Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fia0mn$pfq$1@news.datemas.de
: : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
: : news:5qr535F11jl37U1@mid.individual.net...
: : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
: : : message news:fi9bt8$4sa$1@news.datemas.de
: : : : : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in
: : : : : message news:5qpdpcF10ue2iU1@mid.individual.net...
: : : : : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
: : : : : : wrote in message
: : : : : : news:fi7hq8$toc$1@news.datemas.de
: : : : : :
: : : : : : [snip]
: : : : : :
: : : : : : : : Speed limits are variable, they are the
: : : : : : : : maximum safe speed up to the legal limit.
: : : : : : : : You should know that unless you are a bad
: : : : : : : : driver.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : So according to your logic, it's dangerous to
: : : : : : drive at 31mph past a school at 3am.
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : Your logic is at fault.
: : :
: : : I don't think so. You say the safe limit is what is
: : : set. If that is 30mph then your logic demands it is
: : : dangerous to exceed that, for whatever reason and at
: : : whatever time.
: : :
: : : : : My logic says nothing of the sort.
: : :
: : : Ah but it does.
: :
: : No it does not.
: : You can claim that as often as you like but it is there
: : in black and green and what you say is not true.
What have I said that isn't true..? Are you saying it *isn't* dangerous to
drive at 31mph in a 30 limit..?
: : : : : It does say its illegal to drive past at 31mph if
: : : : : the speed limit is less. It also says that it may
: : : : : be dangerous to drive past at 5mph.
: : :
: : : Very true, but why is it illegal to drive at 31mph if
: : : it is not dangerous to do so..?
: :
: :
: : Because it is.
That doesn't answer the question. It's also not good enough.
: : Your logic is flawed and you are trying to make out it
: : isn't.
Pot, kettle, black.
: : : : : Nowhere does it say what you think.
: : : : : When you can work out the logic you will probably
: : : : : realise your misunderstanding makes you a poorer
: : : : : driver. Do you have other misunderstandings that
: : : : : make you a poor driver?
: : :
: : : Very probably, but that's not the topic under
: : : discussion.
: :
: : Its the topic you are commenting on.
I was commenting on driving at 31mph in a 30 limit, not "other
misunderstandings."
: : : : : How do you know?
: : : : : Time for you to do a refresher IMO.
: : :
: : : I didn't ask for your opinion.
: :
: : I didn't ask for yours either but this is an open group.
: : If you don't want people commenting this is the wrong
: : place for you.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fia0th$q5i$1@news.datemas.de
[snip]
: : I will take your word for it that it happened as you
: : say.
: : How fast were you going and how far away were you when
: : you saw the car?
I don't recall exactly, it was 20+ years ago. Probably about 35-40mph
(limit was 40), no idea how far away the car was, all I could think about
was it was coming towards me the wrong way..!
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195928261.88612.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>>
>>> None since 1985 that I can recall..unless uou count any damage in which
>>> case several mysterious dents in car parks, and a bit of pheasant
>>> damage. Oh and smashing a wheel in a pothole..doing 30mph of course..
>>
>> Driving too fast so you didn't see the pot hole?
>
> No. Didn';t realise that a pothole that doesn';t even jar a 4x4 would take
> out the best part of 800 quids worth of wheel and tyre on a jaguar..
>
>
>>> Indeed. 40 years and probably round a million miles of travel in many
>>> countries all conditions and in a variety of vehicles. And you expect me
>>> to never have hit a pheasant? or reversed into a hidden pillar? Or had
>>> someone drive into the back of me when I stopped for a red light?
>>
>> I did say you would provide the evidence.
>> No I haven't reversed into posts or hit pheasants.
>> Yes I have driven over a million miles without accident and only one
>> puncture as it happens as you introduced silly factors beyond control.
>
> Then you are remarkably fortunate. Or a liar.
See I said you would start calling people liars to prop up your own belief
system.
You are so predictable.
You are a bad driver and I have no doubt that if you were tested on your
driving ability it would be very poor.
> Or driving something VERY big and SLOW. That doesn't get nails through the
> tyres, has never been slashed, or scored, drive down country road or
> parked in Tescos. And is so visible that everyone eles runs away as soon
> as they sea you.
>
> Lemme guess HGV driver?
Wrong.
> The sort the doesn't eevn KNOW when its wiped off the wing of the car
> standing at the roundabout..yep Ive seen that one happen as well..
>
> No. Liar basically.
>
> I know so MANY people who 'have never had an accident'
> I just look at their cars and see the damage 'Oh, someone reversed into
> me' 'I don't know where that happened' 'That wasn't a real ACCIDENT'
Well I do have a chip in the door from an ASDA trolley if that makes you
happy.
I also have a scrap on the boot lid where I foolishly pulled my hose pipe
across it if you think that makes me a worse driver than you.
Personally I will do what I have always done.. treat every driver as an
idiot with no exceptions.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5qrg9gF110ic3U1@mid.individual.net...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fia0mn$pfq$1@news.datemas.de
> : : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> : : news:5qr535F11jl37U1@mid.individual.net...
> : : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> : : : message news:fi9bt8$4sa$1@news.datemas.de
> : : : : : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in
> : : : : : message news:5qpdpcF10ue2iU1@mid.individual.net...
> : : : : : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
> : : : : : : wrote in message
> : : : : : : news:fi7hq8$toc$1@news.datemas.de
> : : : : : :
> : : : : : : [snip]
> : : : : : :
> : : : : : : : : Speed limits are variable, they are the
> : : : : : : : : maximum safe speed up to the legal limit.
> : : : : : : : : You should know that unless you are a bad
> : : : : : : : : driver.
> : : : : : :
> : : : : : : So according to your logic, it's dangerous to
> : : : : : : drive at 31mph past a school at 3am.
> : : : : : :
> : : : : :
> : : : : : Your logic is at fault.
> : : :
> : : : I don't think so. You say the safe limit is what is
> : : : set. If that is 30mph then your logic demands it is
> : : : dangerous to exceed that, for whatever reason and at
> : : : whatever time.
> : : :
> : : : : : My logic says nothing of the sort.
> : : :
> : : : Ah but it does.
> : :
> : : No it does not.
> : : You can claim that as often as you like but it is there
> : : in black and green and what you say is not true.
>
> What have I said that isn't true..? Are you saying it *isn't* dangerous to
> drive at 31mph in a 30 limit..?
You have claimed my logic is wrong.. it isn't.
Yours is.
>
> : : : : : It does say its illegal to drive past at 31mph if
> : : : : : the speed limit is less. It also says that it may
> : : : : : be dangerous to drive past at 5mph.
> : : :
> : : : Very true, but why is it illegal to drive at 31mph if
> : : : it is not dangerous to do so..?
> : :
> : :
> : : Because it is.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. It's also not good enough.
It is an exact and concise answer.
If it isn't good enough take it up with Parliament.
>
> : : Your logic is flawed and you are trying to make out it
> : : isn't.
>
> Pot, kettle, black.
Mine is correct yours is not.
There is no pot and kettle in this case.
>
> : : : : : Nowhere does it say what you think.
> : : : : : When you can work out the logic you will probably
> : : : : : realise your misunderstanding makes you a poorer
> : : : : : driver. Do you have other misunderstandings that
> : : : : : make you a poor driver?
> : : :
> : : : Very probably, but that's not the topic under
> : : : discussion.
> : :
> : : Its the topic you are commenting on.
>
> I was commenting on driving at 31mph in a 30 limit, not "other
> misunderstandings."
You were saying my logic said something it didn't.
>
> : : : : : How do you know?
> : : : : : Time for you to do a refresher IMO.
> : : :
> : : : I didn't ask for your opinion.
> : :
> : : I didn't ask for yours either but this is an open group.
> : : If you don't want people commenting this is the wrong
> : : place for you.
>
> I could say the same..!
You could but as I have already covered the point it would be pointless.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fia4c8$902$1@news.datemas.de
: : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
: : news:5qrg9gF110ic3U1@mid.individual.net...
[snip]
: : : What have I said that isn't true..? Are you saying it
: : : *isn't* dangerous to drive at 31mph in a 30 limit..?
: :
: : You have claimed my logic is wrong.. it isn't.
: : Yours is.
All I am getting from you is an "I'm right, you're wrong" apology for an
argument, with no facts to support it.
: : : : : : : : It does say its illegal to drive past at
: : : : : : : : 31mph if the speed limit is less. It also
: : : : : : : : says that it may be dangerous to drive past
: : : : : : : : at 5mph.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Very true, but why is it illegal to drive at
: : : : : : 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..?
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : Because it is.
: : :
: : : That doesn't answer the question. It's also not good
: : : enough.
: :
: : It is an exact and concise answer.
: : If it isn't good enough take it up with Parliament.
Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it illegal to drive at
31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the law is not
an answer. The question is *why* is it the law..?
If you cannot or will not answer, there is no point in continuing.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5qrlsuF105fidU1@mid.individual.net...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fia4c8$902$1@news.datemas.de
> : : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> : : news:5qrg9gF110ic3U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> : : : What have I said that isn't true..? Are you saying it
> : : : *isn't* dangerous to drive at 31mph in a 30 limit..?
> : :
> : : You have claimed my logic is wrong.. it isn't.
> : : Yours is.
>
> All I am getting from you is an "I'm right, you're wrong" apology for an
> argument, with no facts to support it.
Read the thread the facts are there, in the clear.
>
> : : : : : : : : It does say its illegal to drive past at
> : : : : : : : : 31mph if the speed limit is less. It also
> : : : : : : : : says that it may be dangerous to drive past
> : : : : : : : : at 5mph.
> : : : : : :
> : : : : : : Very true, but why is it illegal to drive at
> : : : : : : 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..?
> : : : : :
> : : : : :
> : : : : : Because it is.
> : : :
> : : : That doesn't answer the question. It's also not good
> : : : enough.
> : :
> : : It is an exact and concise answer.
> : : If it isn't good enough take it up with Parliament.
>
> Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it illegal to drive at
> 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the law is not
> an answer. The question is *why* is it the law..?
Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the answer or care.
>
> If you cannot or will not answer, there is no point in continuing.
I have answered this question twice now, are you having trouble reading it.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5qrlvfF105sqrU1@mid.individual.net...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fia2b8$hg$1@news.datemas.de
> [snip]
>
> : : Personally I will do what I have always done.. treat
> : : every driver as an idiot with no exceptions.
>
> Including yourself..?
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fia9ed$ust$1@news.datemas.de
[snip]
: : : : : It is an exact and concise answer.
: : : : : If it isn't good enough take it up with
: : : : : Parliament.
: : :
: : : Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it
: : : illegal to drive at 31mph if it is not dangerous to
: : : do so..? The fact that it's the law is not an answer.
: : : The question is *why* is it the law..?
: :
: : Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the
: : answer or care.
I am asking you as you are the one who has pushed it on here. I don't
suppose my MP reads this group.
: : : If you cannot or will not answer, there is no point
: : : in continuing.
: :
: : I have answered this question twice now, are you having
: : trouble reading it.
You have spouted the law. You have not answered my question, which I will
repeat yet again - why is it illegal to drive at 31mph in a 30mph limit
when it is not dangerous to do so..? Or if it is any clearer, why is the
limit set at 30 when there is no need for it to be so set..?
I am asking *you* not my MP.
If you can't or won't answer that, don't bother replying.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fia9g0$v5c$1@news.datemas.de
: : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
: : news:5qrlvfF105sqrU1@mid.individual.net...
: : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
: : : message news:fia2b8$hg$1@news.datemas.de
: : : [snip]
: : :
: : : : : Personally I will do what I have always done..
: : : : : treat every driver as an idiot with no exceptions.
: : :
: : : Including yourself..?
: :
: : What I said is very clear.
No it isn't. Are you including yourself as an idiot, when you are calling
all drivers idiots..?
It's a simple question and has a yes or no answer. Please reply with the
word yes or no.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5qrqocF11oaghU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fia9g0$v5c$1@news.datemas.de
> : : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> : : news:5qrlvfF105sqrU1@mid.individual.net...
> : : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> : : : message news:fia2b8$hg$1@news.datemas.de
> : : : [snip]
> : : :
> : : : : : Personally I will do what I have always done..
> : : : : : treat every driver as an idiot with no exceptions.
> : : :
> : : : Including yourself..?
> : :
> : : What I said is very clear.
>
> No it isn't. Are you including yourself as an idiot, when you are calling
> all drivers idiots..?
>
> It's a simple question and has a yes or no answer. Please reply with the
> word yes or no.
>
>
> Ivor
>
It is a waste of time talking to you as you don't want to listen.
I have been perfectly clear "all drivers" there are no exclusions.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5qrqlsF11h5buU1@mid.individual.net...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fia9ed$ust$1@news.datemas.de
>
> [snip]
>
> : : : : : It is an exact and concise answer.
> : : : : : If it isn't good enough take it up with
> : : : : : Parliament.
> : : :
> : : : Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it
> : : : illegal to drive at 31mph if it is not dangerous to
> : : : do so..? The fact that it's the law is not an answer.
> : : : The question is *why* is it the law..?
> : :
> : : Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the
> : : answer or care.
>
> I am asking you as you are the one who has pushed it on here. I don't
> suppose my MP reads this group.
>
> : : : If you cannot or will not answer, there is no point
> : : : in continuing.
> : :
> : : I have answered this question twice now, are you having
> : : trouble reading it.
>
> You have spouted the law. You have not answered my question, which I will
> repeat yet again - why is it illegal to drive at 31mph in a 30mph limit
> when it is not dangerous to do so..? Or if it is any clearer, why is the
> limit set at 30 when there is no need for it to be so set..?
>
> I am asking *you* not my MP.
>
> If you can't or won't answer that, don't bother replying.
If you insist on an answer to something that is not relevant then we may as
well end it here.
Bye.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fiad7t$ci9$1@news.datemas.de
: : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
: : news:5qrqocF11oaghU1@mid.individual.net...
: : :
: : :
: : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
: : : message news:fia9g0$v5c$1@news.datemas.de
: : : : : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in
: : : : : message news:5qrlvfF105sqrU1@mid.individual.net...
: : : : : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
: : : : : : wrote in message
: : : : : : news:fia2b8$hg$1@news.datemas.de [snip]
: : : : : :
: : : : : : : : Personally I will do what I have always
: : : : : : : : done.. treat every driver as an idiot with
: : : : : : : : no exceptions.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Including yourself..?
: : : : :
: : : : : What I said is very clear.
: : :
: : : No it isn't. Are you including yourself as an idiot,
: : : when you are calling all drivers idiots..?
: : :
: : : It's a simple question and has a yes or no answer.
: : : Please reply with the word yes or no.
: : :
: : :
: : : Ivor
: : :
: :
: : It is a waste of time talking to you as you don't want
: : to listen. I have been perfectly clear "all drivers"
: : there are no exclusions.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fiadc6$d5l$1@news.datemas.de
: : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
: : news:5qrqlsF11h5buU1@mid.individual.net...
: : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
: : : message news:fia9ed$ust$1@news.datemas.de
: : :
: : : [snip]
: : :
: : : : : : : : It is an exact and concise answer.
: : : : : : : : If it isn't good enough take it up with
: : : : : : : : Parliament.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why
: : : : : : is it illegal to drive at 31mph if it is not
: : : : : : dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the
: : : : : : law is not an answer. The question is *why* is
: : : : : : it the law..?
: : : : :
: : : : : Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the
: : : : : answer or care.
: : :
: : : I am asking you as you are the one who has pushed it
: : : on here. I don't suppose my MP reads this group.
: : :
: : : : : : If you cannot or will not answer, there is no
: : : : : : point in continuing.
: : : : :
: : : : : I have answered this question twice now, are you
: : : : : having trouble reading it.
: : :
: : : You have spouted the law. You have not answered my
: : : question, which I will repeat yet again - why is it
: : : illegal to drive at 31mph in a 30mph limit when it is
: : : not dangerous to do so..? Or if it is any clearer,
: : : why is the limit set at 30 when there is no need for
: : : it to be so set..?
: : :
: : : I am asking *you* not my MP.
: : :
: : : If you can't or won't answer that, don't bother
: : : replying.
: :
: : If you insist on an answer to something that is not
: : relevant then we may as well end it here.
: : Bye.
It's very relevant. It's also obvious that you won't answer the question
because you can't think of a coherent answer.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5qrrmdF11bqdtU1@mid.individual.net...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fiad7t$ci9$1@news.datemas.de : : "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> : : news:5qrqocF11oaghU1@mid.individual.net...
> : : : : : : : : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> : : : message news:fia9g0$v5c$1@news.datemas.de
> : : : : : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in
> : : : : : message news:5qrlvfF105sqrU1@mid.individual.net...
> : : : : : : "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
> : : : : : : wrote in message
> : : : : : : news:fia2b8$hg$1@news.datemas.de [snip]
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Personally I will do what I have always
> : : : : : : : : done.. treat every driver as an idiot with
> : : : : : : : : no exceptions. : : : : : : : : : : : : Including
> yourself..?
> : : : : : : : : : : What I said is very clear.
> : : : : : : No it isn't. Are you including yourself as an idiot,
> : : : when you are calling all drivers idiots..?
> : : : : : : It's a simple question and has a yes or no answer.
> : : : Please reply with the word yes or no.
> : : : : : : : : : Ivor
> : : : : : : : It is a waste of time talking to you as you don't want
> : : to listen. I have been perfectly clear "all drivers"
> : : there are no exclusions.
> I'll take that as a yes then.
You finally got something correct, now try for the rest.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fiafvh$ljb$1@news.datemas.de
[snip]
: : : : It is a waste of time talking to you as
: : : : you don't want
: : : : to listen. I have been perfectly clear "all
: : : : drivers" there are no exclusions.
: : :
: : : I'll take that as a yes then.
: :
: : You finally got something correct, now try for the rest.
That you're an idiot..? I thought we'd already established that.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1195929475.30895.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
>
>>
>> No one will believe you Ivor. They are all starting from the
>> assumption that 'speed kills' and no matter what you say, they will
>> find some incredibly long and tedious explanation - in this case
>> typically 'you shouldn't have been overtaking' to demonstrate why if
>> you had left the bike at home, doing 0mph, you never would have BEEN
>> in that situation.
>>
>> If you HAVE to overtake,
>
> Name one occasion where you HAVE to overtake.
When you are 6" from my backside and there is stopped/parked car in the
road?
No, you are right. Best to make a 3 car pile up.
Lets try another one. You are nicely bumbling along in the slow lane
minding your own business when Boy Racer rushes past you on the outside,
cuts in front and tries to make the exit ramp..which is unfortunately
full. So he slams on the brakes right in front of you. His brakes are
better than yours. What should you do? Up the bank and turn the camper
over? slam into the back of him? or overtake...you have half a second to
make up your mind.
Ditto when someone pulls OUT of a slip road and you are in the 'slow
lane', or, worse still, on a single carriageway..
You had better be in practice or you have a crash on your hands. It
wasn't my fault' you moan as the ambulance crew extracts you from the
crushed wreck of your car 'I was only doing 50mph: he came out straight
in front of me and I couldn't do anything': your erstwhile pious friends
shake their heads at you 'he must have been SPEEDING' 'He couldn't stop
as he wasn't leaving a big enough GAP'
Right,. and wrong. There were things you COULD have done, if you knew
about things like 'dropping it a couple of cogs and flooring it', and
controlling the swerve that is bound to unsettle the car..but of course,
overtaking is dangerous and so is speed, so YOU never practiced any of
that did you? And you didn't want to risk crossing that double white
line, in case you got a fine and some points n your license.
Well now you have a broken spine and a life in a wheelchair.
Serves you right. Should have learnt how to drive, *including* overtaking.
Shuld have learnt that in an emergency you have the ability to
accelerate in all four directions, backwards, forwards AND side to side
and when two are going to see you dead, the other two MAY be worth a try.,
> Lets take that statement apart shall we..
>
> 120 mph = 176 ft/sec so assuming 1G stopping power (Jag, dry road)
> stopping distance about 500 ft.
> 60 mph = 88 ft/sec so assuming 1/2G stopping power (legal mot minimum)
> stopping distance about 330 ft.
Legal retardation at 30mph or less not at 50mph plus..
>
> So was your camper an MOT failure then?
Not at all. Brand new (to em) fully tested and in tip top condition. I'm
sure it COULD stop in that distance, ..If I didn't mind showering myself
with whatever would probably burst out of the cupboards and killing the
dogs. And assuming it was dead level on a flat dry road with no bends
and no wet bits, in which case it would probably spin and end up on its
side.
And assuming no brake fade..
The jag did a bit better than 1g too.
You don't know much about the practical aspects of driving, do you?
Now where did I read about the person who was killed (or was it their
son/daughter) by the computer they had on the back seat that broke her
necks when they slammed on the brakes?
Full of theory Mr Smart guy..
Roundabouts that could be taken at 60 in the Jag are tyre squealers at
30 in the camper.
So its the slow lane and 25mph... ;-)
Just the way it is, in 2 1/2 tons of top heavy small van. With rear drum
brakes and less tyres than a 1960's morris oxford. It SLIGHTLY better
than driving on the handbrake cos your brake line just fractured..a rare
event these days..but not an unkown event in my youth. Or the cables to
the brakes just SNAPPED. I don't suppose you have ever drive with cable
brakes except on a bicycle..have you?
>
> BTW can you show me a road in the UK where taking more than 5 seconds to
> stop is safe?
Almost anywhere. 5 secs at 1g is 109mph. 5 seconds at 0.5g which is DAMN
good for a truck on a DRY road..is 55mph.
Calculate the braking distance/time on a fully wet road..for a 30 ton
truck doing 55mph.. I'd say around 9-10 seconds.
Are you proposing tha 25mph is the speed limit for a laden truck in wet
weather?
Does it not make the 2 second rule - broken by 95% of the motorist on
the M25 at a rough count last time I used it - look more like an
extremely dangerous ABSOLUTE MINIMUM and hope that you notice the
stationary traffic ahead?
Of course when the inevitable pile up occurs, it was 'going too fast to
stop: we must lower the speed limits'. Utter bollocks. Travelling too
close is FAR more dangerous.
You ca do the mathematics if you like: not totally accurate, but since
you like to show your smarts here's some of mie.
Every second at 1g braking you can bleed off 21 mph. So there's me at 3
seconds if I can achieve it, and very uncomfortable at 2, and downright
paranoid at a one second gap, with the MAJORITY of the traffic
travelling at half a second or less..at 70mph.
I can get down to less than 5mph in my nice Jag (if I had it still) in
3 seconds. Losing 65mph. Joe public in his Renault Laguna 0.5 second up
the tailpipe of Mrs Mop in her Fiesta, chatting to her hubby, can get
down to just 65mph in his gap. If the brakes are up to it. To be that
(un)safe with a 3 second gap, *I would have to be doing 130mph*.
So who is travelling too fast - me at 90mph and a three second gap, or
Joe Public doing 70mph with a half a second gap?
Never mind - pearls before swine.
Remember 100% of people who get killed on the roads have 'never been in
a fatal accident before'
You don't get MUCH chance to practice them.
Statistically, I;d say that about 95% of people who get killed on the
roads have never been in ANY accident before. They all thought they were
good drivers.
Despite claims by others, I don't say i am a good driver, just a
survivor who KNOWS what is bad about his driving, and strives to correct
it. And knows when others are WORSE. My abiding sin is inattention. ONE
of the best ways to counter it is to scare yourself a little. Focusses
the mind. A little fast driving does a fair job sometimes..you HAVE to
concentrate. However thats a private affair, not to be done in company.
Except on a race track., where its good fun and very educational. I
dob;'t THNK its possible anymore, but Brands Hatch in a downpour in a
go-kart is possibly the best ever way to understand aquaplaning, under
steer and what to do when you are going down a steep hill on slicks with
a stream running across it at the bottom..yes, where the bend
is..probably saved my car one early frosty morning when the nasty patch
of ice in deep shadow and totally invisible came along..
Frankly the test never has and still does not teach ANYONE how to drive:
it merely affirms that you can do the most basic and simple things with
a car, and know a set of rules more or less.
Most of which the average driver soon forgets. Most drivers do NOT look
in their mirrors unless they have to, do NOT indicate where they are
going on e.g. roundabouts, drive with sidelights on or with foglamps
when there is no fog (both strictly illegal). Most (despite
protestations) do > 30mph in 30mph limits. I followed a POLICE car the
other day that did ALL of those..most follow other cars on motorways at
WELL under 2 second gaps..not illegal, but I wish it WAS..and, if the
person who bithley sailed ou front of me without even a cursory check
to their mirror, and was utterly uncomprehending as I managed to get
past them gesticulating wildly, is anything to go by, simply DID NOT
KNOW they had done ANYTHING WRONG...
It's the only explanation that I have for the extraordinarily poor
standard of driving that a majority of people display, and yet, here on
the internet, everyone is a fucking perfect driver except me?
Weird or what?
You are the classic example. You don't know how long it takes to stop a
real; life vehicle, you think five seconds is a dangerously long time to
take..you can't see any reason ever to overtake?
God, you know so LITTLE you don't know how utterly BAD you ARE!
I wonder how many accidents you have caused that you didn't even know
you had. Smug and safe in your little tin cocoon 'safely' 1mph under the
speed limit, thinking you are just great.
> An awful lot can happen in the time it takes to stop a Jag from 120 mph
> even before you add in the time it takes for the idiot driving to react.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>> Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it illegal to drive
>> at 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the law
>> is not an answer. The question is *why* is it the law..?
>
> Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the answer or care.
>
Let's put it another way
"Why, if they represent no danger are we gassing all the Jews, Mr
Gestapoman?"
"Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the answer or care".
Yup. THINK I know where YOU will be when Nu Labers police state takes
over the country:-
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1195928261.88612.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> None since 1985 that I can recall..unless uou count any damage in
>>>> which case several mysterious dents in car parks, and a bit of
>>>> pheasant damage. Oh and smashing a wheel in a pothole..doing 30mph
>>>> of course..
>>>
>>> Driving too fast so you didn't see the pot hole?
>>
>> No. Didn';t realise that a pothole that doesn';t even jar a 4x4 would
>> take out the best part of 800 quids worth of wheel and tyre on a jaguar..
>>
>>
>>>> Indeed. 40 years and probably round a million miles of travel in
>>>> many countries all conditions and in a variety of vehicles. And you
>>>> expect me to never have hit a pheasant? or reversed into a hidden
>>>> pillar? Or had someone drive into the back of me when I stopped for
>>>> a red light?
>>>
>>> I did say you would provide the evidence.
>>> No I haven't reversed into posts or hit pheasants.
>>> Yes I have driven over a million miles without accident and only one
>>> puncture as it happens as you introduced silly factors beyond control.
>>
>> Then you are remarkably fortunate. Or a liar.
>
> See I said you would start calling people liars to prop up your own
> belief system.
> You are so predictable.
> You are a bad driver and I have no doubt that if you were tested on your
> driving ability it would be very poor.
>
>> Or driving something VERY big and SLOW. That doesn't get nails through
>> the tyres, has never been slashed, or scored, drive down country road
>> or parked in Tescos. And is so visible that everyone eles runs away as
>> soon as they sea you.
>>
>> Lemme guess HGV driver?
>
> Wrong.
>
>> The sort the doesn't eevn KNOW when its wiped off the wing of the car
>> standing at the roundabout..yep Ive seen that one happen as well..
>>
>> No. Liar basically.
>>
>> I know so MANY people who 'have never had an accident'
>> I just look at their cars and see the damage 'Oh, someone reversed
>> into me' 'I don't know where that happened' 'That wasn't a real ACCIDENT'
>
>
> Well I do have a chip in the door from an ASDA trolley if that makes you
> happy.
> I also have a scrap on the boot lid where I foolishly pulled my hose
> pipe across it if you think that makes me a worse driver than you.
> Personally I will do what I have always done.. treat every driver as an
> idiot with no exceptions.
>
I guess you reflect yourself into the rest of hmanty. MY experience is
that they are not idiots. Most are just pretty piss poor, but reasoanbly
predictable. A few - not idiots - are downright dangerous
- police drivers: Some of the worst I have ever seen..They KNOW they can
get away with it.
- people who are disabled - usually by age, sometimes by drink or drugs
or testoserone beyond their ability to really drive like they think they
still can..the MOST lethal combination..
- people who are obviously totally distracted,either by their phones or
by their passengers or their makeup, or the CD player, or whatever.
- people who are simply bad, and so bad they don't even begin to know
how bad they are.
Fortunately all these types have their particular habitats and are
pretty recognisable.
I'd put YOU in the category of the sort of person that when they see
car overtaking a line of cars held up by a horsebox doing 30mph,
deliberately closes the gap to the car in front when they see a car
coming in the other direction so the overtaking car can't pull in, in
front of them. And hopes the guy behind does the same thing.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5qrlvfF105sqrU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
>> message news:fia2b8$hg$1@news.datemas.de
>> [snip]
>>
>> : : Personally I will do what I have always done.. treat
>> : : every driver as an idiot with no exceptions.
>>
>> Including yourself..?
>
> What I said is very clear.
It certainly was.
Treating yourself as the total idiot that you demonstrably are, may just
yet make a decent driver out of you. Its the people who think they are
so perfect (and everyone ELSE is an idiot) that they don't need to learn
anything more, that don't ever learn anything more.
Smug and happy, on their way to the morgue. Ignorance is bliss, and
confidence in ones innate right(eous)ness is a passport to staying
blissfully ignorant.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fia4c8$902$1@news.datemas.de
> : : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> : : news:5qrg9gF110ic3U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> : : : What have I said that isn't true..? Are you saying it
> : : : *isn't* dangerous to drive at 31mph in a 30 limit..?
> : :
> : : You have claimed my logic is wrong.. it isn't.
> : : Yours is.
>
> All I am getting from you is an "I'm right, you're wrong" apology for an
> argument, with no facts to support it.
>
> : : : : : : : : It does say its illegal to drive past at
> : : : : : : : : 31mph if the speed limit is less. It also
> : : : : : : : : says that it may be dangerous to drive past
> : : : : : : : : at 5mph.
> : : : : : :
> : : : : : : Very true, but why is it illegal to drive at
> : : : : : : 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..?
> : : : : :
> : : : : :
> : : : : : Because it is.
> : : :
> : : : That doesn't answer the question. It's also not good
> : : : enough.
> : :
> : : It is an exact and concise answer.
> : : If it isn't good enough take it up with Parliament.
>
> Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it illegal to drive at
> 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the law is
> not an answer. The question is *why* is it the law..?
>
> If you cannot or will not answer, there is no point in continuing.
>
>
> Ivor
>
Because an act of parliment said it is so. you are confusing common
sense with law. as you cant legislate for common sense, we have to have
specific definitions in the law. a decision has ben made that sets the
speed limit for that particular stretch of road that has defined the
speed limit. if you travel faster than that speed then you have broken
the law.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195954305.32373.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1195929475.30895.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> No one will believe you Ivor. They are all starting from the assumption
>>> that 'speed kills' and no matter what you say, they will find some
>>> incredibly long and tedious explanation - in this case typically 'you
>>> shouldn't have been overtaking' to demonstrate why if you had left the
>>> bike at home, doing 0mph, you never would have BEEN in that situation.
>>>
>>> If you HAVE to overtake,
>>
>> Name one occasion where you HAVE to overtake.
>
> When you are 6" from my backside and there is stopped/parked car in the
> road?
>
Only an idiot like you wouldn't slow down if the car behind was tailgating.
> No, you are right. Best to make a 3 car pile up.
No you would rather take out the traffic coming the other way as well.
>
> Lets try another one. You are nicely bumbling along in the slow lane
> minding your own business when Boy Racer rushes past you on the outside,
> cuts in front and tries to make the exit ramp..which is unfortunately
> full. So he slams on the brakes right in front of you. His brakes are
> better than yours. What should you do? Up the bank and turn the camper
> over? slam into the back of him? or overtake...you have half a second to
> make up your mind.
You aren't going to accelerate out of that one so you have lost it.
You take avoiding action and you already know which way as you were aware of
your surroundings and knew that there was an idiot like you there.
> Ditto when someone pulls OUT of a slip road and you are in the 'slow
> lane', or, worse still, on a single carriageway..
>
> You had better be in practice or you have a crash on your hands. It wasn't
> my fault' you moan as the ambulance crew extracts you from the crushed
> wreck of your car 'I was only doing 50mph: he came out straight in front
> of me and I couldn't do anything': your erstwhile pious friends shake
> their heads at you 'he must have been SPEEDING' 'He couldn't stop as he
> wasn't leaving a big enough GAP'
So far you have shown yourself to be incapable of sound judgment even with
your made up scenarios so I think its safe to assume you really are stupid
when it comes to driving and its people like you that the rules are made for
as you are incapable of driving without them. Like I said a black box in
your car would make things much better for all.
> Right,. and wrong. There were things you COULD have done, if you knew
> about things like 'dropping it a couple of cogs and flooring it', and
> controlling the swerve that is bound to unsettle the car..but of course,
> overtaking is dangerous and so is speed, so YOU never practiced any of
> that did you? And you didn't want to risk crossing that double white line,
> in case you got a fine and some points n your license.
>
> Well now you have a broken spine and a life in a wheelchair.
> Serves you right. Should have learnt how to drive, *including* overtaking.
>
> Shuld have learnt that in an emergency you have the ability to accelerate
> in all four directions, backwards, forwards AND side to side and when two
> are going to see you dead, the other two MAY be worth a try.,
Most of the population manage to avoid accidents in cars you would consider
to have no acceleration so that wipes your argument out at a stroke.
>> Lets take that statement apart shall we..
>>
>> 120 mph = 176 ft/sec so assuming 1G stopping power (Jag, dry road)
>> stopping distance about 500 ft.
>> 60 mph = 88 ft/sec so assuming 1/2G stopping power (legal mot minimum)
>> stopping distance about 330 ft.
>
> Legal retardation at 30mph or less not at 50mph plus..
>>
>> So was your camper an MOT failure then?
>
> Not at all. Brand new (to em) fully tested and in tip top condition. I'm
> sure it COULD stop in that distance, ..If I didn't mind showering myself
> with whatever would probably burst out of the cupboards and killing the
> dogs. And assuming it was dead level on a flat dry road with no bends and
> no wet bits, in which case it would probably spin and end up on its side.
>
> And assuming no brake fade..
>
> The jag did a bit better than 1g too.
>
> You don't know much about the practical aspects of driving, do you?
I admit you know a lot more about crashing than I do.
I will bow to your superior knowledge now you have told us all how to crash.
>
> Now where did I read about the person who was killed (or was it their
> son/daughter) by the computer they had on the back seat that broke her
> necks when they slammed on the brakes?
So now you don't brake because you carry dangerous, unsecured loads.
Anymore excuses for your bad driving, alternative realities are a good one
to try.
>
> Full of theory Mr Smart guy..
>
> Roundabouts that could be taken at 60 in the Jag are tyre squealers at 30
> in the camper.
I have had to avoid a Jag that thought he could take an island at the same
speed as me.. shame he screwed it and went off. I didn't btw even though it
was close and I could feel the traction breaking. More progressive tyres I
suppose?
>
>
> So its the slow lane and 25mph... ;-)
>
> Just the way it is, in 2 1/2 tons of top heavy small van. With rear drum
> brakes and less tyres than a 1960's morris oxford. It SLIGHTLY better than
> driving on the handbrake cos your brake line just fractured..a rare event
> these days..but not an unkown event in my youth. Or the cables to the
> brakes just SNAPPED. I don't suppose you have ever drive with cable brakes
> except on a bicycle..have you?
I wouldn't drive such a vehicle.. you may be stupid enough to do so but not
me.
>> BTW can you show me a road in the UK where taking more than 5 seconds to
>> stop is safe?
>
> Almost anywhere. 5 secs at 1g is 109mph. 5 seconds at 0.5g which is DAMN
> good for a truck on a DRY road..is 55mph.
>
> Calculate the braking distance/time on a fully wet road..for a 30 ton
> truck doing 55mph.. I'd say around 9-10 seconds.
Have you gone into the back of a truck yet? You will.
> Are you proposing tha 25mph is the speed limit for a laden truck in wet
> weather?
>
> Does it not make the 2 second rule - broken by 95% of the motorist on the
> M25 at a rough count last time I used it - look more like an extremely
> dangerous ABSOLUTE MINIMUM and hope that you notice the stationary traffic
> ahead?
It is designed for idiots like you.
> Of course when the inevitable pile up occurs, it was 'going too fast to
> stop: we must lower the speed limits'. Utter bollocks. Travelling too
> close is FAR more dangerous.
They are the same thing.. anywhere it says travelling too close also means
too fast or are you completely brain dead?
..
> You ca do the mathematics if you like: not totally accurate, but since you
> like to show your smarts here's some of mie.
You forgot the thinking distance, but what do I expect from someone that
doesn't think.
>
> Every second at 1g braking you can bleed off 21 mph. So there's me at 3
> seconds if I can achieve it, and very uncomfortable at 2, and downright
> paranoid at a one second gap, with the MAJORITY of the traffic travelling
> at half a second or less..at 70mph.
Its also a very simplistic view that I used for your benefit as the real
equations involve bleeding off energy which is velocity squared.
For the simple minded i.e. you, that means the braking distance goes up with
the square of the speed and not just linearly as in 1G.
In reality your jag would take at least four times the distance it does a 60
mph.
Now shut up and talk about something you understand.
>
> I can get down to less than 5mph in my nice Jag (if I had it still) in 3
> seconds. Losing 65mph. Joe public in his Renault Laguna 0.5 second up the
> tailpipe of Mrs Mop in her Fiesta, chatting to her hubby, can get down to
> just 65mph in his gap. If the brakes are up to it. To be that (un)safe
> with a 3 second gap, *I would have to be doing 130mph*.
>
> So who is travelling too fast - me at 90mph and a three second gap, or Joe
> Public doing 70mph with a half a second gap?
Both of you!
> Never mind - pearls before swine.
>
> Remember 100% of people who get killed on the roads have 'never been in a
> fatal accident before'
>
> You don't get MUCH chance to practice them.
You have been trying though.
> Statistically, I;d say that about 95% of people who get killed on the
> roads have never been in ANY accident before. They all thought they were
> good drivers.
>
> Despite claims by others, I don't say i am a good driver, just a survivor
> who KNOWS what is bad about his driving, and strives to correct it.
You know you speed, you do not attempt to correct it, you attempt to excuse
it, don't lie about trying to improve.
> And knows when others are WORSE. My abiding sin is inattention. ONE of the
> best ways to counter it is to scare yourself a little. Focusses the mind.
> A little fast driving does a fair job sometimes..you HAVE to concentrate.
> However thats a private affair, not to be done in company. Except on a
> race track., where its good fun and very educational. I dob;'t THNK its
> possible anymore, but Brands Hatch in a downpour in a go-kart is possibly
> the best ever way to understand aquaplaning, under steer and what to do
> when you are going down a steep hill on slicks with a stream running
> across it at the bottom..yes, where the bend is..probably saved my car one
> early frosty morning when the nasty patch of ice in deep shadow and
> totally invisible came along..
>
The more you say the more you sound crazy and that you should be banned.
>
> Frankly the test never has and still does not teach ANYONE how to drive:
> it merely affirms that you can do the most basic and simple things with a
> car, and know a set of rules more or less.
> Most of which the average driver soon forgets. Most drivers do NOT look in
> their mirrors unless they have to, do NOT indicate where they are going on
> e.g. roundabouts, drive with sidelights on or with foglamps when there is
> no fog (both strictly illegal). Most (despite protestations) do > 30mph in
> 30mph limits. I followed a POLICE car the other day that did ALL of
> those..most follow other cars on motorways at WELL under 2 second
> gaps..not illegal, but I wish it WAS..and, if the person who bithley
> sailed ou front of me without even a cursory check to their mirror, and
> was utterly uncomprehending as I managed to get past them gesticulating
> wildly, is anything to go by, simply DID NOT KNOW they had done ANYTHING
> WRONG...
>
> It's the only explanation that I have for the extraordinarily poor
> standard of driving that a majority of people display, and yet, here on
> the internet, everyone is a fucking perfect driver except me?
Is that what you think? I don't I think all drivers are idiots.
Maybe you should try the same and you would realise you can't rely on the
other drivers to get you out of the mess you get yourself into and will then
take more care.
>
> Weird or what?
>
> You are the classic example. You don't know how long it takes to stop a
> real; life vehicle, you think five seconds is a dangerously long time to
> take..you can't see any reason ever to overtake?
You are just plain stupid, even the rules in the highway code are too lax
for someone that stupid.
Maybe they should print stopping distances up to 120 mph just so you have a
clue.
>
> God, you know so LITTLE you don't know how utterly BAD you ARE!
>
> I wonder how many accidents you have caused that you didn't even know you
> had. Smug and safe in your little tin cocoon 'safely' 1mph under the speed
> limit, thinking you are just great.
I bet you have caused more than you have been in.
>
>
>> An awful lot can happen in the time it takes to stop a Jag from 120 mph
>> even before you add in the time it takes for the idiot driving to react.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195954539.394.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>
>>> Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it illegal to drive at
>>> 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the law is
>>> not an answer. The question is *why* is it the law..?
>>
>> Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the answer or care.
>>
>
> Let's put it another way
>
> "Why, if they represent no danger are we gassing all the Jews, Mr
> Gestapoman?"
Now you have shown yourself to be unable to discuss anything.
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts
dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1195954305.32373.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:1195929475.30895.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one will believe you Ivor. They are all starting from the
>>>> assumption that 'speed kills' and no matter what you say, they will
>>>> find some incredibly long and tedious explanation - in this case
>>>> typically 'you shouldn't have been overtaking' to demonstrate why if
>>>> you had left the bike at home, doing 0mph, you never would have BEEN
>>>> in that situation.
>>>>
>>>> If you HAVE to overtake,
>>>
>>> Name one occasion where you HAVE to overtake.
>>
>> When you are 6" from my backside and there is stopped/parked car in
>> the road?
>>
>
> Only an idiot like you wouldn't slow down if the car behind was tailgating.
Oh I would, but I find that you just drop back and then come rushing up
behind again. I can slow to 2mph and you still won't overtake? I don't
have any choice.
>
>> No, you are right. Best to make a 3 car pile up.
>
> No you would rather take out the traffic coming the other way as well.
What traffic? you have just made that up...do you honestly thk I would
not have worked that out about 5 minutes ago?
>
>>
>> Lets try another one. You are nicely bumbling along in the slow lane
>> minding your own business when Boy Racer rushes past you on the
>> outside, cuts in front and tries to make the exit ramp..which is
>> unfortunately full. So he slams on the brakes right in front of you.
>> His brakes are better than yours. What should you do? Up the bank and
>> turn the camper over? slam into the back of him? or overtake...you
>> have half a second to make up your mind.
>
> You aren't going to accelerate out of that one so you have lost it.
YOu asked when would would have to overtake, not accelerate. acclerating
is part of overtaking.
Moving goalposts again. Can't bear to admit you are a total tosser,and
execrable driver, and wrong. Have you EVER overtaken a moving behicle?
even on a motorway?
> You take avoiding action and you already know which way as you were
> aware of your surroundings and knew that there was an idiot like you there.
>
Exactly. Avoiding action being overtaking and using the gas to avoid get
shafted up the arse by Dennis at home..
>
>> Ditto when someone pulls OUT of a slip road and you are in the 'slow
>> lane', or, worse still, on a single carriageway..
>>
>> You had better be in practice or you have a crash on your hands. It
>> wasn't my fault' you moan as the ambulance crew extracts you from the
>> crushed wreck of your car 'I was only doing 50mph: he came out
>> straight in front of me and I couldn't do anything': your erstwhile
>> pious friends shake their heads at you 'he must have been SPEEDING'
>> 'He couldn't stop as he wasn't leaving a big enough GAP'
>
> So far you have shown yourself to be incapable of sound judgment even
> with your made up scenarios so I think its safe to assume you really are
> stupid when it comes to driving and its people like you that the rules
> are made for as you are incapable of driving without them. Like I said a
> black box in your car would make things much better for all.
It's really let's say, being kind - a shade unsafe to project your
mentality and understanding out into the world and assume everybody is
like you. Actually the rules are made for YOU. You are hat most
dangerous of persons: one who is so stupid they don't realise that
intelligence actually exists, and can be used.
>
>> Right,. and wrong. There were things you COULD have done, if you knew
>> about things like 'dropping it a couple of cogs and flooring it', and
>> controlling the swerve that is bound to unsettle the car..but of
>> course, overtaking is dangerous and so is speed, so YOU never
>> practiced any of that did you? And you didn't want to risk crossing
>> that double white line, in case you got a fine and some points n your
>> license.
>>
>> Well now you have a broken spine and a life in a wheelchair.
>> Serves you right. Should have learnt how to drive, *including*
>> overtaking.
>>
>> Shuld have learnt that in an emergency you have the ability to
>> accelerate in all four directions, backwards, forwards AND side to
>> side and when two are going to see you dead, the other two MAY be
>> worth a try.,
>
> Most of the population manage to avoid accidents in cars you would
> consider to have no acceleration so that wipes your argument out at a
> stroke.
>
Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts 