Re: baffling

MrBitsy said:

spindrift said:

Speed is the single most important factor in road safety as the links
demonstrate. Reduce speed and accident rates plummet. Look at Hull.

I don't get it - all the threads and posts from the cyclists have all been
about dangerous driving. All of the examples have been due to poor
observation, lack of anticipation, poor planning and poor attitude.

Why are they now going on about speed?

In spindrit's case because he's a genuine spittle-flecked loon.

Quoted message said:

Good idea - we could educate him about crossing the roads safely. We could
tell them not to have the Ipod on at insane levels, not yakking on the phone
while crossing. Maybe even teaching them to look while crossing?

Quoted message said:

You need to understand the science behind why the impact of a car
travelling at 40mph upon a pedestrian is about four times more likely
to kill the pedestrian than an impact with the same cart at 30mph.

How about telling the driver to look out for pedestrians? How about telling
the pedestrian to look out for cars?

Quoted message said:

To do this pupils need to become familiar and confident in their
application of the equation 1/2 mv2

Oh, I see we are still stuck on slowing cars down, even though speed
accounts for a low percentage of crashes. Oh well.

Ray, I think logic is a lost cause here. I was mistakenly thinking no
collision is better than a slow collision...

MrBitsy said:

In that case, maybe thge speed limit ought to be reduced by 50% - all
cancers would be eliminated at a stroke.

That's the spirit. Lose the logic ;-)

MrBitsy said:

spindrift said:

(SteveH) said:

spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On 22 Dec, 14:25, Adrian <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Adrian (Adrian <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like they were saying:

>>> There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of
>>> accidents as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious action'"

>> <notices embargo>
>> Ooops. Please don't click on the link until Monday. Thanks.

> For every 1% reduction in average traffic speed, crashes reduce by
> an average of 5% (Taylor et al, TRL 421, 2000).

That's manipulating the statistics to make them say what you want
them
to say.

Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than
driving at 30mph?

Of course.

You understand basic physics:

Force (N) = mass (kg) × acceleration (m/s2)

That's not actually the equation you want, although it's close. Kinetic
energy - which is what causes injury in impacts - is expressed

E(k) = 1/2mv^2

where m is mass and v is velocity.

Quoted message said:

Negated by the driver not crashing - maybe we should think about improving
standards? Maybe we could have expert drivers checking over the rest of us
to have a word with the dangerous ones - I think they used to be called
traffic police in the olden days.

If drivers driving at 30mph were even slightly /less/ likely to crash than
drivers driving at 29mph, then there would be an argument that driving at
30mph was safer. Unfortunately, however, drivers driving at 30mph are
slightly /more/ likely to crash than at 29mph. And, of course, the energy
involved in such a crash is (slightly) higher.

So, to get back to the original question, yes, I honestly believe that, all
other things being equal, driving at 29mph is safer than driving at 30mph.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey

MrBitsy said:

spindrift said:

Speed is the single most important factor in road safety as the links
demonstrate. Reduce speed and accident rates plummet. Look at Hull.

I don't get it - all the threads and posts from the cyclists have all been
about dangerous driving. All of the examples have been due to poor
observation, lack of anticipation, poor planning and poor attitude.

Why are they now going on about speed?

Because I frankly don't care how poor a driver's observation, anticipation,
planning and attitude are so long as he's stationary, and I'm not much
bothered provided his speed is less than mine. It's when he's driving his
ton of junk faster than I can get out of his way, while eating crisps,
talking on his phone and fiddling with his satnav, that he's a lethal
menace.

And also, it's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of drivers
on Britain's roads lack reasonable observation, anticipation, planning and
attitude.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.

Simon Brooke said:

MrBitsy said:

spindrift said:

On 22 Dec, 14:40, [email hidden] (SteveH) wrote:
> spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> On 22 Dec, 14:25, Adrian <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Adrian (Adrian <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding
>>> much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of
>>>> accidents as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious action'"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> <notices embargo>
>>> Ooops. Please don't click on the link until Monday. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> For every 1% reduction in average traffic speed, crashes reduce by
>> an average of 5% (Taylor et al, TRL 421, 2000).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That's manipulating the statistics to make them say what you want
> them
> to say.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than
> driving at 30mph?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You understand basic physics:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Force (N) = mass (kg) × acceleration (m/s2)

That's not actually the equation you want, although it's close. Kinetic
energy - which is what causes injury in impacts - is expressed

E(k) = 1/2mv^2

where m is mass and v is velocity.

Quoted message said:

Negated by the driver not crashing - maybe we should think about improving
standards? Maybe we could have expert drivers checking over the rest of us
to have a word with the dangerous ones - I think they used to be called
traffic police in the olden days.

If drivers driving at 30mph were even slightly /less/ likely to crash than
drivers driving at 29mph, then there would be an argument that driving at
30mph was safer. Unfortunately, however, drivers driving at 30mph are
slightly /more/ likely to crash than at 29mph. And, of course, the energy
involved in such a crash is (slightly) higher.

So, to get back to the original question, yes, I honestly believe that, all
other things being equal, driving at 29mph is safer than driving at 30mph.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
        ;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
        ;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
        ;; garbage, slime pits, and debris.                   -- Edward Abbey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Simon.

The idiocy speedophiles come out with to try to justify their anti-
social behaviour is hilarious- denying basic physics has to be the
best of the bunch.

Once again, dead bodies are not the sole effect of speeding. Speeding
is aggressive, threatening, noisy and bullying to other road users.

Simon Brooke said:

MrBitsy said:

spindrift said:

Speed is the single most important factor in road safety as the
links demonstrate. Reduce speed and accident rates plummet. Look at
Hull.

I don't get it - all the threads and posts from the cyclists have
all been about dangerous driving. All of the examples have been due
to poor observation, lack of anticipation, poor planning and poor
attitude.

Why are they now going on about speed?

Because I frankly don't care how poor a driver's observation,
anticipation, planning and attitude are so long as he's stationary,
and I'm not much bothered provided his speed is less than mine. It's
when he's driving his ton of junk faster than I can get out of his
way, while eating crisps, talking on his phone and fiddling with his
satnav, that he's a lethal menace.

And also, it's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of
drivers on Britain's roads lack reasonable observation, anticipation,
planning and attitude.

If that were even faintly true there would be a substantially greater number
of collisions than there are.

spindrift said:

Once again, dead bodies are not the sole effect of speeding.

Do you have any proof, or even any evidence, that "speeding" (speed in
excess of an arbitrary limit), as opposed to inappropriate speed, _ever_
caused (rather than correlated) with *any* collision? You will need to
also show that the same collision couldn't possibly have occurred at
exactly the same speed if the limit were higher, and thus no "speeding"
was taking place (to eliminate inappropriate speed or other causes) to
isolate speeding as the real cause.

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke said:

MrBitsy said:

spindrift said:

Speed is the single most important factor in road safety as the links
demonstrate. Reduce speed and accident rates plummet. Look at Hull.

I don't get it - all the threads and posts from the cyclists have all been
about dangerous driving. All of the examples have been due to poor
observation, lack of anticipation, poor planning and poor attitude.

Why are they now going on about speed?

Because I frankly don't care how poor a driver's observation, anticipation,
planning and attitude are so long as he's stationary, and I'm not much
bothered provided his speed is less than mine. It's when he's driving his
ton of junk faster than I can get out of his way, while eating crisps,
talking on his phone and fiddling with his satnav, that he's a lethal
menace.

And also, it's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of drivers
on Britain's roads lack reasonable observation, anticipation, planning and
attitude.

Nonsense. If the reality was anything like that, we'd be seeing carnage
around us every time we went out.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Brimstone said:

Simon Brooke said:

MrBitsy said:

spindrift wrote:

> Speed is the single most important factor in road safety as the
> links demonstrate. Reduce speed and accident rates plummet. Look at
> Hull.
I don't get it - all the threads and posts from the cyclists have
all been about dangerous driving. All of the examples have been due
to poor observation, lack of anticipation, poor planning and poor
attitude.

Why are they now going on about speed?

Because I frankly don't care how poor a driver's observation,
anticipation, planning and attitude are so long as he's stationary,
and I'm not much bothered provided his speed is less than mine. It's
when he's driving his ton of junk faster than I can get out of his
way, while eating crisps, talking on his phone and fiddling with his
satnav, that he's a lethal menace.

And also, it's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of
drivers on Britain's roads lack reasonable observation, anticipation,
planning and attitude.

If that were even faintly true there would be a substantially greater number
of collisions than there are.

Thanks, Brim. You've beaten me to it, I now see.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

TripleS said:

Simon Brooke said:

MrBitsy said:

spindrift wrote:

> Speed is the single most important factor in road safety as the links
> demonstrate. Reduce speed and accident rates plummet. Look at Hull.
I don't get it - all the threads and posts from the cyclists have all
been about dangerous driving. All of the examples have been due to poor
observation, lack of anticipation, poor planning and poor attitude.

Why are they now going on about speed?

Because I frankly don't care how poor a driver's observation,
anticipation, planning and attitude are so long as he's stationary, and
I'm not much bothered provided his speed is less than mine. It's when
he's driving his ton of junk faster than I can get out of his way, while
eating crisps, talking on his phone and fiddling with his satnav, that
he's a lethal menace.

And also, it's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of
drivers on Britain's roads lack reasonable observation, anticipation,
planning and attitude.

Nonsense. If the reality was anything like that, we'd be seeing carnage
around us every time we went out.

I have passed (not been involved in) a different road collision every single
day for the past week - and that, in under 200 miles. Yes, the roads are a
bit slippy, but they aren't *that* bad.

Today's incident: someone had spun a Honda Accord - presumably front wheel
drive - on a 30mph limit residential road, ending up crashing into two
parked cars and being hit from behind by another car. There wasn't even any
ice on the road, so how they managed it is beyond me.

Anyone who claims driving standards in this country are anything other than
abysmal is deluding themselves.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
;; Al Qaeda have ever killed worldwide in any single year.

Simon Brooke said:

Anyone who claims driving standards in this country are anything
other than abysmal is deluding themselves.

Abysmal compared to what or where and what do you sugget as a means of
improving standards?

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. If the reality was anything like that, we'd be seeing carnage
around us every time we went out.

I have passed (not been involved in) a different road collision every single
day for the past week - and that, in under 200 miles. Yes, the roads are a
bit slippy, but they aren't *that* bad.

Rubbish.

I do 800-1200 miles PER WEEK and don't see that many accidents.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Simon Brooke said:

Unfortunately, however, drivers driving at 30mph are
slightly /more/ likely to crash than at 29mph.

Care to back that up? I can't deny the physics that a drver going
quicker will cause more damage if they crash, but on what evidence are
they more likely to crash in the first place. As mentioned near the
start of this thread, one of the slowest drivers I know has a conviction
for careless driving and damn near killed a couple on a motor scooter
that she hit through not looking where she was going.

spindrift said:

Simon Brooke said:

MrBitsy said:

spindrift wrote:
> On 22 Dec, 14:40, [email hidden] (SteveH) wrote:
>> spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 22 Dec, 14:25, Adrian <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Adrian (Adrian <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily,
>>>> sounding much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

>>>>> There was an RAC press release t'other day which quoted 94% of
>>>>> accidents as being due to "driver error or 'injudicious
>>>>> action'"

Quoted message said:

>>>> <notices embargo>
>>>> Ooops. Please don't click on the link until Monday. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

>>> For every 1% reduction in average traffic speed, crashes reduce
>>> by an average of 5% (Taylor et al, TRL 421, 2000).

Quoted message said:

>> That's manipulating the statistics to make them say what you want
>> them
>> to say.

Quoted message said:

>> Do you *honestly* believe that driving at 29mph is safer than
>> driving at 30mph?

Quoted message said:

> Of course.

Quoted message said:

> You understand basic physics:

Quoted message said:

> Force (N) = mass (kg) × acceleration (m/s2)

That's not actually the equation you want, although it's close.
Kinetic energy - which is what causes injury in impacts - is
expressed

E(k) = 1/2mv^2

where m is mass and v is velocity.

Quoted message said:

Negated by the driver not crashing - maybe we should think about
improving standards? Maybe we could have expert drivers checking
over the rest of us to have a word with the dangerous ones - I
think they used to be called traffic police in the olden days.

If drivers driving at 30mph were even slightly /less/ likely to
crash than drivers driving at 29mph, then there would be an argument
that driving at 30mph was safer. Unfortunately, however, drivers
driving at 30mph are slightly /more/ likely to crash than at 29mph.
And, of course, the energy involved in such a crash is (slightly)
higher.

So, to get back to the original question, yes, I honestly believe
that, all other things being equal, driving at 29mph is safer than
driving at 30mph.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Simon.

The idiocy speedophiles come out with to try to justify their anti-
social behaviour is hilarious- denying basic physics has to be the
best of the bunch.

You need to play closer attention to the point several are trying to make.

There is vitually no advice given todays drivers outside 'speed kills'.
Thdere are many more bad driving habits that cause far more danger than
driving a bit fast.

The cyclists in this thread have been complaining about poor observation,
dangerous overtaking, lack of anticipation and various other poor driving
habits. Yet, we get this ridiculous assertion that 29mph is safer than
30mph!!

Quoted message said:

Once again, dead bodies are not the sole effect of speeding. Speeding
is aggressive, threatening, noisy and bullying to other road users.

You are getting confused.

Most bullying of the types you mention are done under the speed limit.

--
MrBitsy

Simon Brooke said:

MrBitsy said:

spindrift said:

Speed is the single most important factor in road safety as the
links demonstrate. Reduce speed and accident rates plummet. Look at
Hull.

I don't get it - all the threads and posts from the cyclists have
all been about dangerous driving. All of the examples have been due
to poor observation, lack of anticipation, poor planning and poor
attitude.

Why are they now going on about speed?

Because I frankly don't care how poor a driver's observation,
anticipation, planning and attitude are so long as he's stationary,
and I'm not much bothered provided his speed is less than mine. It's
when he's driving his ton of junk faster than I can get out of his
way, while eating crisps, talking on his phone and fiddling with his
satnav, that he's a lethal menace.

And also, it's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of
drivers on Britain's roads lack reasonable observation, anticipation,
planning and attitude.

You DO understand the real problem then. The bad habits you just listed do
not only start to happen higher than the posted limit.
--
MrBitsy

Simon Brooke said:

TripleS said:

Simon Brooke said:

MrBitsy wrote:

> spindrift wrote:
>
>> Speed is the single most important factor in road safety as the
>> links demonstrate. Reduce speed and accident rates plummet. Look
>> at Hull.
> I don't get it - all the threads and posts from the cyclists have
> all been about dangerous driving. All of the examples have been
> due to poor observation, lack of anticipation, poor planning and
> poor attitude.
>
> Why are they now going on about speed?

Because I frankly don't care how poor a driver's observation,
anticipation, planning and attitude are so long as he's stationary,
and I'm not much bothered provided his speed is less than mine.
It's when he's driving his ton of junk faster than I can get out of
his way, while eating crisps, talking on his phone and fiddling
with his satnav, that he's a lethal menace.

And also, it's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of
drivers on Britain's roads lack reasonable observation,
anticipation, planning and attitude.

Nonsense. If the reality was anything like that, we'd be seeing
carnage around us every time we went out.

I have passed (not been involved in) a different road collision every
single day for the past week - and that, in under 200 miles. Yes, the
roads are a bit slippy, but they aren't *that* bad.

Today's incident: someone had spun a Honda Accord - presumably front
wheel drive - on a 30mph limit residential road, ending up crashing
into two parked cars and being hit from behind by another car. There
wasn't even any ice on the road, so how they managed it is beyond me.

Anyone who claims driving standards in this country are anything
other than abysmal is deluding themselves.

Strange. I havn't seen that many collisions in the last several years
motoring.
--
MrBitsy

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

Quoted message said:

There is vitually no advice given todays drivers outside 'speed kills'.

Mmm - so you'll have missed all the road safety campaigns then...

Take a look at THINK! and see what order they give advice.

clive

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

It's when he's driving his
ton of junk faster than I can get out of his way, while eating crisps,

Stop eating crisps lardy and you might get out of the way faster.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article <36547452-eb70-4edc-9d78-c2fdb9050652
@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The idiocy speedophiles come out with to try to justify their anti-
social behaviour is hilarious

And "Pedalophiles" are global warming apologists with their blatent
direct co2 production.

Get back in your box.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com