Anti-social behaviour

[Trevor Barton]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:53:15 +0100, Mark McNeill wrote:
> 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

Linked to my speedo? I hope not! I don't know your grandfather! ;-P

--
Trevor Barton

 

[dkahn400]

Trevor Barton wrote:

> 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

It's more irritating when it makes the down noise. Audio vario is a
very Good Thing - it makes soaring both easier and safer. I've never
found the noise irritating - the bad news it might be conveying is a
different matter.

--
Dave...

 

[Buck]

On 06/08/2005 23:01:36 Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

I think you are trolling now.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 06/09/2005 09:57:58 Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> I think you are trolling now.

> Fine. Your closed mind. Your loss.

Touche!

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Buck wrote:
> On 06/08/2005 23:01:36 Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

>> Your absolute speed seems to be a fairly important piece of
>> information to you.
>
> I think you are trolling now.

Knowledge of the numerical value of your instantaneous speed has
precisely one use - comparison with a numberonastick.


A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> 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:
>
[...]

>> 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?

No.

I always take great care to avoid hitting stuff, car or no car.

> 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.

Which makes it even more amazing that so many pedestrians and cyclists
fail to make sure their way is clear.

> Some of us think that puts an additional obligation on the driver to
> take extra care.

Some of us think that one should take that much care all the time...

....yet still occasionally play the drunken ped.



A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[MrBitsy]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> MrBitsy wrote:
>
>> > You spout about not only being and advanced driver, but an
>> > instructor of advanced drivers, none the less, but you feel that
>> > you can pick and choose not only which laws you break, but you also
>> > ignore the "rules" advanced by the very organisation whose umbrella
>> > you use to try to defend your law-breaking.
>>
>> I always drive to the limit as that is the law - never said anything
>> different.
>
> I thought the law was that you should drive *below* the limit.
>
>> The big difference is, you will check your speedo much more
>> often than me to remain as close to the limit as possible. I will
>> check my speedo where I feel safety isn't comprimised at all, and
>> that means my speed MAY fluctuate around the limit a little more than
>> you.
>
> You are claerly setting your "percentage below the limit" too high
> then if you exceed it from time to time.
>
>> I could drive at a certain percentage below the limit, so my speed
>> fluctuations never go above the limit, but I feel that is not
>> benificial to safety because some drivers may get frustrated and
>> react accordingly.
>
> You feel intimidated by these drivers?

No and I have no idea how you can infer that from what I said.

> Just *how* are you in the IAM and an instructor to boot beggars
> belief.

Its simple. I took an advanced course and passed the test. After a few
months I took another couple of courses, plus a couple of days with herts
police traffic officers. I passed an assesment to become an adviser. My
first associate passed the test.




--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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 ;-).

Yes, because you overuse the speedo.

> 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

Well, didn't that add a lot to the discussion on speed limits.



--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> MrBitsy wrote:
>>
>> JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> > Its the subject that gets mentioned most by parents who wish their
>> > children to ride bikes and by adults who consider taking up cycling.
>> >
>> Yeh, but they mean speeding to be not an approapriate speed for the
>> conditions.
>
> Wrong.
> They mean:
> a) driving at a speed inappropriate for the conditions - bad driving

Correct.

> b) exceeding the speed limit - bad driving

Don't be so silly man.


--
MrBitsy

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 14:34:49 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I could drive at a certain percentage below the limit, so my speed
>> fluctuations never go above the limit, but I feel that is not benificial
>> to safety because some drivers may get frustrated and react accordingly.

>You feel intimidated by these drivers?

Yes, it's a classic isn't it? Blaming law-abiding drivers for the
inappropriate actions of speedophiles. It's right up there with
blaming motorcyclists for SMIDSYs and pedestrians for "not looking"
when they are run down by nutters doing twice the limit past a queue
at a pedestrian crossing.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[JohnB]

MrBitsy wrote:

> > b) exceeding the speed limit - bad driving
>
> Don't be so silly man.

I bet the IAM just love the way you are such a fine advertisement for
their standards.
You are doing them proud.

John B

 

[MrBitsy]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> MrBitsy wrote:
>
>> > b) exceeding the speed limit - bad driving
>>
>> Don't be so silly man.
>
> I bet the IAM just love the way you are such a fine advertisement for
> their standards.
> You are doing them proud.
>
> John B
>

Your not really interested in safety are you?

I have got an image in my head about where you live, I bet you don't have
pictures more than 1 mm out of place and I bet all your cups have the
handles facing the same way.

Thinks safety man and you will concede 1mph over the limit doesn't equal
bad driving. Have you done what I suggested yet - you know, covering up
your speedo to see if you automatically start killing pedestrians and go
125mph on motorways?

--
MrBitsy

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:20:49 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>> The unlimited Autobahns have twice the fatality rate of our limited
>> motorways. The tool the Germans are (successfully) using to reduce
>> this is: (all together now) enforced speed limits!

>Not even close, the autobahn death rate is 4x the death rate on UK
>motorways, or 3x per capita.

For what value of rate? I'm going on the per billion vehicle km
figure from IRTAD. It may be out of date by now, of course.

>However since 1980 the death rate on
>autobahns has reduced, the death rate on UK motorways has increased. But
>don't go getting excitd by the reducing death rate on autobahns, they
>have a long way to go and the death rate on German restricted roads is
>still over twice that on UK roads.

For what value of rate?

IRTAD figures per billion vehicle km are:

GB: 7.6 all roads, 7.5 urban, 2.0 motorways
DE: 9.7 all roads, --- urban, 3.8 motorways

Without urban figures it's frustratingly difficult to make an accurate
comparison of on-motorway roads, but if the situation is the same as
the UK, where three times as much mileage is urban as is motorway,
that doesn't really indicate that their urban roads are massively more
dangerous.

Not saying you're wrong, just that it conflicts with my reading of the
published data.

>Nor is there much to suggest that it's the speed limit per se that is
>the cause of German fatalities or of lower fatalities on UK roads.
>German drivers are IMO more aggressive while driving than British
>drivers.

You think? I found that lane discipline was much better and people
more willing to let you go at your own pace. This may well differ
from place to place.

>The biggest reductions in death rates on German autobahns pre date the
>introduction of autobahn speed limits. Since the initial decline
>accident rates in Germany have remained essentially static. Introducing
>speed limits isn't shown to be working.

So it's just a coincidence, then? Like when traffic speed reductions
lead to reduced casualty rates here? Hmmm.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, MrBitsy
says...

> > b) exceeding the speed limit - bad driving
>
> Don't be so silly man.
>
Were you taught to exceed the speed limit when you were taking your
driving lessons? Would you expect to fail your driving test for
exceeding them?


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

 

[DavidR]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> You think this is something to do with the difference between 30mph and
> 31mph? No.

Lets put it this way.

People are intimidated by the magnitude of the velocity that people drive
at. Speed intimidates people. OK?

Limits and the enforcement are a means to reduce this. Note, reduce, not
prevent.

> This is something to do with clueless sheep-like nannyism.

Who is being nannied?

 

[DavidR]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote
> DavidR ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like >
> they were saying :
>
>>> You think this is something to do with the difference between 30mph and
>>> 31mph? No.
>
>> Lets put it this way.
>>
>> People are intimidated by the magnitude of the velocity that people
>> drive at. Speed intimidates people. OK?
>
> Right. And wrong.
>
> INAPPROPRIATE speed intimidates people.

Who is making a judgement about what is appropriate/inappropriate? The
driver?

Nothing to do with it anyway; speed absolute is a factor that intimidates
people. That is why we have 20 & 30mph *limits*.

> Driving without due care and
> attention intimidates people. Careless/Reckless/Dangerous driving
> intimidates people.

That as well. Fortunately most drivers are not in that category.

> Inappropriate speed does *not* need to be in excess of a limit.

Yes. Though an example seems remarkably hard to find.

> If you're cycling along a 30mph road,

I didn't bring up the issue of cycling along 30mph roads. I am trying to
inform you (something that you seem oblivious to) is that people are
affected by the speed of traffic around them.

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

Adrian wrote:
> DavidR ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
>
>>>You think this is something to do with the difference between 30mph and
>>>31mph? No.
>
>
>>Lets put it this way.
>>
>>People are intimidated by the magnitude of the velocity that people drive
>>at. Speed intimidates people. OK?
>
>
> Right. And wrong.
>
> INAPPROPRIATE speed intimidates people. Driving without due care and
> attention intimidates people. Careless/Reckless/Dangerous driving
> intimidates people.

Making inapropriate capital changes SPEED.

Oh sorry ARBITRARY speed, or arbitrary SPEED.

The vast overwhelming largely massive infinite majority agrees, or can
we just use majority?

Lets talk about speed, whether it is inapropriate, vast, massive,
humoungous, overwhelming or overtly gigantic or not. Or the inverse.

You've read too much ad copy.

>
> Inappropriate speed does *not* need to be in excess of a limit.
>
> If you're cycling along a 30mph road, and somebody drives past you SOOOO
> close that their mirror damn near skins your knuckles - does it MATTER if
> they're doing 25mph or 35mph? No.

180mph?

>
> If you're cycling along a 30mph road, and somebody closes at 35mph, drops
> back to your speed at a safe distance, then passes you with plenty of space
> when it's clear to do so and accelerates to 35mph or so because there are
> no other hazards around them, is that intimidating? No.

If. You don't ride much do you, I was making good progress on a 30 today
at 28 mph on my bike, my speedo being far more accurately calibrated
than a cars. Care to guess who was dying to get past. Only they wouldnt
be dying if it went wrong.

>
> It's bad driving that intimidates people.
> "Speeding" might be one symptom of that. It might not be.
>

I'd rather be passed slowly if at all thanking you mamm. It gives me
more time to react as well as the other party.

> Lack of observation might be. Not leaving sufficient space as they pass you
> might be. Passing you then immediately parking or turning left might be.

Where is this observant universe you live in? And how does this affect
the great unwashed.

 

[Adrian]

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

>> > To think that *I* am intimidated by traffic when cycling [1] is so way
>> > off track as to be unbelievable.

>> Right.

> Right.

OK. So you're not intimidated. So who is?

>> > For example we are creating a generation of children who are losing
>> > independence because (amongst other things) parents are intimidated by
>> > the speed of traffic.

>> You think this is something to do with the difference between 30mph and
>> 31mph?

> That has already been covered at length.

No, John, it's been avoided at length. Your only answer is to say "but
30mph is legal and 31mph isn't" - I challenge you to identify the speed of
cars passing you that precisely.

>> Stop this encroaching herd mentality and nanny culture. Encourage free
>> will and personal responsibility.

> Its just a shame that despite so much encouragement and attempts at
> education, so many fail to act responsibly.

Because that "encouragement" and those "attempts at education" are utterly
misguided and counter-productive.

 

[MrBitsy]

Conor <[email protected]> wrote in news:MPG.1d12bce186e5367a989e84
@news.individual.net:

> In article <[email protected]>, MrBitsy
> says...
>
>> > b) exceeding the speed limit - bad driving
>>
>> Don't be so silly man.
>>
> Were you taught to exceed the speed limit when you were taking your
> driving lessons? Would you expect to fail your driving test for
> exceeding them?

No and no.

On the advanced test, part of my commentary would have been along the
lines of, "not approapriate for a speed check here due to to
pedestrians", followed by, "ok, happy for a speedo check now, 32mph so
adjusting back to 30mph".

Much better than several speed checks while there are lots of pedestrians
around.

Also, during the briefing before the test, the examiner said, "If an
overtake presents itself during the test, and that overtake may see you
exceed the speed limit while you are on the offside, I will have no
comment to make to you at the end".

All common sense and safety related advice.



--
MrBitsy

 

[MrBitsy]

JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Adrian wrote:
>>
>
>> Does John carry a radar gun around with him on his bike at all times?
>
> No but I quite often carry a light sabre
>
>> So how does he *know* that a car that intimidates him is proceeding
>> at a rate above the posted limit? And how does he *know* that one
>> that doesn't isn't?
>
> To think that *I* am intimidated by traffic when cycling [1] is so way
> off track as to be unbelievable.
> But many people are.
>
> For example we are creating a generation of children who are losing
> independence because (amongst other things) parents are intimidated by
> the speed of traffic.

I'm not.

> I am now regularly coming across children in their early teens who
> have *never* learned to cycle because their parents would never let
> them on or near the roads.

Yeh, silly isn't it. Our two sons got their first bikes at around 4, and
each couple of years after that they got bigger bikes. By the age of 10,
we were going on bike rides as a family.

> They are leaving primary school after years of being ferried around
> and are finding that perhaps cycling to secondary school may have some
> benefits - some independence that they never had, and no embarrassment
> of having 'Mummy' drop them off with a kiss at the gates.
> But there's a Big Problem - they can't ride a bike.
> 15-20 years ago that would have been unbelievable.

Our children have NEVER been drivien to school. They have always walked
or cycled - their choice. Parent who drive their kids to school are under
the thumb.

> We also have teenagers who now 'expect' parents to provide them with a
> car on their 17th birthday because without one they cannot contemplate
> existence. And Mummys and Daddys pander to this, yet it is
> unsustainable and heads us closer towards absolute grid lock.

My oldest son came out with the standard, "my friends don't pay rent,
have their driving lessons paid for and get a car when they pass. Its 2
years later which saw my son pay rent, pay for his own driving lessons by
getting a part time job and save up for his own car.

> Do you believe they should be encouraged to walk or cycle so that they
> can then make more infrmed choices themselves instead of the conditned
> 'choice' ? Should they be encouraged to be independent at an early
> age?

Abso-bloody-lutely!

> Everyone should look outside their own selfishness sometimes and see
> how their actions affect others. Motorists are amongst the worst
> examples of not doing so.

SOME are.

> [1] I often feel intimidated as a pedestrian, particlarly when
> vehicles are driven along the pavement towards me as I walk along it -
> as this morning :-(

Never seen that!


--
MrBitsy