Cycle helmets - major study

[Paul Smith]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:43:14 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>It's extremely likely that the tired 65mph driver could improve his safety and alertness by
>>>>speeding up to 95mph, as long as to do so was within normal safety margins (i.e. vision,
>>>>traffic, capability etc).

>>>Not half as much as he could improve his safety (and that of all those around him) by pulling off
>>>at the next opportunity and sleeping for 15 minutes, rather than ploughing on and hoping he
>>>didn't become another Gary Hart.

>>Tiredness is somewhat relative isn't it? It's perfectly OK to drive when tired, but we all must
>>stop before we are too tired.

>Tiredness sufficient to make it difficult to concentrate when driving legally is excessive and
>should be dealt with by stopping for a rest of some sort. That much is an absolute.

You appear to be trying to make it black and white. Of course there are black cases and white cases.

But in the real world there are probably hundreds of thousands of grey cases each day.

I'd very much like drivers at the whiter end of the grey area to be legally allowed to minimise
their journey times and maximise their alertness by travelling in the higher range of speeds
appropriate to the conditions. I'm confident that this would save lives.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:07:32 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris Malcolm) wrote:

>Paul Smith <[email protected]> writes:

>>Unnecessarily slow speeds become dangerous when they are soporific

>Nothing is soporific if one is not tired. Therefore your statement should be translated into "If
>you are tired then the excitement of travelling fast may keep you from falling asleep."

False. You're just placing spin on top of the facts.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Paul Smith <[email protected]> writes:

>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 20:07:32 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris Malcolm) wrote:

>>Paul Smith <[email protected]> writes:

>>>Unnecessarily slow speeds become dangerous when they are soporific

>>Nothing is soporific if one is not tired. Therefore your statement should be translated into "If
>>you are tired then the excitement of travelling fast may keep you from falling asleep."

>False. You're just placing spin on top of the facts.

I put forward an argument, which is based on things you have many times claimed to be facts. In
fact, it is a paraphrase of some of your own reasoning. If you think it is illogical, you ought to
be able to argue against it, but of course you would have to find a way a way of doing that which
did not invalidate your own similar argument. I notice, however, that instead of demolishing my
argument you simply inform us that you don't agree. I knew that. I wondered if you had an argument
to support your claim.

Seems you haven't.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of
Informatics Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:17:23 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Tiredness sufficient to make it difficult to concentrate when driving legally is excessive and
>>should be dealt with by stopping for a rest of some sort. That much is an absolute.

>You appear to be trying to make it black and white. Of course there are black cases and
>white cases.

It *is* black and white. If yu are too tired to drive within the speed limit then you are too tired
to drive - the solution is to rest, not to speed up.

>I'd very much like drivers at the whiter end of the grey area to be legally allowed to minimise
>their journey times and maximise their alertness by travelling in the higher range of speeds
>appropriate to the conditions. I'm confident that this would save lives.

I'm sure you are, because you are a speeding apologist and not a road safety campaigner.

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.