Re: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts

>> ... However, studies have found out that the distraction is caused by
>> the conversation itself; hence, both hand-held and hands-free cell
>> phones contribute towards road traffic accidents...
>> http://personaltechinfo.googlepages....ut_cell_phones
>
"George Weston"
> Ergo, conversations of any kind while driving are potentially dangerous.
>
Not quite right.
The problem is the GSM compression algorithm (codec), which is deliberately
designed to lose some data in order to maximise cell capacity. This was
demonstrated on Tomorrow's World back when GSM system was launched.
Your brain then has to 'guess' at what the word was, therefore you need to
concentrate more to hold conversation on mobile phone. Again this has been
demonstrated with people on driving simulators shoving delayed reaction.
Note that the GSM codec can also be used in VoIP, it is the highest
available compression and the only one usable on dial-up line.

The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you busy driving
(on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the conversation, while person
on the other end of a mobile phone will start saying "Hello, hello, are you
still there..." thus distracting you further.
Regards,
Martin

Martin² wrote:

>
> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you busy
> driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the
> conversation,

You've never driven with my partner, once they start babbling, nothing
stops them.


while person on the other end of a mobile phone will
> start saying "Hello, hello, are you still there..." thus
> distracting you further.

That's why you ask them to hang on & then ignore them until it's safe
to talk (via your handsfree kit of course)

Martin² wrote:


>The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you busy driving
>(on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the conversation, while person
>on the other end of a mobile phone will start saying "Hello, hello, are you
>still there..." thus distracting you further.
>Regards,
>Martin
>

....and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to keep
his eyes on the road at all times.

Chris

Chris wrote:
> Martin² wrote:
>
>
>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you busy driving
>> (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the conversation, while person
>> on the other end of a mobile phone will start saying "Hello, hello, are you
>> still there..." thus distracting you further.
>> Regards,
>> Martin
>>
>
> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to keep
> his eyes on the road at all times.
>
> Chris
I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a traffic
situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'

Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to if yu
listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are you there?'
as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your way passed
assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on their lipstick, or
wiping the sick off their children's mouths..


;-)

<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lc5bk3df1nkbd195fkt07f6817r2tgua3e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
> wrote:
>
>>Chris wrote:
>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you busy
>>>> driving
>>>> (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the conversation, while
>>>> person
>>>> on the other end of a mobile phone will start saying "Hello, hello, are
>>>> you
>>>> still there..." thus distracting you further.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to keep
>>> his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a traffic
>>situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'
>>
>>Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to if yu
>>listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are you there?'
>>as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your way passed
>>assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on their lipstick, or
>>wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time the
> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other emergency.

The police aren't around to 'crack down' on anything nowadays!
How many cars do you see without lights on when its foggy?
And how many with rear lights on when it isn't...

Chris

mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
> wrote:
>
>> Chris wrote:
>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you busy driving
>>>> (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the conversation, while person
>>>> on the other end of a mobile phone will start saying "Hello, hello, are you
>>>> still there..." thus distracting you further.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to keep
>>> his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>
>>> Chris
>> I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a traffic
>> situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'
>>
>> Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to if yu
>> listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are you there?'
>> as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your way passed
>> assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on their lipstick, or
>> wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time the
> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other emergency.

That's obviously right FOR YOU, but don't underestimate the pitch of
concentration and the ability to be simply rude to callers if the
traffic demands it that comes after years of high mileage driving.

I WISH the police instead of prosecuting for technical offences, would
actually prosecute people who DO have accidents.

As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road, you
get nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get £60 and
three points.

Which is in fact the worse offence?

But of course, which is easier to get an easy conviction on?

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195768184.59016.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you busy
>>>>> driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the
>>>>> conversation, while person on the other end of a mobile phone will
>>>>> start saying "Hello, hello, are you still there..." thus distracting
>>>>> you further.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Martin
>>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
>>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to keep
>>>> his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>> I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a traffic
>>> situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'
>>>
>>> Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to if yu
>>> listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are you there?'
>>> as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your way passed
>>> assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on their lipstick, or
>>> wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>>
>> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time the
>> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
>> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
>> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other emergency.
>
> That's obviously right FOR YOU, but don't underestimate the pitch of
> concentration and the ability to be simply rude to callers if the traffic
> demands it that comes after years of high mileage driving.
>
> I WISH the police instead of prosecuting for technical offences, would
> actually prosecute people who DO have accidents.

The police do prosecute if there is evidence.
It is easier to collect the evidence for speeding.
I wish they would do "speeders" for the correct offence when they are
snapped.. driving without due care and attention.
If you deliberately drive past a camera too fast, that is speeding.
If you don't see the camera that is without due care.

> As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road, you get
> nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get £60 and three
> points.
>
> Which is in fact the worse offence?

The speeding as you are more likely to kill or seriously injure someone by
going too fast.
If you hit a car reversing out at 30 mph neither of you is likely to get
hurt (which is why the police are seldom called to an accident btw).
A speeder hitting a pedestrian at 38 mph will probably kill them.

>
> But of course, which is easier to get an easy conviction on?

Fortunately the worse offense of speeding.

"Chris"
> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to keep
> his eyes on the road at all times.
>
> Chris

You only turn you head when you had a good look and know it's safe, just
pure self preservation !
Otherwise there would be millions of accidents every day.
Nothing to do with using mobile...
Regards,
Martin

"Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote in message
news:13k9st7m2b1ck2b@corp.supernews.com...
>>> ... However, studies have found out that the distraction is caused by
>>> the conversation itself; hence, both hand-held and hands-free cell
>>> phones contribute towards road traffic accidents...
>>> http://personaltechinfo.googlepages....ut_cell_phones
>>
> "George Weston"
>> Ergo, conversations of any kind while driving are potentially dangerous.
>>
> Not quite right.
> The problem is the GSM compression algorithm (codec), which is
> deliberately designed to lose some data in order to maximise cell
> capacity. This was demonstrated on Tomorrow's World back when GSM system
> was launched.
> Your brain then has to 'guess' at what the word was, therefore you need to
> concentrate more to hold conversation on mobile phone. Again this has been
> demonstrated with people on driving simulators shoving delayed reaction.

Rubbish - the GSM algorithm is designed to keep the best clues to speech at
the lowest data rate, and it is very good at it - people still sound clear
with their voice clearly recognisable on mobile to mobile calls. OTOH GSM
is poor for music.

> Note that the GSM codec can also be used in VoIP, it is the highest
> available compression and the only one usable on dial-up line.

Utter rubbish. Dial up lines are normally compressed with A-Law or mu-Law
depending on where in the world you are. There are other methods too such
as DACS and adaptive PCM.

>
> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you busy
> driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the conversation,
> while person on the other end of a mobile phone will start saying "Hello,
> hello, are you still there..." thus distracting you further.

It is the additional activity that is the problem. Last time I had a bump
which was my fault I was talking to two people in my car.

> Regards,
> Martin
>

Of course there is a quasi religious contingent who want vastly reduced
speed limits, zero alcohol and no use of phones in cars. Which would prefer
someone who rings ahead to say they will be late or someone who races to get
there on time?

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:13:25 -0000, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>
>"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>news:1195768184.59016.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>> As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road, you get
>> nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get £60 and three
>> points.
>>
>> Which is in fact the worse offence?
>
>The speeding as you are more likely to kill or seriously injure someone by
>going too fast.
>If you hit a car reversing out at 30 mph neither of you is likely to get
>hurt (which is why the police are seldom called to an accident btw).
>A speeder hitting a pedestrian at 38 mph will probably kill them.

You could easily kill someone by reversing out of a driveway, cyclists
and motorcyclists for example.

I think there should be more emphasis on avoiding collisions rather
than just having slower ones.

M

In message fi52en$j6c$1@news.datemas.de,
dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> Proclaimed from the tallest
tower:

> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1195768184.59016.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>> mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you
>>>>>> busy driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the
>>>>>> conversation, while person on the other end of a mobile phone
>>>>>> will start saying "Hello, hello, are you still there..." thus
>>>>>> distracting you further.
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
>>>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to
>>>>> keep his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>> I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a
>>>> traffic situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'
>>>>
>>>> Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to
>>>> if yu listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are
>>>> you there?' as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your
>>>> way passed assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on
>>>> their lipstick, or wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>>>
>>> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time the
>>> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
>>> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
>>> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other
>>> emergency.
>>
>> That's obviously right FOR YOU, but don't underestimate the pitch of
>> concentration and the ability to be simply rude to callers if the
>> traffic demands it that comes after years of high mileage driving.
>>
>> I WISH the police instead of prosecuting for technical offences,
>> would actually prosecute people who DO have accidents.
>
> The police do prosecute if there is evidence.
> It is easier to collect the evidence for speeding.
> I wish they would do "speeders" for the correct offence when they are
> snapped.. driving without due care and attention.
> If you deliberately drive past a camera too fast, that is speeding.
> If you don't see the camera that is without due care.
>
>> As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road,
>> you get nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get
>> £60 and three points.
>>
>> Which is in fact the worse offence?
>
> The speeding as you are more likely to kill or seriously injure
> someone by going too fast.
> If you hit a car reversing out at 30 mph neither of you is likely to
> get hurt (which is why the police are seldom called to an accident
> btw). A speeder hitting a pedestrian at 38 mph will probably kill them.
>
>>
>> But of course, which is easier to get an easy conviction on?
>
> Fortunately the worse offense of speeding.

I would argue that reversing out into the path of a moving vehicle shows
worse driving ability than slightly exceeding the speed limit.

The seriousness of speeding depends on where and when... Obviously, if
you're driving at 38 mph outside a school at 4 in the afternoon then you are
an idiot and deserve everything you get.
OTOH, if you are driving down an urban dual-carriageway with a 30 limit at
4am when there is clearly no pedestrians or other vehicles around (I have a
local road in mind here, it's well lit, and wide with good wide pavements.
You can see anyone likely to walk out into the road, or other vehicles from
about 1/4 mile away.) at 38 mph, you are posing very little danger to
anyone.
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TOidnQBWBo54m9ranZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com...
> In message fi52en$j6c$1@news.datemas.de,
> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> Proclaimed from the tallest
> tower:
>
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1195768184.59016.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>>> mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you
>>>>>>> busy driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the
>>>>>>> conversation, while person on the other end of a mobile phone
>>>>>>> will start saying "Hello, hello, are you still there..." thus
>>>>>>> distracting you further.
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
>>>>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>>>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to
>>>>>> keep his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>> I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a
>>>>> traffic situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'
>>>>>
>>>>> Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to
>>>>> if yu listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are
>>>>> you there?' as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your
>>>>> way passed assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on
>>>>> their lipstick, or wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>>>>
>>>> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time the
>>>> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
>>>> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
>>>> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other
>>>> emergency.
>>>
>>> That's obviously right FOR YOU, but don't underestimate the pitch of
>>> concentration and the ability to be simply rude to callers if the
>>> traffic demands it that comes after years of high mileage driving.
>>>
>>> I WISH the police instead of prosecuting for technical offences,
>>> would actually prosecute people who DO have accidents.
>>
>> The police do prosecute if there is evidence.
>> It is easier to collect the evidence for speeding.
>> I wish they would do "speeders" for the correct offence when they are
>> snapped.. driving without due care and attention.
>> If you deliberately drive past a camera too fast, that is speeding.
>> If you don't see the camera that is without due care.
>>
>>> As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road,
>>> you get nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get
>>> £60 and three points.
>>>
>>> Which is in fact the worse offence?
>>
>> The speeding as you are more likely to kill or seriously injure
>> someone by going too fast.
>> If you hit a car reversing out at 30 mph neither of you is likely to
>> get hurt (which is why the police are seldom called to an accident
>> btw). A speeder hitting a pedestrian at 38 mph will probably kill them.
>>
>>>
>>> But of course, which is easier to get an easy conviction on?
>>
>> Fortunately the worse offense of speeding.
>
> I would argue that reversing out into the path of a moving vehicle shows
> worse driving ability than slightly exceeding the speed limit.

So someone's concentration lapses for 1 second and they miss seeing you is
worse than someone who continuously fails to notice they are speeding for
mile after mile?
What makes you think it isn't the same idiot that is speeding that also
reverses out?
I see that speeders in general are poor drivers and that the more of them
removed from the road the better.

>
> The seriousness of speeding depends on where and when... Obviously, if
> you're driving at 38 mph outside a school at 4 in the afternoon then you
> are an idiot and deserve everything you get.
> OTOH, if you are driving down an urban dual-carriageway with a 30 limit at
> 4am when there is clearly no pedestrians or other vehicles around (I have
> a local road in mind here, it's well lit, and wide with good wide
> pavements. You can see anyone likely to walk out into the road, or other
> vehicles from about 1/4 mile away.) at 38 mph, you are posing very little
> danger to anyone.

But you generate a lot more noise pollution at a time when people are in
bed.
There are lots of reasons for speed limits and safety is just one.
Now behave and obey the speed limits as you obviously don't know why they
are there.

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:TOidnQBWBo54m9ranZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com...
>> In message fi52en$j6c$1@news.datemas.de,
>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> Proclaimed from the
>> tallest tower:
>>
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:1195768184.59016.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>>>> mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you
>>>>>>>> busy driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the
>>>>>>>> conversation, while person on the other end of a mobile phone
>>>>>>>> will start saying "Hello, hello, are you still there..." thus
>>>>>>>> distracting you further.
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
>>>>>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>>>>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to
>>>>>>> keep his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>> I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a
>>>>>> traffic situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to
>>>>>> if yu listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are
>>>>>> you there?' as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your
>>>>>> way passed assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on
>>>>>> their lipstick, or wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time the
>>>>> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
>>>>> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
>>>>> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other
>>>>> emergency.
>>>>
>>>> That's obviously right FOR YOU, but don't underestimate the pitch of
>>>> concentration and the ability to be simply rude to callers if the
>>>> traffic demands it that comes after years of high mileage driving.
>>>>
>>>> I WISH the police instead of prosecuting for technical offences,
>>>> would actually prosecute people who DO have accidents.
>>>
>>> The police do prosecute if there is evidence.
>>> It is easier to collect the evidence for speeding.
>>> I wish they would do "speeders" for the correct offence when they are
>>> snapped.. driving without due care and attention.
>>> If you deliberately drive past a camera too fast, that is speeding.
>>> If you don't see the camera that is without due care.
>>>
>>>> As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road,
>>>> you get nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get
>>>> £60 and three points.
>>>>
>>>> Which is in fact the worse offence?
>>>
>>> The speeding as you are more likely to kill or seriously injure
>>> someone by going too fast.
>>> If you hit a car reversing out at 30 mph neither of you is likely to
>>> get hurt (which is why the police are seldom called to an accident
>>> btw). A speeder hitting a pedestrian at 38 mph will probably kill them.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But of course, which is easier to get an easy conviction on?
>>>
>>> Fortunately the worse offense of speeding.
>>
>> I would argue that reversing out into the path of a moving vehicle
>> shows worse driving ability than slightly exceeding the speed limit.
>
> So someone's concentration lapses for 1 second and they miss seeing you
> is worse than someone who continuously fails to notice they are speeding
> for mile after mile?

Who says they failed to notice?

Is it better to watch the road, or the speedo?

> What makes you think it isn't the same idiot that is speeding that also
> reverses out?

Experience and observation.

> I see that speeders in general are poor drivers and that the more of
> them removed from the road the better.
>

No they are not. Some are. Some just know when its safe to go fast and
when it isn't. Somethnmg a spedo watchig pous twat never does till he
smahses into something afte a long skid on black ice.. "I wasn't
exceding the speed limit!!'

Not Nu labers speed limit prehaps, but you were exceeding Nature's..



>>
>> The seriousness of speeding depends on where and when... Obviously, if
>> you're driving at 38 mph outside a school at 4 in the afternoon then
>> you are an idiot and deserve everything you get.
>> OTOH, if you are driving down an urban dual-carriageway with a 30
>> limit at 4am when there is clearly no pedestrians or other vehicles
>> around (I have a local road in mind here, it's well lit, and wide with
>> good wide pavements. You can see anyone likely to walk out into the
>> road, or other vehicles from about 1/4 mile away.) at 38 mph, you are
>> posing very little danger to anyone.
>
> But you generate a lot more noise pollution at a time when people are in
> bed.
> There are lots of reasons for speed limits and safety is just one.

Tax revenue us the other.

> Now behave and obey the speed limits as you obviously don't know why
> they are there.

Neither, it seems, do you..;-)

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195852630.18221.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:TOidnQBWBo54m9ranZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com...
>>> In message fi52en$j6c$1@news.datemas.de,
>>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> Proclaimed from the tallest
>>> tower:
>>>
>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>>> news:1195768184.59016.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>>>>> mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you
>>>>>>>>> busy driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the
>>>>>>>>> conversation, while person on the other end of a mobile phone
>>>>>>>>> will start saying "Hello, hello, are you still there..." thus
>>>>>>>>> distracting you further.
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
>>>>>>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>>>>>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to
>>>>>>>> keep his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>> I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a
>>>>>>> traffic situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to
>>>>>>> if yu listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are
>>>>>>> you there?' as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your
>>>>>>> way passed assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on
>>>>>>> their lipstick, or wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time the
>>>>>> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
>>>>>> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
>>>>>> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other
>>>>>> emergency.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's obviously right FOR YOU, but don't underestimate the pitch of
>>>>> concentration and the ability to be simply rude to callers if the
>>>>> traffic demands it that comes after years of high mileage driving.
>>>>>
>>>>> I WISH the police instead of prosecuting for technical offences,
>>>>> would actually prosecute people who DO have accidents.
>>>>
>>>> The police do prosecute if there is evidence.
>>>> It is easier to collect the evidence for speeding.
>>>> I wish they would do "speeders" for the correct offence when they are
>>>> snapped.. driving without due care and attention.
>>>> If you deliberately drive past a camera too fast, that is speeding.
>>>> If you don't see the camera that is without due care.
>>>>
>>>>> As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road,
>>>>> you get nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get
>>>>> £60 and three points.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is in fact the worse offence?
>>>>
>>>> The speeding as you are more likely to kill or seriously injure
>>>> someone by going too fast.
>>>> If you hit a car reversing out at 30 mph neither of you is likely to
>>>> get hurt (which is why the police are seldom called to an accident
>>>> btw). A speeder hitting a pedestrian at 38 mph will probably kill them.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But of course, which is easier to get an easy conviction on?
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately the worse offense of speeding.
>>>
>>> I would argue that reversing out into the path of a moving vehicle shows
>>> worse driving ability than slightly exceeding the speed limit.
>>
>> So someone's concentration lapses for 1 second and they miss seeing you
>> is worse than someone who continuously fails to notice they are speeding
>> for mile after mile?
>
> Who says they failed to notice?
>
> Is it better to watch the road, or the speedo?

The same old cr@p from bad drivers.
Being able to observe the speed limits is a requirement for driving.
If you can't do it then you are a bad driver and should give it up or take
some lessons.

>> What makes you think it isn't the same idiot that is speeding that also
>> reverses out?
>
> Experience and observation.

Really? IME speeders are frequently involved in accidents I come across.
I know because they have previously gone past at excessive speed.


>> I see that speeders in general are poor drivers and that the more of them
>> removed from the road the better.
>>
>
> No they are not. Some are. Some just know when its safe to go fast and
> when it isn't. Somethnmg a spedo watchig pous twat never does till he
> smahses into something afte a long skid on black ice.. "I wasn't exceding
> the speed limit!!'

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.

>
> Not Nu labers speed limit prehaps, but you were exceeding Nature's..
>
>
>
>>>
>>> The seriousness of speeding depends on where and when... Obviously, if
>>> you're driving at 38 mph outside a school at 4 in the afternoon then you
>>> are an idiot and deserve everything you get.
>>> OTOH, if you are driving down an urban dual-carriageway with a 30 limit
>>> at 4am when there is clearly no pedestrians or other vehicles around (I
>>> have a local road in mind here, it's well lit, and wide with good wide
>>> pavements. You can see anyone likely to walk out into the road, or other
>>> vehicles from about 1/4 mile away.) at 38 mph, you are posing very
>>> little danger to anyone.
>>
>> But you generate a lot more noise pollution at a time when people are in
>> bed.
>> There are lots of reasons for speed limits and safety is just one.
>
> Tax revenue us the other.

How can it be? If you don't speed there is no revenue.

>
>> Now behave and obey the speed limits as you obviously don't know why they
>> are there.
>
> Neither, it seems, do you..;-)

You are just another bad driver trying to excuse himself.
Bad luck all you did is confirm that you are a bad driver.

Martin² wrote:

> You only turn you head when you had a good look and know it's safe, just
> pure self preservation !

If only this were true. Many people simply _have_ to make eye contact
when talking.

> Otherwise there would be millions of accidents every day.

Millions of near misses, and almost-accidents, anyway. Oh look...

"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.

Hmm.


Ivor

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1195852630.18221.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:TOidnQBWBo54m9ranZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> In message fi52en$j6c$1@news.datemas.de,
>>>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> Proclaimed from the
>>>> tallest tower:
>>>>
>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1195768184.59016.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>> mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you
>>>>>>>>>> busy driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the
>>>>>>>>>> conversation, while person on the other end of a mobile phone
>>>>>>>>>> will start saying "Hello, hello, are you still there..." thus
>>>>>>>>>> distracting you further.
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly turn
>>>>>>>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>>>>>>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to
>>>>>>>>> keep his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>> I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a
>>>>>>>> traffic situation coming up, wait till I get round this roundabout'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to
>>>>>>>> if yu listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are
>>>>>>>> you there?' as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your
>>>>>>>> way passed assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on
>>>>>>>> their lipstick, or wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time the
>>>>>>> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
>>>>>>> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
>>>>>>> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other
>>>>>>> emergency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's obviously right FOR YOU, but don't underestimate the pitch of
>>>>>> concentration and the ability to be simply rude to callers if the
>>>>>> traffic demands it that comes after years of high mileage driving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I WISH the police instead of prosecuting for technical offences,
>>>>>> would actually prosecute people who DO have accidents.
>>>>>
>>>>> The police do prosecute if there is evidence.
>>>>> It is easier to collect the evidence for speeding.
>>>>> I wish they would do "speeders" for the correct offence when they are
>>>>> snapped.. driving without due care and attention.
>>>>> If you deliberately drive past a camera too fast, that is speeding.
>>>>> If you don't see the camera that is without due care.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road,
>>>>>> you get nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get
>>>>>> £60 and three points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is in fact the worse offence?
>>>>>
>>>>> The speeding as you are more likely to kill or seriously injure
>>>>> someone by going too fast.
>>>>> If you hit a car reversing out at 30 mph neither of you is likely to
>>>>> get hurt (which is why the police are seldom called to an accident
>>>>> btw). A speeder hitting a pedestrian at 38 mph will probably kill
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But of course, which is easier to get an easy conviction on?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately the worse offense of speeding.
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that reversing out into the path of a moving vehicle
>>>> shows worse driving ability than slightly exceeding the speed limit.
>>>
>>> So someone's concentration lapses for 1 second and they miss seeing
>>> you is worse than someone who continuously fails to notice they are
>>> speeding for mile after mile?
>>
>> Who says they failed to notice?
>>
>> Is it better to watch the road, or the speedo?
>
> The same old cr@p from bad drivers.
> Being able to observe the speed limits is a requirement for driving.
Been able to judge when not it i alos a good thing.

> If you can't do it then you are a bad driver and should give it up or
> take some lessons.
>

Oh, I can do it. Probably better than anyone I know.

Sometimes I choose not to, that's all.

>>> What makes you think it isn't the same idiot that is speeding that
>>> also reverses out?
>>
>> Experience and observation.
>
> Really? IME speeders are frequently involved in accidents I come across.
> I know because they have previously gone past at excessive speed.
>
Oh dear oh dear.

Of all the accidents i have been involved in or witnessed, not one was
due to excessive speed.

All were due to stupidity, carelessness or inattention or some ignorance
and the misreading of a situation, or fatigue.

In fact I don't recall witnessing an accident off the race track at more
than than 30 miles an hour.

Oh tell a lie, TWICE I HAVE seen idiots write cars off..at high speed.
They were in both case unable to drive at that speed: in both cases I
tested the road afterwards to see the problem, and found that they were
simply inadequate drivers.

Or completely bananas.

Neither was killed. The fatal accident I witnessed ws sub 30mph. The
last me i saw a car roll, it was because the car in front - both driving
at safe sub limit speed and spacing - masked a chicane and that is
what cause the next car to overturn.

Lets recount the rest. EX GFS sister smashed pelvis as someone hit the
side of her car jumping a red at 25mph. HE ws soing about 10mph.

Friend of friend in coma for 2 days after piece of brake drum was thrown
up by lorry (or dropped from bridge) into windscreen. Knocked her out.
Doing about 50 on a unlimited road.

Person on tractor dong 12mph on narrow country road hit by someone
doing about 45mph. No speed limit, but a stupid speed for that stretch.
He shuld have waitea mile: there you can do 80...

...similar sitiution on anther blind S bend.
No speed limit.

...standng hitching on a ruondabout near bristol..car sails out of side
turning and hits car on roundabout. Neither doing more than 30mph. No
limit. Sunday afternoon kids in te car, turs over,. losty of blood but
all walking wounded. Simply not looking where she was going..

...deer jumps in front of Ford Fiesta. Dishonorable draw. Both beyond
repair. Driver, not more than 45mph max on 60 limit road is fine, if a
little upset.

Situation where my car has suffered most damage? Tesco's car park.

Three times in 42 yrs I have ended up rendering a car beyond repair.

First time, bridge washed away,car with heavy load and rear wheel drive
hits wet metal plate of across temporary bridge and rest of bridge is
muddy planks. doing sub 10mph the back just steps out. I was only
18..later I would have caught it. Lots of ben wing, but thats all, but
it still wasn;t worth fixing - old.

Secind tme, 20 year after, after 3 x18 hour working days in succession,
road up, 2 a.m.. no markings, night time and road surface all gravel.
Doing 35mph and couldn't see the road edge, spun on the gravel. Too
tired to react fast enough. Hit edge of road, broke rear axle and into
ditch. Great mistake there was driving too slow and thinking I wouldn't
have to concentrate. Should have been going faster

Third time..very stressed out, just left house, cut a corner whilst
fidling with tape player, as the road in front was fully visible and you
can see for miles..and hit the car that had been behind the bank of
trees the first time I looked and the windscreen pillar the second time.

ne again fatigue, stress and lack of concetration.

And VERY low speed lulling me into a sense of security and laziness.

Nope. I am a lot safer travelling faster. I've AVERAGED over 100mph
across Germany....you HAVE to be on the ball..in a way hat Mrs Mop
bumbling down to Tescos at 35mph in the 30mph zone ("I am a safe driver,
I never exceed speed limits": "Bollocks I've followed you all the way
mate")neer des.

If all the people I knw who Ive been driven by, who claim they never
exceed speed limits had give me quid for every time they did, I would
be a rich man..

Actually, I am the reverse. I generally adhere rigidly to them since you
never know when PC plod is about making trouble. And its a nice little
challenge to do it..sharpens up the skills. But I don't claim to be what
I ain't. I will break them without a second thought if there is no
reason to keep to them and no chance of getting caught and I want to
shrten my journey time..


There is nothing magical that makes 29mph safe and 31mph deadly. If you
think that what makes safe driver is only keeping to speed limits, then
please don't come anywhere near me.

You haven't even BEGUN to learn to drive yet.



>
>>> I see that speeders in general are poor drivers and that the more of
>>> them removed from the road the better.
>>>
>>
>> No they are not. Some are. Some just know when its safe to go fast and
>> when it isn't. Somethnmg a spedo watchig pous twat never does till he
>> smahses into something afte a long skid on black ice.. "I wasn't
>> exceding the speed limit!!'
>
> Speed limits are variable, they are the maximum safe speed up to the
> legal limit.

How can a variable be a maximum?


> You should know that unless you are a bad driver.
>

You are obviously a very inexperienced one.


>>
>> Not Nu labers speed limit prehaps, but you were exceeding Nature's..
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> The seriousness of speeding depends on where and when... Obviously,
>>>> if you're driving at 38 mph outside a school at 4 in the afternoon
>>>> then you are an idiot and deserve everything you get.
>>>> OTOH, if you are driving down an urban dual-carriageway with a 30
>>>> limit at 4am when there is clearly no pedestrians or other vehicles
>>>> around (I have a local road in mind here, it's well lit, and wide
>>>> with good wide pavements. You can see anyone likely to walk out into
>>>> the road, or other vehicles from about 1/4 mile away.) at 38 mph,
>>>> you are posing very little danger to anyone.
>>>
>>> But you generate a lot more noise pollution at a time when people are
>>> in bed.
>>> There are lots of reasons for speed limits and safety is just one.
>>
>> Tax revenue us the other.
>
> How can it be? If you don't speed there is no revenue.
>

Everyone does. Including you.

Since you never noticed yourself doing it, you thought you didn't.

Unless you are Mr Supermam with bionic radar eyes, or crawl around at
20mph all the time (in itself an accident waiting to happen)or drive
only watching your (not very accurate) speedo, you have no way to tell
if you have or haven't exceeded a sped limit.


>>
>>> Now behave and obey the speed limits as you obviously don't know why
>>> they are there.
>>
>> Neither, it seems, do you..;-)
>
> You are just another bad driver trying to excuse himself.
> Bad luck all you did is confirm that you are a bad driver.

No, You are the bad dishonest driver. I am the exerienced honest one.

I drive to survice, and get were I am going, and not hurt ther people
while doing it. NOT by a set of rules set up t make teh government oney
ad act as a rouh gyuide for complete numpties.

Mostly the res make good sense, and the two ways of behaving coincide.
Sometimes they do't, and thats when i pik te course of survival over th
erile book.

I NEVER hesitate to cross a double white line if a tree falls across my
side of the road.

I never hesitate to break a speed limit if it gets me past a drunken
driver doing 25mph.

I NEVR hesitate to slow dw well ahead of a roundabout just afre ts
raned, knowing that all te 'law abiding' drives behind me will curse and
swear that I am going too slow..but don't skid on it..


I do 25mph past the school gates at 4pm and 45mph past them at 4 a.m.

I slow down for woods. Deer live in woods. Wood make dead leaves in
autumn. Wet dead leaves are as good as snow and nearluy s oo as black
ice for doing pirouettes.I don't slow down for fields. No one ever hit a
field head on.

If some numpty is doing 60 in the outside lane, i'll do 80 inside them
to get past QUICKLY. Anyone as dumb as that is likely to do almost
*anything*.In the country, if the birds fly up, I know there's a car
round the corner. In town you see em in the reflections in the shop windows.

When I am following someone, I watch their wheel tracks. If they are
wandering from left to right, they are crap drivers, drunk or they are
not paying attention or their car is in dangerous state. First chance I
am past them. To hell with the limits. It's my life and people like that
are out to kill you. They just don't know it.

Whe I am monetarily blinded by spray passing a 30 tonner in the rain, I
DON'T slam on my brakes. I have visualised the road BEFORE and marked
every car. They cant just appear in front of you by magic, just because
you can't see. Ditto headlights at night.

You wont find any of that in the highway code, or be taught any of it on
anything less than an advanced driving course. Being a good driver is a
whole lot more than passing a test and 'keeping to the speed limits'

Try 60 miles of unlit unsurfaced dirt road prone to wandering big game
in Africa..studded with potholes and blind umarked bends with steep
drops..at night.

Or indeed 60 miles over 6" of fresh snow in rear wheel drive car.

Or 24 hours with only catnaps across Europe..in fog.

Then I might START to listen.

..






\

> I never hesitate to break a speed limit if it gets me past a drunken
> driver doing 25mph.

I got pulled doing ~43mph in what turned out to be a 30mph stretch of
dual carriageway (it was a badly signed change of speed, and I truly
didn't know the limit dropped despite having driven it for a couple of
years - and neither did any of my colleagues who do the same stretch
as part of their daily commute)

I'd speeded up to get clear of someone weaving all over the road, but
as nice* Mr Plod said, I could have achieved the same by slowing down.

*just "advised" me to keep an eye out for speed changes :-)

The correct signage was actually in place, but hidden amongst other
signage at the juntion where it dropped, which made it almost
impossible to spot (unless you were stopped in a queue of traffic at
lights, right next to the damn thing)

The junction has since been remodelled and has much clearer signage
now (and considerably larger than normal signs to indicate the lower
speed), so I suppose enough people must have said the same for it to
have been an issue.

"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.
My logic says nothing of the sort.
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.
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?
How do you know?
Time for you to do a refresher IMO.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195868913.28352.0@damia.uk.clara.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1195852630.18221.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:TOidnQBWBo54m9ranZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> In message fi52en$j6c$1@news.datemas.de,
>>>>> dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> Proclaimed from the
>>>>> tallest tower:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1195768184.59016.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>>>>>>> mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:08:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Martin² wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The other problem is that passenger(s) is (are) aware when you
>>>>>>>>>>> busy driving (on a junction, etc) and will naturally pause the
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, while person on the other end of a mobile phone
>>>>>>>>>>> will start saying "Hello, hello, are you still there..." thus
>>>>>>>>>>> distracting you further.
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>> ...and on the other side of the coin, many drivers constantly
>>>>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>>>>> their heads during a face-to-face conversation to maintain eye
>>>>>>>>>> contact, whereas a call on a hands free kit allows the driver to
>>>>>>>>>> keep his eyes on the road at all times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>> I used hands free quite a bit. I used to say 'hang on, got a
>>>>>>>>> traffic situation coming up, wait till I get round this
>>>>>>>>> roundabout'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having mindless babble coming at you is something you get use to
>>>>>>>>> if yu listen to eh radio: its the other person going 'hello, are
>>>>>>>>> you there?' as you skilfully control a power slide and weave your
>>>>>>>>> way passed assorted zombies siting looking stupid, putting on
>>>>>>>>> their lipstick, or wiping the sick off their children's mouths..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think it is time
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> police cracked down on mobile users whilst they are driving I never
>>>>>>>> have my phone switched on while I am driving and the only reason I
>>>>>>>> have take with me is in case of a brake down or some other
>>>>>>>> emergency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's obviously right FOR YOU, but don't underestimate the pitch of
>>>>>>> concentration and the ability to be simply rude to callers if the
>>>>>>> traffic demands it that comes after years of high mileage driving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I WISH the police instead of prosecuting for technical offences,
>>>>>>> would actually prosecute people who DO have accidents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The police do prosecute if there is evidence.
>>>>>> It is easier to collect the evidence for speeding.
>>>>>> I wish they would do "speeders" for the correct offence when they are
>>>>>> snapped.. driving without due care and attention.
>>>>>> If you deliberately drive past a camera too fast, that is speeding.
>>>>>> If you don't see the camera that is without due care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As it is, if you reverse out into a car coming along a main road,
>>>>>>> you get nothing. If you do 38mph down te same road at 3 a.m. you get
>>>>>>> £60 and three points.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is in fact the worse offence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The speeding as you are more likely to kill or seriously injure
>>>>>> someone by going too fast.
>>>>>> If you hit a car reversing out at 30 mph neither of you is likely to
>>>>>> get hurt (which is why the police are seldom called to an accident
>>>>>> btw). A speeder hitting a pedestrian at 38 mph will probably kill
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But of course, which is easier to get an easy conviction on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fortunately the worse offense of speeding.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would argue that reversing out into the path of a moving vehicle
>>>>> shows worse driving ability than slightly exceeding the speed limit.
>>>>
>>>> So someone's concentration lapses for 1 second and they miss seeing you
>>>> is worse than someone who continuously fails to notice they are
>>>> speeding for mile after mile?
>>>
>>> Who says they failed to notice?
>>>
>>> Is it better to watch the road, or the speedo?
>>
>> The same old cr@p from bad drivers.
>> Being able to observe the speed limits is a requirement for driving.
> Been able to judge when not it i alos a good thing.
>
>> If you can't do it then you are a bad driver and should give it up or
>> take some lessons.
>>
>
> Oh, I can do it. Probably better than anyone I know.
>
> Sometimes I choose not to, that's all.
>
>>>> What makes you think it isn't the same idiot that is speeding that also
>>>> reverses out?
>>>
>>> Experience and observation.
>>
>> Really? IME speeders are frequently involved in accidents I come across.
>> I know because they have previously gone past at excessive speed.
>>
> Oh dear oh dear.
>
> Of all the accidents i have been involved in or witnessed, not one was due
> to excessive speed.
>
> All were due to stupidity, carelessness or inattention or some ignorance
> and the misreading of a situation, or fatigue.
>
> In fact I don't recall witnessing an accident off the race track at more
> than than 30 miles an hour.
>
> Oh tell a lie, TWICE I HAVE seen idiots write cars off..at high speed.
> They were in both case unable to drive at that speed: in both cases I
> tested the road afterwards to see the problem, and found that they were
> simply inadequate drivers.
>
> Or completely bananas.
>
> Neither was killed. The fatal accident I witnessed ws sub 30mph. The last
> me i saw a car roll, it was because the car in front - both driving at
> safe sub limit speed and spacing - masked a chicane and that is what
> cause the next car to overturn.
>
> Lets recount the rest. EX GFS sister smashed pelvis as someone hit the
> side of her car jumping a red at 25mph. HE ws soing about 10mph.
>
> Friend of friend in coma for 2 days after piece of brake drum was thrown
> up by lorry (or dropped from bridge) into windscreen. Knocked her out.
> Doing about 50 on a unlimited road.
>
> Person on tractor dong 12mph on narrow country road hit by someone doing
> about 45mph. No speed limit, but a stupid speed for that stretch. He shuld
> have waitea mile: there you can do 80...
>
> ..similar sitiution on anther blind S bend.
> No speed limit.
>
> ..standng hitching on a ruondabout near bristol..car sails out of side
> turning and hits car on roundabout. Neither doing more than 30mph. No
> limit. Sunday afternoon kids in te car, turs over,. losty of blood but all
> walking wounded. Simply not looking where she was going..
>
> ..deer jumps in front of Ford Fiesta. Dishonorable draw. Both beyond
> repair. Driver, not more than 45mph max on 60 limit road is fine, if a
> little upset.
>
> Situation where my car has suffered most damage? Tesco's car park.
>
> Three times in 42 yrs I have ended up rendering a car beyond repair.
>
> First time, bridge washed away,car with heavy load and rear wheel drive
> hits wet metal plate of across temporary bridge and rest of bridge is
> muddy planks. doing sub 10mph the back just steps out. I was only
> 18..later I would have caught it. Lots of ben wing, but thats all, but it
> still wasn;t worth fixing - old.
>
> Secind tme, 20 year after, after 3 x18 hour working days in succession,
> road up, 2 a.m.. no markings, night time and road surface all gravel.
> Doing 35mph and couldn't see the road edge, spun on the gravel. Too tired
> to react fast enough. Hit edge of road, broke rear axle and into ditch.
> Great mistake there was driving too slow and thinking I wouldn't have to
> concentrate. Should have been going faster
>
> Third time..very stressed out, just left house, cut a corner whilst
> fidling with tape player, as the road in front was fully visible and you
> can see for miles..and hit the car that had been behind the bank of trees
> the first time I looked and the windscreen pillar the second time.
>
> ne again fatigue, stress and lack of concetration.
>
> And VERY low speed lulling me into a sense of security and laziness.
>
> Nope. I am a lot safer travelling faster. I've AVERAGED over 100mph across
> Germany....you HAVE to be on the ball..in a way hat Mrs Mop bumbling down
> to Tescos at 35mph in the 30mph zone ("I am a safe driver, I never exceed
> speed limits": "Bollocks I've followed you all the way mate")neer des.
>
> If all the people I knw who Ive been driven by, who claim they never
> exceed speed limits had give me quid for every time they did, I would be
> a rich man..
>
> Actually, I am the reverse. I generally adhere rigidly to them since you
> never know when PC plod is about making trouble. And its a nice little
> challenge to do it..sharpens up the skills. But I don't claim to be what I
> ain't. I will break them without a second thought if there is no reason to
> keep to them and no chance of getting caught and I want to shrten my
> journey time..
>
>
> There is nothing magical that makes 29mph safe and 31mph deadly. If you
> think that what makes safe driver is only keeping to speed limits, then
> please don't come anywhere near me.
>
> You haven't even BEGUN to learn to drive yet.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> I see that speeders in general are poor drivers and that the more of
>>>> them removed from the road the better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No they are not. Some are. Some just know when its safe to go fast and
>>> when it isn't. Somethnmg a spedo watchig pous twat never does till he
>>> smahses into something afte a long skid on black ice.. "I wasn't
>>> exceding the speed limit!!'
>>
>> Speed limits are variable, they are the maximum safe speed up to the
>> legal limit.
>
> How can a variable be a maximum?
>
>
>> You should know that unless you are a bad driver.
>>
>
> You are obviously a very inexperienced one.
>
>
>>>
>>> Not Nu labers speed limit prehaps, but you were exceeding Nature's..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The seriousness of speeding depends on where and when... Obviously, if
>>>>> you're driving at 38 mph outside a school at 4 in the afternoon then
>>>>> you are an idiot and deserve everything you get.
>>>>> OTOH, if you are driving down an urban dual-carriageway with a 30
>>>>> limit at 4am when there is clearly no pedestrians or other vehicles
>>>>> around (I have a local road in mind here, it's well lit, and wide with
>>>>> good wide pavements. You can see anyone likely to walk out into the
>>>>> road, or other vehicles from about 1/4 mile away.) at 38 mph, you are
>>>>> posing very little danger to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> But you generate a lot more noise pollution at a time when people are
>>>> in bed.
>>>> There are lots of reasons for speed limits and safety is just one.
>>>
>>> Tax revenue us the other.
>>
>> How can it be? If you don't speed there is no revenue.
>>
>
> Everyone does. Including you.
>
> Since you never noticed yourself doing it, you thought you didn't.
>
> Unless you are Mr Supermam with bionic radar eyes, or crawl around at
> 20mph all the time (in itself an accident waiting to happen)or drive only
> watching your (not very accurate) speedo, you have no way to tell if you
> have or haven't exceeded a sped limit.

Do you want a bet on that?
If the police ever try to prosecute me for speeding they are going to have
to disprove my record of speed.
There are lots of ways to record your speed, tachographs are a very common
one.


You are the sort of driver that should have a driver black box fitted so you
can be dealt with as required.
I remember you previous posts where you admitted how many accidents you have
had even though you are a good driver.
I also remember you saying it was impossible for anyone to have a no
accidents in the same period you have had several.
Basically you are a poor driver and suffer fro delusions that make you think
you are really good despite the record.
You then accuse others of lying when they have a better record.
You will provide the evidence that what I say is true later.

>>>> Now behave and obey the speed limits as you obviously don't know why
>>>> they are there.
>>>
>>> Neither, it seems, do you..;-)
>>
>> You are just another bad driver trying to excuse himself.
>> Bad luck all you did is confirm that you are a bad driver.
>
> No, You are the bad dishonest driver. I am the exerienced honest one.
>
> I drive to survice, and get were I am going, and not hurt ther people
> while doing it. NOT by a set of rules set up t make teh government oney ad
> act as a rouh gyuide for complete numpties.
>
> Mostly the res make good sense, and the two ways of behaving coincide.
> Sometimes they do't, and thats when i pik te course of survival over th
> erile book.
>
> I NEVER hesitate to cross a double white line if a tree falls across my
> side of the road.
>
> I never hesitate to break a speed limit if it gets me past a drunken
> driver doing 25mph.
>
> I NEVR hesitate to slow dw well ahead of a roundabout just afre ts raned,
> knowing that all te 'law abiding' drives behind me will curse and swear
> that I am going too slow..but don't skid on it..
>
>
> I do 25mph past the school gates at 4pm and 45mph past them at 4 a.m.
>
> I slow down for woods. Deer live in woods. Wood make dead leaves in
> autumn. Wet dead leaves are as good as snow and nearluy s oo as black ice
> for doing pirouettes.I don't slow down for fields. No one ever hit a field
> head on.
>
> If some numpty is doing 60 in the outside lane, i'll do 80 inside them to
> get past QUICKLY. Anyone as dumb as that is likely to do almost
> *anything*.In the country, if the birds fly up, I know there's a car round
> the corner. In town you see em in the reflections in the shop windows.
>
> When I am following someone, I watch their wheel tracks. If they are
> wandering from left to right, they are crap drivers, drunk or they are not
> paying attention or their car is in dangerous state. First chance I am
> past them. To hell with the limits. It's my life and people like that are
> out to kill you. They just don't know it.
>
> Whe I am monetarily blinded by spray passing a 30 tonner in the rain, I
> DON'T slam on my brakes. I have visualised the road BEFORE and marked
> every car. They cant just appear in front of you by magic, just because
> you can't see. Ditto headlights at night.
>
> You wont find any of that in the highway code, or be taught any of it on
> anything less than an advanced driving course. Being a good driver is a
> whole lot more than passing a test and 'keeping to the speed limits'
>
> Try 60 miles of unlit unsurfaced dirt road prone to wandering big game in
> Africa..studded with potholes and blind umarked bends with steep drops..at
> night.
>
> Or indeed 60 miles over 6" of fresh snow in rear wheel drive car.
>
> Or 24 hours with only catnaps across Europe..in fog.
>
> Then I might START to listen.
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> \
>
>
>

"Colin Wilson" <REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.c o.uk> wrote
in message news:MPG.21b1a3bb27bf48f98a43c@news.individual.net ...
>> I never hesitate to break a speed limit if it gets me past a drunken
>> driver doing 25mph.
>
> I got pulled doing ~43mph in what turned out to be a 30mph stretch of
> dual carriageway (it was a badly signed change of speed, and I truly
> didn't know the limit dropped despite having driven it for a couple of
> years - and neither did any of my colleagues who do the same stretch
> as part of their daily commute)
>
> I'd speeded up to get clear of someone weaving all over the road, but
> as nice* Mr Plod said, I could have achieved the same by slowing down.
>
> *just "advised" me to keep an eye out for speed changes :-)
>
> The correct signage was actually in place, but hidden amongst other
> signage at the juntion where it dropped, which made it almost
> impossible to spot (unless you were stopped in a queue of traffic at
> lights, right next to the damn thing)
>
> The junction has since been remodelled and has much clearer signage
> now (and considerably larger than normal signs to indicate the lower
> speed), so I suppose enough people must have said the same for it to
> have been an issue.

Signs are usually easy to get fixed.
I have had a few moved myself as they were not very clear.
I normally stay on the safe side and still have a clean green license.

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message

> Do you want a bet on that?
> If the police ever try to prosecute me for speeding they are going to
> have to disprove my record of speed.
> There are lots of ways to record your speed, tachographs are a very
> common one.
>
Not on family cars thy ai'nt. Commercial driving is a different ballgame
entrely.

>
> You are the sort of driver that should have a driver black box fitted so
> you can be dealt with as required.

Hm.

> I remember you previous posts where you admitted how many accidents you
> have had even though you are a good driver.

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..

Now I COULD have spun that and said 'not a single accident in 22 years
of driving'

But I didn't.

I cold them all. Even the ones that happened when I wsn;t IN the car and
no be lee ws.

Yesterday, my wifes car had a knife through a tyre in a supermarket car
park. No, I wasn't driving it.

How long have you been driving? the roads AND cars are a different story
to what they were then..



> I also remember you saying it was impossible for anyone to have a no
> accidents in the same period you have had several.

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?

Or scrape my car in Tescos? what planet are you ON.

All I can say is that the vast majority of car damage has occurred at
under 10mph.

And NONE over 40mph, and NONE when 'exceeding a speed limit'

And I have never ever injured a passenger or any other road user.

Although I have been injured twice myself, very slightly, when I wasn;t
driving..


> Basically you are a poor driver and suffer fro delusions that make you
> think you are really good despite the record.
> You then accuse others of lying when they have a better record.
> You will provide the evidence that what I say is true later.
>

I honestly don't care.

Either you take responsibility for your driving, in which case you
sooner or later come to the conclusion that you can assess the immediate
situation better than a government official in whitehall could 15 years
ago when he 'set the limit' , or you belong to the school of 'if you
keep to the law you will be safe'

Bollocks.

You cannot account for other peoples stupidity, or drastically bad road
conditions - you have to be ready for it.

Sticking rigidly to a rule book does NOT get you out of trouble that
other people or natural forces can get you into.

Speed limits are a good guide, but a poor master.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195916859.10673.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>
>> Do you want a bet on that?
>> If the police ever try to prosecute me for speeding they are going to
>> have to disprove my record of speed.
>> There are lots of ways to record your speed, tachographs are a very
>> common one.
>>
> Not on family cars thy ai'nt. Commercial driving is a different ballgame
> entrely.

Did I say I was using a tachograph?
I only gave it as an example.
Mine is some software that logs location, speed, direction and time using a
gps.
And no I don't have a speed camera database running on it as they are
totally unnecessary to avoid cameras and speed traps.

>> You are the sort of driver that should have a driver black box fitted so
>> you can be dealt with as required.
>
> Hm.
>
>> I remember you previous posts where you admitted how many accidents you
>> have had even though you are a good driver.
>
> 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?

> Now I COULD have spun that and said 'not a single accident in 22 years of
> driving'
>
> But I didn't.

>
> I cold them all. Even the ones that happened when I wsn;t IN the car and
> no be lee ws.
>
> Yesterday, my wifes car had a knife through a tyre in a supermarket car
> park. No, I wasn't driving it.
>
> How long have you been driving? the roads AND cars are a different story
> to what they were then..
>
>
>
>> I also remember you saying it was impossible for anyone to have a no
>> accidents in the same period you have had several.
>
> 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.
Your expectations are too low and thus your level of achievement.
(Now you will start the usual calling me a liar so as to prop up your
world.)

>
> Or scrape my car in Tescos? what planet are you ON.
>
> All I can say is that the vast majority of car damage has occurred at
> under 10mph.
>
> And NONE over 40mph, and NONE when 'exceeding a speed limit'
>
> And I have never ever injured a passenger or any other road user.
>
> Although I have been injured twice myself, very slightly, when I wasn;t
> driving..
>
>
>> Basically you are a poor driver and suffer fro delusions that make you
>> think you are really good despite the record.
>> You then accuse others of lying when they have a better record.
>> You will provide the evidence that what I say is true later.
>>
>
> I honestly don't care.
>
> Either you take responsibility for your driving, in which case you sooner
> or later come to the conclusion that you can assess the immediate
> situation better than a government official in whitehall could 15 years
> ago when he 'set the limit' , or you belong to the school of 'if you keep
> to the law you will be safe'
>
> Bollocks.
>
> You cannot account for other peoples stupidity, or drastically bad road
> conditions - you have to be ready for it.
>
> Sticking rigidly to a rule book does NOT get you out of trouble that other
> people or natural forces can get you into.
>
> Speed limits are a good guide, but a poor master.

No, speed limits are a limit not a minimum, you cannot claim that they make
you drive too fast for the situation.
Name one occasion where driving faster than the speed limit would prevent an
accident that driving more carefully wouldn't.
Like I said you are a poor driver and its your attitude that is the biggest
problem.
>

"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.

: : 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..?

: : 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.

: : How do you know?
: : Time for you to do a refresher IMO.

I didn't ask for your opinion.

Ivor

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
message news:fi9mcs$gni$1@news.datemas.de

[snip]

: : Name one occasion where driving faster than the speed
: : limit would prevent an accident that driving more
: : carefully wouldn't.

If he can't, I will.

Some 20-odd years ago I was making my way home out of a major town centre
where the limit is, quite rightly, 30mph.

I came to an island, the first exit of which takes you onto a flyover that
leads down to a motorway junction. This was my route, so I took it and
found myself behind a queue of cars doing well below the limit. Being on a
motorcycle, I moved into the right hand lane of the dual carriageway
(which was empty, or so I thought) and began overtaking the cars.

As I was just about level with the lead car in the queue, I became aware
of some white lights ahead of me. Now it was late in the day and just
starting to get dark, not quite dark enough for headlights, but not full
daylight. It soon dawned on me that the white lights I could see ahead
were *reversing* lights, on a car that was indeed reversing down the
flyover in my direction, in the offside lane of the dual carriageway..!

I knocked the bike down a gear or two and slammed open the throttle,
cutting up the car to the left of me something terrible, but I can assure
you that had I not done so, exceeding the limit in the process, I would
have been embedded in the rear window of the idiot coming the wrong way
towards me. If I had been in a car and not on a bike, I would have stood
no chance.


Ivor

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.

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?
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'


Yeah. Right.

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fi9mcs$gni$1@news.datemas.de
>
> [snip]
>
> : : Name one occasion where driving faster than the speed
> : : limit would prevent an accident that driving more
> : : carefully wouldn't.
>
> If he can't, I will.
>
> Some 20-odd years ago I was making my way home out of a major town
> centre where the limit is, quite rightly, 30mph.
>
> I came to an island, the first exit of which takes you onto a flyover
> that leads down to a motorway junction. This was my route, so I took it
> and found myself behind a queue of cars doing well below the limit.
> Being on a motorcycle, I moved into the right hand lane of the dual
> carriageway (which was empty, or so I thought) and began overtaking the
> cars.
>
> As I was just about level with the lead car in the queue, I became aware
> of some white lights ahead of me. Now it was late in the day and just
> starting to get dark, not quite dark enough for headlights, but not full
> daylight. It soon dawned on me that the white lights I could see ahead
> were *reversing* lights, on a car that was indeed reversing down the
> flyover in my direction, in the offside lane of the dual carriageway..!
>
> I knocked the bike down a gear or two and slammed open the throttle,
> cutting up the car to the left of me something terrible, but I can
> assure you that had I not done so, exceeding the limit in the process, I
> would have been embedded in the rear window of the idiot coming the
> wrong way towards me. If I had been in a car and not on a bike, I would
> have stood no chance.
>
>

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, and most people these days never do it except
on a dual carriageway..theoretically you want to be doing about 30mph
more than what you are overtaking. More than that and you risk some
idiot pulling out in front of you who hasn't used his mirrors, less than
that and you take far too long and too much road to be in an exposed
position.


You remind of a person I one knew..'I was on me bike, and basically
pratting about, and I saw this wall and knew I'd never make the corner.
Basically I thought I was dead. I thought, to hell with it - and opened
her wide up and hit the wall at 70mph. The bike stayed there, and I flew
over and landed on some brush the other side. Bike was a write off but
just broke me collarbone'

Not a technique I'd recommend mind you;-)

Defensive driving consist in accepting the fact that the moment you
start the engine, you are at risk of killing someone and being killed by
someone.

Limiting your speed is only a *very* small part of reducing that risk,
but it is the easiest thing to enforce by mindless cameras. Hence the fuss.

What worries me, is that by focussing on one aspect - the speed you
drive at - people are hoodwinked into thinking they are good drivers
when they are not. Just because hey think they are keeping to the speed
limits.Give me someone doing 50mph in a 30 limit who knows it than some
idiot who drives across a main road at 5mph because he couldn't remember
where the brake pedal was. Yes..I've heard that excuse before.

AND it takes no account of the car either. I felt safer in the old jag
doing 120 than in the camper doing 55..takes a similar distance to stop,
too... and uses a similar amount of fuel. Oh well, at least you can
sleep in it and put a couple of dogs in the back, and cook a decent meal
and have a kip in a lay-by. Doesn't get you there as fast tho :-)









> Ivor
>

"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.

>
> : : 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.

Your logic is flawed and you are trying to make out it isn't.

>
> : : 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.

>
> : : 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.

>
> Ivor
>

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5qr5ojF11e21mU1@mid.individual.net...
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in
> message news:fi9mcs$gni$1@news.datemas.de
>
> [snip]
>
> : : Name one occasion where driving faster than the speed
> : : limit would prevent an accident that driving more
> : : carefully wouldn't.
>
> If he can't, I will.
>
> Some 20-odd years ago I was making my way home out of a major town centre
> where the limit is, quite rightly, 30mph.
>
> I came to an island, the first exit of which takes you onto a flyover that
> leads down to a motorway junction. This was my route, so I took it and
> found myself behind a queue of cars doing well below the limit. Being on a
> motorcycle, I moved into the right hand lane of the dual carriageway
> (which was empty, or so I thought) and began overtaking the cars.
>
> As I was just about level with the lead car in the queue, I became aware
> of some white lights ahead of me. Now it was late in the day and just
> starting to get dark, not quite dark enough for headlights, but not full
> daylight. It soon dawned on me that the white lights I could see ahead
> were *reversing* lights, on a car that was indeed reversing down the
> flyover in my direction, in the offside lane of the dual carriageway..!
>
> I knocked the bike down a gear or two and slammed open the throttle,
> cutting up the car to the left of me something terrible, but I can assure
> you that had I not done so, exceeding the limit in the process, I would
> have been embedded in the rear window of the idiot coming the wrong way
> towards me. If I had been in a car and not on a bike, I would have stood
> no chance.
>
>
> Ivor
>

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?

"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.

> and most people these days never do it except on a dual
> carriageway..theoretically you want to be doing about 30mph more than what
> you are overtaking. More than that and you risk some idiot pulling out in
> front of you who hasn't used his mirrors, less than that and you take far
> too long and too much road to be in an exposed position.

That is a very limited view.. you shouldn't have hard rules regarding how
fast you need to be doing to overtake.

> You remind of a person I one knew..'I was on me bike, and basically
> pratting about, and I saw this wall and knew I'd never make the corner.
> Basically I thought I was dead. I thought, to hell with it - and opened
> her wide up and hit the wall at 70mph. The bike stayed there, and I flew
> over and landed on some brush the other side. Bike was a write off but
> just broke me collarbone'
>
> Not a technique I'd recommend mind you;-)
>
> Defensive driving consist in accepting the fact that the moment you start
> the engine, you are at risk of killing someone and being killed by
> someone.
>
> Limiting your speed is only a *very* small part of reducing that risk, but
> it is the easiest thing to enforce by mindless cameras. Hence the fuss.
>
> What worries me, is that by focussing on one aspect - the speed you drive
> at - people are hoodwinked into thinking they are good drivers when they
> are not. Just because hey think they are keeping to the speed limits.Give
> me someone doing 50mph in a 30 limit who knows it than some idiot who
> drives across a main road at 5mph because he couldn't remember where the
> brake pedal was. Yes..I've heard that excuse before.
>
> AND it takes no account of the car either. I felt safer in the old jag
> doing 120 than in the camper doing 55..takes a similar distance to stop,
> too... and uses a similar amount of fuel. Oh well, at least you can sleep
> in it and put a couple of dogs in the back, and cook a decent meal and
> have a kip in a lay-by. Doesn't get you there as fast tho :-)

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.

So was your camper an MOT failure then?

BTW can you show me a road in the UK where taking more than 5 seconds to
stop is safe?
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.