suggest that she throw pies at 'D' list celebs.
If someone had grabbed her breasts in the street or on the tube she'd complain about it,so why the double standards.Why should she be allowed to violate another person just because she feels like it ?
Why are you defending assaults on Clarkson just because you hate him? You sound like the Nazi defending Kristalnacht because he didn't like Jews.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:51:27 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
Why do you think folk own cars in the first place? To go where *they* want to, not where the tracks are.
Most cars are driven to where the roads go. I'm sure many people would like to drive into a shop in a shopping centre. Instead they drive to a car park and then walk to the shop.
Quoted message said:
Now if we were to dig up all the rail tracks and replace trains with convoys of computer controlled cars, you might be onto something...
Unless there was rather more than 1.2 person per car this scheme would reduce the carrying capacity of the busy railway lines.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:21:43 +0100, The Nottingham Duck <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Yes,it reveals that I am fully aware of the definition of terrorism.
Clever, that. Even the UN cannot come up with a satisfactory definition that World leaders can agree.
The U.N. are a bunch of mindless suits who do anything the Yanks tell them. A punctured tyre with a lobotomy could accomplish more than those poo-heads.
I think you'll find that it is not the definition but the context in which violent acts become terrorism, e.g. during WWII the French Resistance committed the same crimes as the I.R.A.,but are viewed by the British as 'freedom fighters'.The Germans took a dimmer view. But in the context of defeating Nazism the murder of soldiers,policemen and the bombing of bars frequented by servicemen by the Resistance was not terrorism,in much the same way that S.O.E. operations throughout Europe during WWII aren't comparable to current Al Quida activities. After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds of British servicemen murdered by Zionists-because of the context in which they were slaughtered .
