On 16 Feb 2003 21:56:27 GMT,
[email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote:
>No - wind them up as much as you want - it would be nice, pretty please, though if they were wound
>up on their newsgroup and not on this one
I'm still technically keeping to my new year's resolution (except I didn't notice that Congestion
Charge was crossposted). The threads in uk.tosspot I'm playing with now are x-posted to
uk.cagers.whinhge.whinhge.whinhge or some such, but that doesn't count ;-)
Biggest problem with uk.tosspot is that the language is foul. I have been known to eff and blind a
bit, but really the name calling over there is repellant.
But it is good yanking Mr Safety's chain

I've come up with some stats recently:
* 85% of drivers think they have above average skill
* drivers rate their own skills as 3.9 on a 1-5 scale, and other drivers as 2.7
* 40% rate the overall standard of driving as bad but only 2% rate themselves as bad
* 24% rate the overall standard as good, 75% rate themselves as good
in a thread hilariously titled "Radio opportunity for camera victim" (victim? Of enforcement?)
Mr Safety remains convinced that this is "pop psychology" and that "only 5% or so of drivers
seriously overestimate their skils" - based in part on the old canard about having more than the
average number of legs (hint for the slow: number of legs is not normally distributed).
He also thinks it safe to drive at 100mph on an unlit road at night. The best data I can find gives
vision distances for an unlit / non-reflective object of the order of 100m for full-beam headlights;
at 100mph you'll cover that in about 2.3s, and the stopping distance at night at 70mph is a shade
over 100m (longer thinking distances at night).
I believe he may be trying to prove the validity of point A via assertion B
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.