Random Eye Tests

Quoted message said:

Only you are obsessed with speed. I wonder why.Has someone been
getting points?

I've never been caught speeding in my life. I just have a real problem
with people (such as your good self) who make it sound as though
people who drive fast are rabid baby-killers who do a victory dance
every time they mow someone down, and who try to blame every wrong
they see on that mystical evil 'speed'.

Quoted message said:

I suppose you are aware of the association of speeding points with
involvement in fatal accidents.

Yes, there is an overlap between people involved in fatal crashes and
people who have been caught speeding. This is in no small part because
drivers who are sufficiently unobservant not to notice a police car or
speed camera are also likely not to notice hazards on the road until
it is too late.

There is also an overlap between people involved in fatal crashes and
people with blond hair. So what? The fact that there is an association
between people involved in two activities does not show anything.

Quoted message said:

I have not said at any point that there are no other causes.

You mean where you said
:: Of course if you are going fast enough to have a serious accident
:: when you make an error then speed is part of the problem at least. It
:: is always a factor in an an accident, except those where parked cars
:: are hit by meteors.
you didn't mean that speed is a factor in every accident? Interesting
interpretation of your own words.

For every situation I have posited, with (in every case) the driver at
fault using a safe speed, you have nevertheless argued that speed was
to blame.

Quoted message said:

It is your denial of the importance of speed in the cause and severity
of crashes that is against logic.

I am well aware that driving too fast is likely to cause a crash, and
that the faster one drives, the more severe any crash is likely to be.

I also recognise that most accidents are caused by factors other than
"going too fast", and that a focus on speed as the sole or major cause
of accidents is not going to have a significant impact on the fatality
or casualty rate.

Quoted message said:

If you insist on your right to move at speeds that cause casualties
that does not mean that you are blameless because you think you have
the right do that.

How fast do you ride your bike? Fast enough to cause a casualty?

Quoted message said:

I have to go back to the real world now.Good bye

Enjoy your time there. Please do report back and let us know what it's
like.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Budstaff said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Repeating the "speed kills" mantra like an automaton, without
recognising that there are other far more serious causes of accidents,
does you no favours, and severely harms the cause of the road safety
lobby.

Only you are obsessed with speed.I wonder why.Has someone been getting
points?
I suppose you are aware of the association of speeding points with
involvement in fatal accidents.

I have not said at any point that there are no other causes.It is your
denial of the importance of speed in the cause and severity of crashes
that is against logic.

If you insist on your right to move at speeds that cause casualties
that does not mean that you are blameless because you think you have
the right do that.

If ,as you maintain, drivers must drive at speeds that involve risk
then I take it that you agree that increased speed increases risk.It
should therefore be cited among the causes of most crashes.

I have to go back to the real world now.Good bye

Are you sure you'll be able to cope there? All those nasty people
driving/cycling/running faster than walking pace?

Whenever we interact with anything, we do so on the basis of risk
assessment. If you do not accept this principle then you _cannot_ use the
roads. Speed is excessive when a consensus of reasonable people agrees that
this is so. In general the law provides a useful guideline to this, with the
caveat that conditions often reduce the safe speed less than the legal
limit.

Your argument is reductio ad absurdum - 'the slower you go the less the
chance of an accident, and the lesser the consequences should one occur -
ergo stationary vehicles are the only safe ones'. To suggest, as you have,
that as parties involved in accidents are moving, and if they were moving
slower they wouldn't have accidents, therefore all accidents are caused by
speed has the sort of logic found in the works of Lewis Carroll, and
actually hinders useful discussion on the subject.

I really can't work out if you are

A) a zealot
B) an idiot
C) a troll

I merely want to point out that speed is important I have not said that
it is the only cause of anything.
Apart from the insults what you have said is reasonable, and I think I
have already said similar above.

Quoted message said:

as parties involved in accidents are moving, and if they were moving
slower they wouldn't have accidents,

But this is not a quote from me, is it?It is true , obviously.
This discussion has gone beyond reason, as things involving safesp**d
always do.
TJ

Quoted message said:

This discussion has gone beyond reason, as things involving safesp**d
always do.
TJ

Sorry, I think the use of the S word may have been uncalled for. I was
thrown by the refusal of what seems obvious to most people, and
inconvenient to others.
TerryJ