Anti-social behaviour

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> *WHOOSH*, as they say!

Whoosh? WHOOSH? Bloody WHOOSH? Have you SEEN this hill? It's only 600cc!

The only whoosh is that snail overtakin'.

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>>I look forward to you inventing the "DWDC&A" camera.

> He can't, I already patented the idea: it's called the Twatso. All I
> need to do is find enough imps...

Hey! I've got a really good idea. We could make the imps *mobile* - then
people wouldn't be able to escape 'em.

If they were in a high-visibility car, they'd even act as a deterrent - but
we could put some into sneaky cars without all the stripes, to get the
naughty people who behave when they see a marked impmobile...

Nah, it'd never get the budget.

 

[Trevor Barton]

Adrian wrote:
> gomez ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
>
>>>I don't have cruise on my current car - but if I did, I wouldn't use it.
>>>Unsafe on busy roads.
>
>
>>You either don't know how it works or you don't know how to use it.
>
>
> You're wrong on both counts. My velocity is very rarely constant for long
> enough to make it worth engaging.

My velocity is almost never constant, except on long straight flat
roads. My speed is more often constant, though (well to within +/-1mph
at 30mph ;-).

Sorry, Adrian, but you're incorrectly using velocity, which is a vector
quantity characterised by a speed *and* a direction, when you should be
talking about speed, which is the rate of travel. If you travel in a
circle at constant speed your velocity is changing all the time. A
satellite in a circular orbit travels at constant speed, but its
velocity changes due to the acceleration of gravity pulling it towards
the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Trevor Barton]

Adrian wrote:
> Trevor Barton ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>
>
>>>You're wrong on both counts. My velocity is very rarely constant for
>>>long enough to make it worth engaging.
>
>
>>My velocity is almost never constant, except on long straight flat
>>roads. My speed is more often constant, though (well to within
>>+/-1mph at 30mph ;-).
>
>
> I'm deliberately abusing "velocity" in place of "speed", because of the
> associations of the word "speed" in this context.

Oh, Ok. It still reads funny strange, though, like it's been put there
to make it sound more important in that way that some people misuse
legal sounding phrases and incorrectly formal language and the like when
they don't really have anything to say but just like to hear the sound
of their own voices.

I'd put "magnitude of my velocity", if you can be bothered typing it, if
it were me, which makes the point but doesn't sound like you don't know
what your talking about

Disclaimer: The preceeding paragraph is not meant to imply any agreement
or disagreement with the content of anything you may or may not have
posted or not posted in the past, present or future

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Ivor Jones]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:15:19 +0100, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by "Ivor Jones"
> <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
> following:
>
>>> Your unwillingness to accept the law notwithstanding, that is the
>>> rule as it stands. Feel free to vote for any party which promises
>>> to do away with limits (if you can find one).
>
>>I'm not advocating doing away with limits, just to change the blind view
>>that they are the panacea to road problems.
>
> Interestingly, the only people I see suggesting that they are, seem to
> be opponents of enforcement who then go on to bang on about how this
> view is false...

I hope you're not suggesting I am opposing law enforcement. What I *do*
oppose is *unenforceable* and *unnecessary* law. Whether you think speed
limits are in that category or not is up to you.

>>Besides, voting never changed anything. Politicians will do what they
>>want, regardless of the wishes of the electorate.
>
> The secret is: elect different politicians.

Who will then proceed to do exactly the same thing. It's called the Gravy
Train.

Ivor

 

[Adrian]

Trevor Barton ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>> You're wrong on both counts. My velocity is very rarely constant for
>> long enough to make it worth engaging.

> My velocity is almost never constant, except on long straight flat
> roads. My speed is more often constant, though (well to within
> +/-1mph at 30mph ;-).

I'm deliberately abusing "velocity" in place of "speed", because of the
associations of the word "speed" in this context.

Even on a straight flat 30, my rate of travel will vary almost constantly,
depending on the hazards around me.

 

[Buck]

On 06/08/2005 19:37:46 Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck (ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :

>> Would you use Speed Control?

> Possibly. Initially.

> Would I ***** about with resetting it every time I went through a change
> of limit? Very unlikely.

> Would I decide it was a useless distracting gimmick within the first week?
> Probably.

> Would I then leave it set either off or permanently to 95 or so? Almost
> certainly.

That is sad, I find it simple to use and use it often. It takes a moment
to set and is a boon in my eyes, but then I am not obsessed with speed
or arriving a few seconds earlier.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Adrian]

Buck (ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> but then I am not obsessed with speed

Ah, but it could be said that you are more so than I.

My absolute speed is irrelevant. I set it according to a number of factors
- primarily, what's happening around the car.

Your absolute speed seems to be a fairly important piece of information to
you.

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Trevor Barton:
> Oh, but that doesn't apply to MrTitsy because he's the elite of the
> elite - he's an instructor, and able to determine other's capabilities
> by paranormal remote seeing, and also he can't control the speed of his
> car to withn +/-5mph or so at 30mph.
>

I was driving tonight: mostly flattish and quiet 30- & 50- limited roads,
so ideal conditions to try holding a constant speed by judging the engine
tone. Perfectly straightforward, so much so that I've been wondering to
what extent I've been unconsciously doing it anyway. Have you considered
a career in teaching advanced driving techniques? ;-)

I've wondered in the past about the increasing degree to which drivers
are insulated from the outside world, and how much of a problem it is to
receive and react to mainly visual stimuli. How would it be if cars were
fitted with a tone generator linked to the speedo? At least it might
help those poor souls (like - well, I won't mention names ;-)) who don't
have the skill to hold a speed without being Dangerously Distracted by
having to look at the needle. Has this ever been tried?


--
Mark, UK

"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"

 

[JohnB]

Adrian wrote:
>
> JohnB ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying :
>
> > The issue of how speeding vehicles affect others is serious.
> > Shame you never understood it.
>
> I understand it far better than I think you do, John.

Of course you do. At last we agree.
Most drivers do think they know best. You are clearly one of them.

> > Its the subject that gets mentioned most by parents who wish their
> > children to ride bikes and by adults who consider taking up cycling.
>
> Yes, but they don't *mean* "speeding". What they *mean* is "lack of
> consideration to other road users" or, if you want to think in terms of
> licence endorsements "Driving without due care and attention".

That, as well as breaking the speed limits.

> I look forward to you inventing the "DWDC&A" camera.

As I've already said there should be more active policing by real
police, but in addition to cameras.
There is no reason why both should not be widely employed.

John B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At 08 Jun 2005 22:01:36 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by
Adrian <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>Your absolute speed seems to be a fairly important piece of information to
>you.

Indeed. Some of us are not scofflaws.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:41:53 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by "Ivor Jones"
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>>>I'm not advocating doing away with limits, just to change the blind view
>>>that they are the panacea to road problems.

>> Interestingly, the only people I see suggesting that they are, seem to
>> be opponents of enforcement who then go on to bang on about how this
>> view is false...

>I hope you're not suggesting I am opposing law enforcement. What I *do*
>oppose is *unenforceable* and *unnecessary* law. Whether you think speed
>limits are in that category or not is up to you.

Did you know that in the five years after imposition of the 60mph
national speed limit, the casualty rate per billion vehicle km.
dropped by nearly 30%?

The thing is, with all this harking back to the golden age before
cameras and widespread enforcement, it's easy to forget that casualty
rates are currently the lowest they have ever been, and still
improving. Yet people want to wind back the clock to the 70s when
there was no NSL, or the early 30s when there were no limits at all to
speak of, but the casualty rates were massively higher than they are
now.

More importantly, the increase in cameras and 20 limits in the last
five years has seen a sharp reduction in the number and severity of
child pedestrian injuries. Our child pedestrian injury rate was
remarkably poor by comparison with how "safe" the people killing them
appear to be!


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:
> >Does it keep an eye on the hazards around you and adjust it's speed
> >downwards automatically, too?
>
> Why should it need to? I am still in the car. It has an off switch
> as well as an on, and the brake cuts it straight out.
>

<Snopes> What, you mean you never go into the back to make a sandwich?
</Snopes>

--
Mark, UK

"We are all of us, more or less, the slaves of opinion."

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

JohnB wrote:

>
> As I've already said there should be more active policing by real
> police, but in addition to cameras.
> There is no reason why both should not be widely employed.
>
> John B

Here, here.

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:44:54 +0100, Alistair J Murray
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For any given level of culpability a driver is likely to have a
>> greater liability than a ped.
>
> Well well! We got there in the end.

Never been anywhere else. Liability is civil, culpability criminal.

I do however reserve the right to pursue the estate of any ped who might
commit de facto suicide to the detriment of my property and peace of mind.




A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:
>
>>>Does it keep an eye on the hazards around you and adjust it's speed
>>>downwards automatically, too?
>>
>>Why should it need to? I am still in the car. It has an off switch
>>as well as an on, and the brake cuts it straight out.
>>
>
>
> <Snopes> What, you mean you never go into the back to make a sandwich?
> </Snopes>
>

To the music of AC/DC "Rock & Roll ain't noise pollution!"

(All right)
Hey there, all you middle men
Throw away your fancy clothes
And while you're out there sittin' on a fence
So get off your ass and come down here
'Cause riding bike ain't no riddle man
To me it makes good, good sense

Good sense
Ow
Oooh yeah

Heavy decibels are playing on my guitar
We got vibrations coming up from the floor
We're just listening to the rock that's giving too much noise
Are you deaf, you wanna hear some more

We're just talkin' about the future
Forget about the past
It'll always be with us
It's never gonna die, never gonna die

Riding bike ain't noise pollution
Riding bike ain't gonna die
Riding bike ain't noise pollution
Riding bike it will survive

Yes it will, ha ha ha ha

I took a look inside your bedroom door
You looked so good lying on your bed
Well, I asked you if you wanted any rhythm and love
You said you wanna be Riding bike instead

We're just talkin' about the future
Forget about the past
It'll always be with us
It's never gonna die, never gonna die

Riding bike ain't noise pollution
Riding bike ain't gonna die
Riding bike ain't no pollution
Riding bike is just Riding bike

Oh Riding bike ain't noise pollution
Riding bike ain't gonna die
Riding bike ain't no pollution
Riding bike ain't gonna die

Riding bike ain't no pollution
Riding bike it'll never die

Riding bike ain't no pollution
Riding bike
Oh
Riding bike is just Riding bike

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

Alistair J Murray wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:44:54 +0100, Alistair J Murray
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For any given level of culpability a driver is likely to have a
>>>greater liability than a ped.
>>\/87
>>Well well! We got there in the end.
>
>
> Never been anywhere else. Liability is civil, culpability criminal.
>
> I do however reserve the right to pursue the estate of any ped who might
> commit de facto suicide to the detriment of my property and peace of mind.
>


Right on, brother.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:01:09 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>>> For any given level of culpability a driver is likely to have a
>>> greater liability than a ped.

>> Well well! We got there in the end.

>Never been anywhere else. Liability is civil, culpability criminal.
>I do however reserve the right to pursue the estate of any ped who might
>commit de facto suicide to the detriment of my property and peace of mind.

Whilst quietly ignoring that your choice of transport may well have
been the single largest determining factor in the fact that said ped
is now dead, rather than essentially uninjured?

The major problem with considerations of road safety is that, while
liability might split 50/50 in pedestrian v car collisions, injury is
pretty much 100/0 in the driver's favour. Some of us think that puts
an additional obligation on the driver to take extra care.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 23:08:13 +0100, Mark McNeill wrote:
> I've wondered in the past about the increasing degree to which drivers
> are insulated from the outside world, and how much of a problem it is to
> receive and react to mainly visual stimuli. How would it be if cars were
> fitted with a tone generator linked to the speedo? At least it might
> help those poor souls (like - well, I won't mention names ;-)) who don't
> have the skill to hold a speed without being Dangerously Distracted by
> having to look at the needle. Has this ever been tried?


You mean like the rate of climb indicator in a glider? It's be bloody
irritating to have something whining in your ear all the time. Well,
except for the missus of course, she's not at all irritating

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Trevor Barton:
> It's be bloody
> irritating to have something whining in your ear all the time. Well,
> except for the missus of course, she's not at all irritating

So, how about linking your missus to the speedo?

Come to think of it, maybe my GF already is... :-D


--
Mark, UK

"There was never a century nor a country that was short of experts who
knew the Deity's mind and were willing to reveal it."