20mph limits coming

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to kill
themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without warning?
I think that's deadly serious and extremely worrying trend of society
that these idiots are actually being defended.

They aren't speed bumps, they're human beings, regardless of whether there's
stupidity or error involved. (My error was in assuming that you meant real
bricks and mortar speed bump.) Now they threw themselves in front of you!
For someone trying to make a serious point, you talk too much [censored].

Hehehe. Well, I'll take your opinion with a pinch of salt. You obviously
also failed to read beyond the "speed bump" bit and ignored the
description of the mother and her family crossing the road. A little
tongue in cheek has never hurt anybody. I think you talk [censored]. Oh, wait,
you actually havent really said anything yet.

As for them throwing themselves in front of me, that is an exaggeration
in discussion to paint a metaphorical picture that is easy to understand
by even the dumbest of users.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Worse still, rather than trying to educate these morons, we'd rather
clap and applaud because someone's installed a 20mph zone, or put a
warning on a hot apple pie, or a warning that your bag of peanuts
contain peanuts.

I don't disagree with the argument that they be trained rather than
mollycoddled through legislation or whatever.

Quoted message said:

I think it's pathetic and disgusting. There's no sarcasm intended.

If there's anything that's disgusting, it's your attitude that they deserve
to die.

No... I did explain to Gareth that was wrong. I shouldn't have said
that. No they don't deserve to die. It's a difficult opinion to discuss.
I guess Im trying to say, I won't shed a tear. They'll obviously have
loved ones who care about them. No they shouldn't die, but, if they're
going to treat the world around them with contempt and ignorance then...

I'll leave you to finish that off.

Simon Dean said:

TheMgt said:

Ekul Namsob said:

TheMgt <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
>>> 20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.
>> Why? It's easy to drive at 20 mph and quite appropriate for drivers to
>> travel slowly down residential streets.
> Maybe, but that isn't what'll happen. 20 mph limits are like cycle
> farcilities in that they allow some council jobsworth to tick a box
> marked 'job done, budget spent' while making sod all difference really.
Do you have any evidence for that?

My own eyes. I've never yet been behind anyone who slowed for a 20 limit
unless the road was lined with speed bumps. Not that I'm advocating
more speed bumps or anything.

I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on, and
it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to avoid a
speed bump.

Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, they were
crossing a side road, then decided they were just going to walk out into
the middle of the main road that I was on.

These people deserve to be killed. It's about time we stopped being a
cotton wool society and said to people "You wanna behave like a pratt,
then that's up to you, but you live with the consequences". Some bint is
trying to get some kind of legislation going that'll ban talking on a
mobile phone while crossing a road because someone once got killed,
ergo, it's dangerous.

Do you think I should be able to prevent poor drivers from driving by
force? Pull mobile phones out of drivers hand and give then the choice
of their car or their phone.

Should fit drivers using disabled placed get their legs broken.

Quoted message said:

Lets bring back natural selection.

Should people that fail to understand natural selection be lobotomised?

Quoted message said:

So my vote is against 20mph speed limit, and lets focus more on
dangerous driving. In towns and cities where visibility is reduced etc,
I'll bring my speed down to a natural speed, ie, 20mph. It's a speed
limit, not a target.

But then a 20mph limit at times when it's say middle of the night, or
there's excellent visibility, 20mph could well feel incorrect.

Cya
Simon

Simon Dean said:

Gareth Rees said:

Simon Dean said:

Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
These people deserve to be killed.

No, they don't.

Why not?

They want to step into the middle of the road without looking where the
f*** they're going! And we're trying to protect these idiots, making it
safer for them to practice their lunacy, prosecute those around them,
just to help them carry on being unsafe and maybe, even, one day
becoming an idiot prime minister?

I'm guessing the child did not put itself their of its own free will.

Stevo said:

Simon Dean said:

Gareth Rees said:

Simon Dean wrote:
> Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
> These people deserve to be killed.

No, they don't.

Why not?

They want to step into the middle of the road without looking where
the f*** they're going! And we're trying to protect these idiots,
making it safer for them to practice their lunacy, prosecute those
around them, just to help them carry on being unsafe and maybe, even,
one day becoming an idiot prime minister?

I'm guessing the child did not put itself their of its own free will.

Valid point. I forgot how abhorrent it is of the mother using her baby
as a shield!

Cya
Simon

Simon Dean said:

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to
kill themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without
warning? I think that's deadly serious and extremely worrying trend
of society that these idiots are actually being defended.

They aren't speed bumps, they're human beings, regardless of whether
there's stupidity or error involved. (My error was in assuming that
you meant real bricks and mortar speed bump.) Now they threw
themselves in front of you! For someone trying to make a serious
point, you talk too much [censored].

Hehehe. Well, I'll take your opinion with a pinch of salt.

What opinion are you referring to?

Quoted message said:

You
obviously also failed to read beyond the "speed bump" bit and ignored
the description of the mother and her family crossing the road.

There's nothing "obvious" about it, stupid.

Quoted message said:

As for them throwing themselves in front of me, that is an
exaggeration in discussion to paint a metaphorical picture that is
easy to understand by even the dumbest of users.

No, it's garbage. What, exactly, did happen? How far into the road were they
when you saw them, and how far away were they?

Quoted message said:

No... I did explain to Gareth that was wrong. I shouldn't have said
that. No they don't deserve to die. It's a difficult opinion to
discuss. I guess Im trying to say, I won't shed a tear. They'll
obviously have loved ones who care about them. No they shouldn't die,
but, if they're going to treat the world around them with contempt
and ignorance then...

I'll leave you to finish that off.

Darwin will have his say.

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.

They probably don't, by and large. However, in your case, they may be
making an exception for a sarcastic, callous [censored].

What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to kill
themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without warning?

If you aren't able to cope with that, hand your driving licence in at the
nearest police station; you won't be needing it again. The road is public
open space, and the people who have an actual right to be on it are
pedestrians. When a guest in someone else's space, you adapt your
behaviour to theirs, not the other way around.

You're victim-blaming, and it is, to quote your own words, 'pathetic and
disgusting'. No, I'm not being sarcastic or ironic.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

Gareth Rees said:

Simon Dean said:

Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
These people deserve to be killed.

No, they don't.

Why not?

They want to step into the middle of the road without looking where the
f*** they're going!

It's their road. By which I mean it's the pedestrians road; motorists are
allowed on it only on sufferance, and then only provided they behave
themselves. You were where you shouldn't be, driving without due care and
attention, and /you/ complain about /their/ behaviour? That's rich!

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

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

spindrift said:

I am worried, seriously, about Safespeed. Smith's whole life, his
whole reason for living is being eroded by his increasingly isolated
position. The media can be harsh when they turn on those who feed off
them.

And Paul Smith's paranoia is getting out of control:

http://tinyurl.com/ytgc9v

And a terrible irony:

Pedestrian killed in lorry crash
A woman walking with a pushchair was killed when she was hit by a 17.5
tonne lorry on a pedestrian crossing.
The white goods vehicle collided with the unnamed woman in London Road
in Portsmouth on Friday morning.

The 57-year-old lorry driver, from High Wycombe, Bucks, has been
arrested on suspicion of careless driving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6711795.stm

Time for your medication "rothbrook"

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

Quoted message said:

Perhaps if people thought that they might get killed if they did something
stupid, they might pay more attention?

Only if you can find a way to remove the "it won't happen to me" mentality
which seems to be hardwired into human nature.

It is, after all this same mentality that leads to dangerous driving in the
first place.

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

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

Wally said:

Simon Dean wrote:

> Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
> inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.

They probably don't, by and large. However, in your case, they may be
making an exception for a sarcastic, callous [censored].

What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to kill
themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without warning?

If you aren't able to cope with that, hand your driving licence in at the
nearest police station; you won't be needing it again. The road is public
open space, and the people who have an actual right to be on it are
pedestrians. When a guest in someone else's space, you adapt your
behaviour to theirs, not the other way around.

True, but the fact is that a motor vehicle, whatever speed it is travelling
at requires a finite time and a certain amount of space to stop, so as a
pedestrian one should try to avoid that space if possible. Similarily if you
are cycling up to a T junction you wouldn't just come thundering out of the
junction without looking, you would stop at the give way markings and look
for other traffic.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

Gareth Rees said:

Simon Dean wrote:
> Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
> These people deserve to be killed.
No, they don't.

Why not?

They want to step into the middle of the road without looking where the
f*** they're going!

It's their road. By which I mean it's the pedestrians road; motorists are
allowed on it only on sufferance, and then only provided they behave
themselves. You were where you shouldn't be, driving without due care and
attention, and /you/ complain about /their/ behaviour? That's rich!

Eh?

How am I driving without due care and attention?

Somebody decides right when Im on top of them to swing 90 degrees right
and walk into my path?

I think you'll find the police will chalk that upto an accident and not
dangerous driving.

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

Wally said:

Simon Dean wrote:

> What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to
> kill themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without
> warning? I think that's deadly serious and extremely worrying trend
> of society that these idiots are actually being defended.
They aren't speed bumps, they're human beings, regardless of whether
there's stupidity or error involved. (My error was in assuming that
you meant real bricks and mortar speed bump.) Now they threw
themselves in front of you! For someone trying to make a serious
point, you talk too much [censored].

Hehehe. Well, I'll take your opinion with a pinch of salt.

What opinion are you referring to?

Hrm....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You
obviously also failed to read beyond the "speed bump" bit and ignored
the description of the mother and her family crossing the road.

There's nothing "obvious" about it, stupid.

It's not obvious you didn't see my description and only read "speed
bump" and interpreted it as a "brick" type speed bump built into the
road? Ok.....

Wonder what intelligent words of wisdom you'll provide next...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for them throwing themselves in front of me, that is an
exaggeration in discussion to paint a metaphorical picture that is
easy to understand by even the dumbest of users.

No, it's garbage. What, exactly, did happen? How far into the road were they
when you saw them, and how far away were they?

Well, again, for the umpteenth time, they were in the side road when I
saw them.

When I had to swerve it's because I was about 5 feet away or so, and
they had just changed their mind treating the side road and the main
road as one and proceeded to try to walk in front of me.

What, you think I like to see pedestrians and try to run them over?
Stupid boy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No... I did explain to Gareth that was wrong. I shouldn't have said
that. No they don't deserve to die. It's a difficult opinion to
discuss. I guess Im trying to say, I won't shed a tear. They'll
obviously have loved ones who care about them. No they shouldn't die,
but, if they're going to treat the world around them with contempt
and ignorance then...

I'll leave you to finish that off.

Darwin will have his say.

Except he wont! Because we keep trying to protect these people!

Cya
Simon

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

Wally said:

Simon Dean wrote:

> Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
> inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.
They probably don't, by and large. However, in your case, they may be
making an exception for a sarcastic, callous [censored].

What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to kill
themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without warning?

If you aren't able to cope with that,

Eh?

I swerved to avoid them. That's "not coping"? If it had been further
away, I could have performed an emergency stop. If it was any closer I
probably would have killed them.

Quoted message said:

hand your driving licence in at the
nearest police station;

So if I leap into your path unannounced, you can cope with that?

Quoted message said:

you won't be needing it again. The road is public
open space, and the people who have an actual right to be on it are
pedestrians. When a guest in someone else's space, you adapt your
behaviour to theirs, not the other way around.

Oh Ok, I didn't know it was possible to adapt your driving to the
totally unexpected.

Quoted message said:

You're victim-blaming,

Someone runs unannounced into the path of a moving vehicle without due
care and attention and "they're the victim"? I see. Whatever happens,
blame the car driver.

Gees. You really are an idiot aren't you?

Quoted message said:

and it is, to quote your own words, 'pathetic and
disgusting'. No, I'm not being sarcastic or ironic.

That's what I said. glad you agree.

Cya
Simon

Simon Dean said:

Well, again, for the umpteenth time, they were in the side road when I
saw them.

When I had to swerve it's because I was about 5 feet away or so, and
they had just changed their mind treating the side road and the main
road as one and proceeded to try to walk in front of me.

So, how far into the main road had they got when you were 5 feet away? You
were doing 20mph, yes?

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Simon Dean said:

Someone runs unannounced into the path of a moving vehicle without due
care and attention and "they're the victim"? I see. Whatever happens,
blame the car driver.

It's not that simple. The car driver is the one with a ton of metal under
his control. To a significant degree, it is incumbent on the driver to avoid
collisions with others - vulnerable road users especially, whether they are
'to blame' or not.

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

in message <[email hidden]>, Wally

(') said:

Simon Dean said:

Someone runs unannounced into the path of a moving vehicle without due
care and attention and "they're the victim"? I see. Whatever happens,
blame the car driver.

It's not that simple. The car driver is the one with a ton of metal under
his control. To a significant degree, it is incumbent on the driver to
avoid collisions with others - vulnerable road users especially, whether
they are 'to blame' or not.

Absolutely.

--
[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.

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

Wally wrote:
> Simon Dean wrote:
>
>> Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
>> inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.
>
> They probably don't, by and large. However, in your case, they may be
> making an exception for a sarcastic, callous [censored].

What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to kill
themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without warning?

If you aren't able to cope with that, hand your driving licence in at
the nearest police station; you won't be needing it again. The road is
public open space, and the people who have an actual right to be on it
are pedestrians. When a guest in someone else's space, you adapt your
behaviour to theirs, not the other way around.

True, but the fact is that a motor vehicle, whatever speed it is
travelling at requires a finite time and a certain amount of space to
stop, so as a pedestrian one should try to avoid that space if possible.
Similarily if you are cycling up to a T junction you wouldn't just come
thundering out of the junction without looking, you would stop at the
give way markings and look for other traffic.

Oh, agreed. But just because a pedestrian (or indeed a cyclist) is an idiot
does not give motorists the right to mow them down. Driving a motor
vehicle is a privilege and requires a very high standard of care.

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

;; lovely alternative to rice.

Simon Dean wrote on 03/06/2007 02:45 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Well, again, for the umpteenth time, they were in the side road when I
saw them.

When I had to swerve it's because I was about 5 feet away or so, and
they had just changed their mind treating the side road and the main
road as one and proceeded to try to walk in front of me.

Hmmm....5 feet. Lets assume you were doing just 20mph, that's 30 ft per
second or 5 feet in 170ms. The human reaction time is between 200 and
300ms so you could not have done anything in that distance nor could
they, unless travelling significantly faster than 20mph have got into
your path. Something doesn't add up.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

Gareth Rees said:

Simon Dean wrote:
> Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
> These people deserve to be killed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, they don't.

Quoted message said:

Why not?

Quoted message said:

They want to step into the middle of the road without looking where the
f*** they're going!

It's their road. By which I mean it's the pedestrians road; motorists are
allowed on it only on sufferance, and then only provided they behave
themselves. >

What sort of lentilist yoghurt-knitting communist idea is that?
The roads are bought and paid for by the motorist with the billions
in taxes that we pay in. Damn pedestrians should know their places....

Sir Jeremy wrote on 03/06/2007 10:21 +0100:

Quoted message said:

What sort of lentilist yoghurt-knitting communist idea is that?
The roads are bought and paid for by the motorist with the billions
in taxes that we pay in. Damn pedestrians should know their places....

And the hospitals, schools and roads are paid for by high earners with
the billions more in income taxes that they pay. Damn poor should know
their place..... ;-^)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell