Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Peter Amey]

Gawnsoft wrote:

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

Agreed, but it's a shame the test is so badly constructed. I
had a go
at one of the practice versions recently (my son was
learning to drive).
At the first attempt I scored exactly zero because I had
seen and
clicked on each hazard too soon! As far as I could tell it
is set up to
require a mouse click somewhere near the emergency brake
distance from
the hazard rather than at the point where you should be
adjusting for it.

Peter

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Conor wrote:

> LOL. No racism intended. It was merely an accurate
> portrayal of what I saw 5 nights a week for 10 months
> between Spag junction and J1 on the
> M5. Nearly all of them were Asian women. I have no idea
> why it was such a disproportionate amount.

Gravelly Hill is a predominantly Asian area, as far as I
recall.

Guy

 

[Just Zis Guy]

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

Really? People with only one ear are less likely to have
multiple speeding convictions? Or do you not understand the
term correlation in this context?

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Just Zis Guy]

PeterE wrote:

>> I propose revoking the license of anybody incapable of
>> understanding the simple and unambiguous text of rule
>> 145. All in favour?

> Nah, we'd have no truckers left, so nothing would get
> delivered.

There would be nothing to deliver anyway as all the tractors
would be off the roads.

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Colin McKenzie wrote:

>> That makes a change from the usual meaning of an
>> indicator of get out the way I'm coming out.

> I wouldn't say usual, but why shouldn't it work like this,
> within reason?

Because there is no way such an unreasonable idea could be
implemented within reason ;-)

> There is an unwritten rule on motorways that the
> faster vehicles get priority. There is no logical
> reason for this.

Only in the minds of the speedophiles. The rules by which I
drive give me priority within my lane; anyone who wants me
out of that lane or who wants in can bloody well wait until
I judge that it's safe for me to change my position. Since I
alone am responsible for the safety of my vehicle, that is
the only way it can be.

> If drivers got into the habit of giving way to slower
> vehicles signalling to move out on motorways, I believe
> all roads would be safer and friendlier.

That much is true.

A Very Long Time Ago I read a report of a report which
concluded that some very substantial proportion of crashes
could be traced back to an act of discourtesy by one of
those involved. I must look it out.

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Roger Hughes 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?

Which is why they drive past the lay-bys, right? Because
that would cause them to fall over flat thus delaying the
twelve-mile tailback behind them?

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving,
'Richard' wrote:

>Dave J wrote:
>>>I'm glad that you don't object to me driving at 35 mph
>>>down a clear road because whilst I could drive faster, I
>>>choose not to. If you're stuck behind me, tough titty;
>>>you should've left home five minutes earlier.
>>
>>
>> I left home *ten* minutes earlier, it's just that I've
>> been stuck behind you for the past thirty.
>
>Which particular "clear road" were you thinking of, where
>you can't safely overtake someone for 17 miles? Or are you
>just inventing numbers?

I admit I can only think of a few examples, though they
certainly exist, down mid-wales way.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Richard Bates' wrote:

>On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:19:43 +0100, Dave J
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In MsgID<[email protected]>
>>within uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:
>>
>>>I am driving within the law, they're not. Who is the one
>>>not capable of driving properly?
>>
>>Depends on your definition of 'properly'.
>
>Properly means driving within the limits of the law that
>you agree to abide by when you are granted your licence
>to use a motor vehicle on the road system. If you do not
>wish to follow your agreement then you should surrender
>your licence.

This of course has nothing to do with ability or safety.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:

>>
>> Depends on your definition of 'properly'.
>>
>In this context of this subthread the ability to drive to a
>remotely satisfactory standard was meant I assume. As I
>said, driving at the posted limit of 40 MPH in a 40 zone, I
>hold up most of the other cars so according to you I'm not
>capable of driving properly. After all didn't you say
>"Anyone who has to slow to a speed that obstructs *most*
>other drivers is obviously incapable of driving properly."
>I have to slow from 60..the law requires me to.

You are one of those I don't criticise unless driving
ludicrously dangerously, you are stuck with obeying the law
as any points would severely endanger you ability to earn a
living, and you drive enough that the minor risk of getting
'had' adds up to enough to worry about.

I may not necessarily agree with the living you earn, but
that's a different story.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Gawnsoft' wrote:

>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 swear there's a flaw in driving instruction techniques
that encourages that behaviour. :-(

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Gawnsoft' wrote:

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

LOL. Well done.

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

<G>

I like someone who flattens a crazy hypothesis with a
slightly less crazy one. I think it's called friendly
discussion.

The only minor comeback left to me is to say that the only
way to do completely away with your 350,000 figure would be
to cease driving at all and walk everywhere.

An interesting experiment, if only it could be done without
the consequent risk to life, would be for all cars to be
mandatorialy made from wood and fibreglass, the risks would
rise hugely, but the perceived risk would rise even more,
and it would (I wonder?) reduce fatalities in the long run.
(Don't say that it would only be because all the dangerous
nutters were dead!)

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave Kahn]

Conor <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, junk@raven-
> 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?

What are you suggesting? The car may not be capable of
running over the top of Tony? Or perhaps you mean that
drivers of flash cars don't need to leave a safe gap from
the vehicle they're overtaking?

--
Dave...

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving, 'Just
zis Guy, you know?' wrote:

[..]
>
>> above that speed it is added risk for reduced delay, a
>> sliding scale.
>
>A U-shaped curve, actually, such that by the time you're
>doing 15% or so over the speed limit your risk of crashing
>has doubled.
>
>> I see no reason I should pay attention to the position of
>> someone *elses* dividing line, especially when a dividing
>> line based on safety moves back and forth depending on
>> road conditions.
>
>Well, your lack of awareness of the exponential rise of
>risk when travelling significantly above the limit
>indicates that your judgement on this may not be
>entirely sound.

If you look at what I wrote, you'll notice that I never said
anything about linearity, a dividing line does not a
straight line relationship make..

>Are you awre that the probability of fatality in a crash
>rises with the fourth power of speed, by the way?

I hadn't actually thought about that followon no, but it
makes total sense.

>
>>>> Coincidentally, I don't break very many laws at all,
>>>> but afaiac laws only count wrt the risk of getting
>>>> captured by a sellout.
>
>>> Er, what? A "sellout?" By which you mean what? A police
>>> officer?
>
>> Got it. Someone who has sold themselves as a slave to the
>> state and has signed away their freedom to decide right
>> from wrong or to think for themselves except within
>> proscribed limits.
>
>Oh right. You want uk.politics.anarchy, it's over there. I
>am very glad I don't live in an anarchist country myself.

I'm certainly glad I don't live in an anarchic country if
you take the tabloid definition of anarchy. I live by a
different definition where total freedom causes total
responsibility. And no, I have no problem with the plod
controlling the stupid.

"Purpose of the law, to provide guidance for the wise and
control of the fools."

>Apart from anything else, there are laws which are there
>to protect me from myself and others, and plod to
>enforce them.

Oh yes, they are a useful tool, they help counterweight the
total lack of education in this country. Doesn't make them
any less mindless slaves, and doesn't alter the calibre of
control freak who applies to join.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>
>> Once again though, I have the courtesy to get out of the
>> way if I am obstructing someone. The speed 'limit' has no
>> bearing on that at all.
>>
>But if you're driving at the limit you have no reason to
>get of the way.

who enjoy obstructing people who know the road better
than they.

All I am saying is that I am not that ignorant.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:

>As far as I can see very few people actively obstruct
>drivers who wish to pass.

ROFLMAO!

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Gawnsoft' wrote:

>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'.

Glory Be! I usually worry about people thinking that driving-
test driving is the social norm.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving, 'Tony
Raven' wrote:

>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
>wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> As far as I can see very few people actively obstruct
>> drivers who wish to pass.
>
>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.

Nothing at all wrong with that. Same thing applies to
motorcycles.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Simonb]

Dave J wrote:

> "Purpose of the law, to provide guidance for the wise and
> control of the fools."

Feel free to break any laws that have no effect on others.

 

[David Martin]

On 17/5/04 11:54 pm, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

You misunderstand the meaning of correlation. That is, that
one variable (in this case speeding convictions) varies with
the other (in your example number of ears.)

You will no doubt now present a study to show that those
with speeding convictions tend to have more ears? Oh, you
can't. Maybe you should go back and retake statistics 101.

..d

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Colin McKenzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> I wouldn't say usual, but why shouldn't it work like this,
> within reason? There is an unwritten rule on motorways
> that the faster vehicles get priority. There is no logical
> reason for this.

No, there's an unwritten rule that vehicles to the right
get priority.