Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Simon Mason, Mar 23, 2004.

  1. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On 17 May 2004 13:58:55 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
    wrote (more or less):

    >Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected])
    >gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
    >
    >> And yet you still continue to enjoy one of the biggest
    >> risk factors out there: speed. Primary cause of a third
    >> of all crashes
    >
    >So what's the "primary cause" of the other 2/3?
    >
    >Incompetence? Arrogance?

    Inattention?

    e.g. Woman driving, doesn't notice she's drifting into the
    wrong side of the road (she's fumbling for a tape in
    her glovebox while on the move) and t-bones a biker
    (who never works again). Car Magazine June 2004

    e.h. Lollypop lady hit by cement mixer. Female by-
    stander says the driver was watching her rather
    than the road ahead. Lollypop lady killed. - Hull
    Daily Mail, last week

    e.i. driver goes on wrong side of the road and kills a
    family of three. Speeding (40+ in 30 limit, traces of
    alcohol in bloodstream, and some evidence he'd just put
    down his mobile phone) - Daily Telegraph a couple of
    months back

    >Perhaps traffic policing ought to concentrate on stubbing
    >those out, instead of encouraging them?

    I'd like to see big fines, long driving bans, compulsory re-
    tests and custodial sentences for these folk.

    Most of them get a 'ah well, it was just a momentary lapse
    of concentration' and a small fine from the courts.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     


  2. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:25:34 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
    (more or less):

    >In MsgID<[email protected]> within
    >uk.rec.driving, 'Gawnsoft' wrote:
    >
    >>>Yeah, the solution is to attempt to turn us all into
    >>>brainlessly slow sheeple.
    >>
    >>Because the current situation is brainlessly fast sheeple.
    >
    >LOL. Good point. Taken. Thanks.
    >
    >There was a discussion I wanted to start earlier about the
    >number of incompetent fools behind the wheel. I don't
    >count myself as a brilliant driver but I am tolerably
    >competent, as are the majority of road users. It is those
    >who are driving at 35mph down a clear road because they
    >feel that to be the fastest speed they are capable of that
    >I object to.

    I've two bugbears, me.

    Folk on rural trunk & A roads, who drive at 45-50 on
    the open sections and drive at 40-45 through the
    30limits in villages.

    Folk who drive right up the arse of the person in front
    who's undertaking overtaking maneouvres, at or even slightly
    above at the speed limit on multi-lane roads, or just
    driving at or slightly above the limit in single-lane roads.

    Even worse are the folk who combine the two - who meander
    when the road's clear and has a high limit, then
    aggressively tailgate when it hits the town because they're
    not getting to do their 40-50 anymore.

    I'd let them pass me in the town, but I'd only get stuck
    behind them as soon as I leave the town...

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  3. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:33:35 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >Because they have fundamentally the wrong attitude. Driving
    >is a pretty fast mode of transport (except around towns).
    >You are already going faster than you probably could manage
    >running or riding a bike.

    If you don't count the time spent working just to get eh
    money for the car, it's fuel, it's servicing, plus the time
    spent taking the car to its services, etc...

    (anyway, I raised hat in another thread, so I'll get
    me coat...)

    > So why get stressed about the loss of some tiny proportion
    > of that speed, in a place where caution is clearly
    > indicated.
    >
    >After all, if everyone drove considerately, nobody would
    >even have thought of inventing traffic calming in the
    >first place.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  4. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:26:45 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
    (more or less):

    >In MsgID<[email protected]> within
    >uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:35:34 +0100, Dave J
    >><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >><[email protected]>:
    >>
    >>>the solution is to attempt to turn us all into
    >>>brainlessly slow sheeple.
    >>
    >>According to the latest figures if all men reduced our risk-
    >>taking to the level accepted by women, there would be an
    >>immediate and substantial drop in road crashes.
    >
    >If I remember rightly, there is a certain distance which if
    >we maintained it between ourselves and the car in front
    >would remove most traffic jams and hugely reduce
    >casualties.

    Yep - one of the key risk-taking behaviours is driving too
    close to the car in front.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  5. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:26:45 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
    (more or less):

    >In MsgID<[email protected]> within
    >uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:35:34 +0100, Dave J
    >><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >><[email protected]>:
    >>
    >>>the solution is to attempt to turn us all into
    >>>brainlessly slow sheeple.
    >>
    >>According to the latest figures if all men reduced our risk-
    >>taking to the level accepted by women, there would be an
    >>immediate and substantial drop in road crashes.
    >
    >If I remember rightly, there is a certain distance which if
    >we maintained it between ourselves and the car in front
    >would remove most traffic jams and hugely reduce
    >casualties.

    Yep - one of the key risk-taking behaviours is driving too
    close to the car in front.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  6. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:37:49 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
    (more or less):

    >I was talking about the population as a whole. An hour a
    >day wasted dawdling instead of driving,

    Of course, >70% of road traffic accidents have excessive
    speed as either the a sole, prime or or necessary cause.

    (i.e. in all these cases, if the speed was lower, it is
    expected there would have been no RTA)

    There are 3,000 fatalities per year.

    Plus many more disabling injuries (some permanent, some
    healable in 1-12 months) Let's pluck 250,000 out the air,
    and say 10%
    (i.f.25,000) are permanent.

    We'll assume that on average, folk are killed or injured 1/2
    way through life, and that average life (if they hadn't been
    hit) is 70 years.

    So... 28,000 dead or permanently injured this year.

    And this year, folk who should've been alive and well but
    arent, stretch back 35 years.

    So 28,000 per year x 35 years x a half = average.

    = 490,000+ man years lost this year due to permant injury
    = or death.

    Plus this year there are another 112,000 man-years from
    injuries that last (average of 1 month and 12 months)
    say 6 months.

    Of the 600,000+, 70% were due to high speed = 420,000+.

    >multiplied by (to keep it low) say 2000 such 5 day/week 48
    >week/year victims in a city equals 2000*5*48 hours a year
    >which equals 480000 man hours a year, in other words, 54
    >man *years* per year. And that is a very small hypothesised
    >figure, only an hour a day and only 2000 people, and only
    >one city.

    So I see your 54 man-years, and raise you another 350,000 on
    the other side of the balance.

    >I daresay significantly more hours are wasted by
    >significantly more people in any given city than I use in
    >my example, and how many cities are there in britain?
    >That's before we start counting the rest of the country,
    >some of which has delays that exceed those found in a city
    >of course.

    Well, a major city is ~ 1,000,000 people, imo.

    (IIRC, Edinburgh =300K, up to 500K for conurbs, Glasgow =
    800K, up to 2million for conurbs, London is 5m up 8m to 15m
    depending on Inner, Greater, Greater + conurbs, etc)

    Milton Keynes or other such 'cities' are as low as 150K

    So to move from one city to all the UK might be

    4 times your figure, up to 400 times your figure.

    So let's say yours was for a medium city - half-way along
    the spectrum from MK to the London conurbation - 1,500,000m.
    So to go from your city to 'all of UK' means multiplying
    your figure by 40.

    54my * 232 days (52 weeks x 5 days, minus the 8 public
    holidays)
    =12,500 for a year in your city.

    So for all of UK, we get.... 500,000 man-years.

    So your made up figures are about the same as my made-
    up figures.

    :)

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  7. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:48:02 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >But there really are very few heavily trafficked windy
    >single carriageway roads these days that are the only
    >opportunity for getting long distances between places,

    Well, it depends on where you live and where you're
    going, really.

    Edinburgh to, well, anywhere south of Edinburgh is one
    example, f'rinstance.

    I'm sure there are others.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  8. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:28:50 +0100, "PeterE"
    <[email protected]_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote (more or less):

    >Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
    ...
    >> Yes, you have illustrated my point perfectly. Speed
    >> limits and their enforcement have had no effect on your
    >> journey time, or at least negligible effect compared with
    >> traffic congestion. That is my experience as well.
    >
    >Er, while Conor is on the motorway he has no opportunity to
    >exceed the speed limit, even if the road is empty.
    >
    >If he was limited to 40 on the motorway it undoubtedly
    >would substantially increase his journey time.

    Not as much as traffic jams trickling along at 5-10mph would
    limit him and increase his journey time...

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  9. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:55:01 +0100, "Russ"
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >
    >"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
    >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>> No, I don't perceive added speed as implicitly wrong, I
    >>> perceive dangerous driving as wrong.
    >
    >> Amazingly, there is a strong correlation between multiple
    >> speeding convictions and crashing. Speeding is one of the
    >> things which dangerous drivers do.
    >
    >Clearly speeding is one of the things which dangerous
    >drivers do. To jump from there to all speeding drivers are
    >driving dangerously is a step of logic that takes
    >extrapolation to the (unjustified) extreme which is what
    >you are seeking to imply without actually stating.

    TBF, Guy only mentioned speeders who get /caught/.

    Folk who speed and pay close attention to their surroundings
    (so they spot things like police cars parked up by the side
    of the motorway, 12 foot tall fluorescent + reflective
    yellow camera housings, little kids about to run into the
    middle of the road, etc.) aren't the ones who get caught
    multiple times.

    Anyone who always slows down where there are hazards (and
    cameras are ostensibly sited where events have historically
    suggested danger) is not as hazardous as the habitual, multiple-
    conviction speeder.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  10. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On 17 May 2004 22:54:31 GMT, [email protected] wrote (more or
    less):

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    >> No, I am stating what I am stating: there is a strong
    >> correlation between multiple speeding convictions and
    >> crashing. That means that dangerous drivers are more
    >> likely to speed: a good justification for speed cameras,
    >> as they appear, quite by chance, to catch more dangerous
    >> drivers than safe drivers.
    >
    >There's a strong correlation between multiple speeding
    >convictions and having two ears. A good justfication for
    >ear counting cameras.

    Surely to count as correlating, it has to work in both
    directions.

    Having two ears is not highly correlated with having
    multiple speeding convictions.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  11. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:00:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >Adrian wrote:
    >
    >> If you're doing "normal motorway cruise altitude", in the
    >> middle or right lanes, then you wouldn't notice them as
    >> much, because they're a small blur.
    >
    >No, I would pass them with a closing speed of 30mph, I have
    >no particular problem noticing things I pass at that sort
    >of closing speed.
    >
    >>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3694201.stm
    >
    >>> An excellent argument for periodic retests and
    >>> enforcement of sight test regulations,
    >
    >> If you believe her brief, her new specs were the problem.
    >> In which case, she should have pulled over and either got
    >> somebody else to drive or rung the AA.
    >
    >Correct. She also suffered from night blindness. Sadly
    >it is much easier, politically, to make a TV advert
    >telling motorcyclists and pedestrians to get out of the
    >way of careless drivers, than to tell drivers not to
    >drive if they are not up to it. Night blindness is
    >apparently very common.
    >
    >> OFIAH?
    >
    >Old Fart In A Hat :)

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  12. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    "Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > family.com says...
    >
    > > I actively obstruct drivers wishing to pass where it
    > > would put me in
    danger if
    > > they tried to pass. A good example is coming up to a
    > > central island pinch point where there is clearly not
    > > room for me on my bike with a car
    alongside
    > > but quite a few numpties seem to want to try it for
    > > size. In such
    situations
    > > I always cycle so that they cannot pass without running
    > > over the top of me until we've passed the pinch point.
    > >
    > ~How would you know what their car is capable of?
    >

    True, they could be driving a Batmobile that does that
    wonderful rearranging itself to change it width but I don't
    think so in which case it won't fit alongside me in the
    pinch point however much they may wish it to and I have not
    intention of being knocked off letting them try.

    What other capabilities might it have that are relevant?

    Tony
     
  13. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:52:11 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
    wrote (more or less):

    >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    >family.com says...
    >
    >> I actively obstruct drivers wishing to pass where it
    >> would put me in danger if they tried to pass. A good
    >> example is coming up to a central island pinch point
    >> where there is clearly not room for me on my bike with a
    >> car alongside but quite a few numpties seem to want to
    >> try it for size. In such situations I always cycle so
    >> that they cannot pass without running over the top of me
    >> until we've passed the pinch point.
    >>
    >~How would you know what their car is capable of?

    Well, often they begin their overtake as my front wheel is a
    yard or two away from the pinch point.

    To be able to get past me and back in before the pinch
    point, they have to /finish/ the manoeuvre /before/ I am one
    car body length away from the pinch point. (plus a yard or
    two for safety).

    No matter what their car is capable of.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  14. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:52:11 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
    wrote (more or less):

    >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    >family.com says...
    >
    >> I actively obstruct drivers wishing to pass where it
    >> would put me in danger if they tried to pass. A good
    >> example is coming up to a central island pinch point
    >> where there is clearly not room for me on my bike with a
    >> car alongside but quite a few numpties seem to want to
    >> try it for size. In such situations I always cycle so
    >> that they cannot pass without running over the top of me
    >> until we've passed the pinch point.
    >>
    >~How would you know what their car is capable of?

    Well, often they begin their overtake as my front wheel is a
    yard or two away from the pinch point.

    To be able to get past me and back in before the pinch
    point, they have to /finish/ the manoeuvre /before/ I am one
    car body length away from the pinch point. (plus a yard or
    two for safety).

    No matter what their car is capable of.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  15. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:14:26 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >Conor wrote:
    >
    >>>> Moron. Anyone who has to slow to a speed that obstructs
    >>>> *most* other drivers is obviously incapable of driving
    >>>> properly. Properly being defined as the way that most
    >>>> people can drive.
    >
    >>> Moron. Anyone who decides to drive slower than most
    >>> people drive may well be right: most drivers
    >>> overestimate their own competence.
    >
    >> And the slower driver may actually be driving at the
    >> posted speed
    >> limit.
    >
    >A sound point. The ABD want the Highway Code amended to
    >require people to get out of the way if they are "holding
    >up" faster traffic[1]; the implication, in context is
    >pretty clear: they want to stand on the Highway Code to
    >force those who are obeying the speed limit to give way to
    >those who refuse to. Which has a certain irony.

    A friend of mine recently did his motorbike training.

    His trainer (not his tester) complained loud and hard that
    he was only doing 30 in the 30 limit zones, because he'd be
    'holding up the flow of traffic'.

    I was, and am, deeply disturbed by this.

    If we /train/ everyone that they've to speed, then how to we
    ever expect folk to obey the limits.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  16. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:14:26 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >Conor wrote:
    >
    >>>> Moron. Anyone who has to slow to a speed that obstructs
    >>>> *most* other drivers is obviously incapable of driving
    >>>> properly. Properly being defined as the way that most
    >>>> people can drive.
    >
    >>> Moron. Anyone who decides to drive slower than most
    >>> people drive may well be right: most drivers
    >>> overestimate their own competence.
    >
    >> And the slower driver may actually be driving at the
    >> posted speed
    >> limit.
    >
    >A sound point. The ABD want the Highway Code amended to
    >require people to get out of the way if they are "holding
    >up" faster traffic[1]; the implication, in context is
    >pretty clear: they want to stand on the Highway Code to
    >force those who are obeying the speed limit to give way to
    >those who refuse to. Which has a certain irony.

    A friend of mine recently did his motorbike training.

    His trainer (not his tester) complained loud and hard that
    he was only doing 30 in the 30 limit zones, because he'd be
    'holding up the flow of traffic'.

    I was, and am, deeply disturbed by this.

    If we /train/ everyone that they've to speed, then how to we
    ever expect folk to obey the limits.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  17. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:44:26 +0100, Peter Amey
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >
    >
    >Dave J wrote: [snip]
    >>>
    >>>Which translated into English means: "Anybody who is not
    >>>prepared to drive above their capabilities like a total
    >>>arsehole should get the bus so that the arseholes who
    >>>*do* wish to drive above their capability can be less
    >>>restricted in their desire to be arseholes driving above
    >>>their capability."
    >>
    >>
    >> Moron. Anyone who has to slow to a speed that obstructs
    >> *most* other drivers is obviously incapable of driving
    >> properly. Properly being defined as the way that most
    >> people can drive.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Where does that leave someone who /chooses/ (rather than
    >/has to/) to slow to a speed ...? I have a sufficiently
    >large collection of motorsport trophies to indicate that I
    >can drive faster than many other people. I also find, on
    >the road, that my risk perception is such I often drive
    >slower than "the way most people can drive". I think my
    >first flying instructor from years ago put it best: "the
    >superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid those
    >situations that would otherwise require his superior
    >skill". So not everyone obstructing Dave J is incapable!

    Which is why I'm glad rudimentary hazard perception is now a
    part of driver testing, as well as just elementary car
    control skills.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  18. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:44:26 +0100, Peter Amey
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >
    >
    >Dave J wrote: [snip]
    >>>
    >>>Which translated into English means: "Anybody who is not
    >>>prepared to drive above their capabilities like a total
    >>>arsehole should get the bus so that the arseholes who
    >>>*do* wish to drive above their capability can be less
    >>>restricted in their desire to be arseholes driving above
    >>>their capability."
    >>
    >>
    >> Moron. Anyone who has to slow to a speed that obstructs
    >> *most* other drivers is obviously incapable of driving
    >> properly. Properly being defined as the way that most
    >> people can drive.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Where does that leave someone who /chooses/ (rather than
    >/has to/) to slow to a speed ...? I have a sufficiently
    >large collection of motorsport trophies to indicate that I
    >can drive faster than many other people. I also find, on
    >the road, that my risk perception is such I often drive
    >slower than "the way most people can drive". I think my
    >first flying instructor from years ago put it best: "the
    >superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid those
    >situations that would otherwise require his superior
    >skill". So not everyone obstructing Dave J is incapable!

    Which is why I'm glad rudimentary hazard perception is now a
    part of driver testing, as well as just elementary car
    control skills.

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  19. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:19:45 +0000 (UTC), Roger Hughes
    <[email protected]>
    wrote (more or less):

    >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    >
    >> As far as I can see very few people actively obstruct
    >> drivers who wish to pass. The only ones I can think of
    >> are horse box drivers who drive at walking pace round the
    >> twisty bits then floor it and move to the middle of the
    >> road as soon as it gets straight.
    >
    >Not going to hold you up as long as a loaded horse box
    >lying flat right across the road would, is it?

    And we all know how driving down the middle of the road (as
    opposed to staying in lane) is important to stop a horsebox
    from lying flat across a road.

    And flooring on the straights, thats important for keeping
    it uprigh too. (It's the stabilising gyroscopic effect of
    the trailer wheels, no doubt...)

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  20. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:19:45 +0000 (UTC), Roger Hughes
    <[email protected]>
    wrote (more or less):

    >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    >
    >> As far as I can see very few people actively obstruct
    >> drivers who wish to pass. The only ones I can think of
    >> are horse box drivers who drive at walking pace round the
    >> twisty bits then floor it and move to the middle of the
    >> road as soon as it gets straight.
    >
    >Not going to hold you up as long as a loaded horse box
    >lying flat right across the road would, is it?

    And we all know how driving down the middle of the road (as
    opposed to staying in lane) is important to stop a horsebox
    from lying flat across a road.

    And flooring on the straights, thats important for keeping
    it uprigh too. (It's the stabilising gyroscopic effect of
    the trailer wheels, no doubt...)

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
Loading...
Loading...