On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:23:57 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
<
[email protected]> wrote in message
<
[email protected]>:
>> Amazing, isn't, it how any restriction of driving is
>> *unreasonable?*
>Where do I say 'any level'? **You** dont make it at all
>clear what level or how that would be
>identified/measured/monitored. You want everyone to go
>slower, OK, how much slower? Until they have stopped?
>Saying 'everyone must go slower' is meaningless. So,
>everyone drives 0.001 mph slower, does that now meet what
>you propose?
You started by assuming that whatever restriction is placed
on driving will necessarily be unreasonable. Why? There is a
lot of history here, you know. The motoring organisations
have opposed every road safety measure, effective or not,
which has affected their members. That includes drink-drive
legislation, speed limits, points on licenses, even the
driving test. But they seem quite happy to support
compulsory helmet use, even though it is known not to work.
So their libertarian views apparently apply only to a small
subset of liberties. And as mentioned lower down, the crash
rate would undoubtedly reduce if people slowed down and
drove more carefully.
>> What's *unreasonable* here? Wanting to drive around an
>> area where kids play at a speed higher than will allow
>> you to cope with kids playing?
>I think its unreasonable for kids to play in a busy main
>road, same as its unreasonable for them to play on a
>building site.
So you say. The fact that I have never seen any kids playing
ont he busy main roads around here suggests that this is an
isolated problem where you are, or at the very least a
problem of very small magnitude compared with careless
driving. I spend between one and two hours on the bike most
days, and in that time I see almost no careless cycling and
a very great deal of aggressive, impatient and downright
dangerous driving. Speeding is one of the more obvious
manifestations of this.
>> the appeaser's cry. The danger can only be reduced to a
>> certain level, with the implication that the level is not
>> much lower than the current level.
>You read more into it than I wrote. Though its a fact that
>the danger can only be reduced to a certain level unles you
>propose a car free society..in which case, there are dozens
>of other far more dangerous activities which should be
>banned first.
Really? Half of all child injury deaths are due to motor
traffic. No other cause comes close. In any case, put it in
context: my comment is about the dangers of cycling, and my
point is that it is not cycling which is dangerous, mut
motor traffic. Any measure which seeks to reduce the danger
of cycling by regulating the behaviour of cyclists is pretty
pointless because most of the injuries are not cyclists.
>> But the vast majority of illegal acts by drivers are
>> never challenged or punished. Most acts of careless
>> driving go unpunished, so we are incensed when the only
>> ones which do get punished are those which end in death
>> - and are still treated as the technical offence rather
>> than as a violent crime.
>Agreed, I would be wholly in favour of much more draconian
>penalties, esp on dangerous driving rather than just
>speeding (because its easy to measure) though I'd have no
>complaint about the latter as well.
The letter is about cycling and the real source of danger to
cyclists, which are well documented. You are complaining
about one sentence, right at the very end, which says
effectively that child injuries will be reduced if people
slow down and drive more carefully. That is just about as
uncontroversial as you get! The only people who dissent from
that view are the ABD and Psmith!
Why are you so upset about the idea that drivers should slow
down and drive more carefully?
>> You are reading far, far too much into one sentence.
>> The comment is: if you really care about children's
>> safety, slow down and drive more carefully. That is a
>> very short sentence. If you wnt me to expand it into a
>> treatise on the relationship between speed,
>> fataality,careless driving, child behaviour - well,
>> you're not going to get it.
>OK, I do that already. But you have said that I should
>still 'slow down and drive more carefully'..when you dont
>and cannot know how carefully I currently drive? If your
>proposal is simply that everyone drives slower and slower
>then you are essentially proposing banning cars which isnt
>going to make your reasoned argument against helmets
>sound...reasonable.
You are taking it far, far too personally. If you are
genuinely confident that your speed and driving style are
appropriate for all conditions, you will surely read that
and think, "yes, I have done that,and I am confident that it
has made the roads fractionally safer." What I am keen to
avoid is the usual motorist evasion of thinking that
dangerous drivers are some other drivers, because the
evidence is that this is precisely what people think. Most
drivers overestimate their own skill. Surveys show that they
rate their own skills much more highly than the average of
other drivers. So I don't want to leave them the get-out of
thinking "if only all those other, less skilled drivers
would take more care".
>> Your example fails because the sentence also contains
>> "and drive more carefully".
>same again as speed..how can I drive more carefully when I
>am driving as carefully as I can ?
Fine, but most people are not. And even you may well feel
some nagging doubt, otherwise I can't imagine why you would
get so upset about it.
>My complaint was that you tarred all the readers of
>whatever that paper was with the same brush, without
>knowing how they drove already.
Because it is impossible to go out and survey the entire
readership and then say all those of you who scored less
than 8/10 in this evaluation, slow down and drive mroe
carefully, all the rest carry on as you were. Most (probably
all) drivers could do better, myself included. It is a
challenge to all of us.
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
Washington University
