Will Cove wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in news:4tq6kjF155mulU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> So as long as someone's had training there's no danger to anyone else?
>
> Almost anything has to be better than the status quo.
That's not my point: my point is that *improving* the situation, while
desirable, does not mean you've eliminated the problem, which your
wording suggested it would.
> I'm
> being realistic in recognising that driving beyond the envelope considered
> safe for normal drivers must carry some risk.
But that's not what you said. What you said was "so that they can do
their jobs without endangering the public". "Without endangering the
public" and "must carry some risk" contradict one another. Furthermore
"the envelope considered safe for normal drivers" is still one that
produces a remarkable number of accidents, which means that there's risk
there. It isn't black and white, safe and not safe, it's a compromise
between degree of danger and convenience and utility.
> The public deserve that risk to be minimal
Indeed, but it will not disappear, which "without endangering the
public" implies it will. Hence my assertion that you were being
ridiculously over-optimistic.
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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
