FAO Simon Mason

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

... We call those locations "roads" (to distinguish them form "race
tracks").

Have you thought of making that point to those responsible for organising a
bike race along the A1 last weekend?

Brimstone wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
I'm not arguing with the facts but with the emotive stance that some
posters adopt.
A death of a child is a very emotional subject, statistics are not. My
nephew was killed by a car and it has destroyed the lives of my Aunt
and Uncle.

I had to be resuscitated after a car hit me a month after my twenty-first
birthday. The consequences have destroyed my life. I can detach emotion from
facts.

Bad luck, Brim.

I genuinely didn't know that.

Brimstone wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:
"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
It isn't really victimless even if the speeding driver doesn't hit
anything since speeding traffic can be very intimidating to the
more vulnerable members of society (e.g. elderly/infirm), not to
mention parents keeping their children indoors becaus the roads
are "too dangerous".
That's right. Our 20 mph zones have transformed areas into what they
used to be years ago.
A popular myth.
No myth, my friend.

The myth is that children played in the street in all areas. The only areas
where children would have played in the street would have been in poorer
areas where there were no cars, no public parks or playgrounds and no
"waste" ground.

Such areas don't exist now.

Well... I know that the streets where I was raised *are* (mostly) still there.

But they aren't the same, because even though "traffic-managed" (ie, turned
into a series of cul-de-sacs), they are lined with parked cars. No room for
games of football.

Simon Mason wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote:

No, but without them it would be a free for all and anarchy. That is
why every country in the world has them and enforces them, many are
more draconian and sneaky than our safety camera system.

Indeed, but as has been accepted someone driving within the limit can
cause a collision. Whilst people are concentrating on limits they not
dealing with the root cause.

Why do people persist with the argument that you are constantly staring
at a speedometer instead of looking at the road as an excuse?

What are you talking about?

The PP didn't mention that topic at all.

Simon Mason wrote:

"Matt B" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Cameras can enforce speed limits of 30/40/50

If cameras enforce speed limits how come over 1.5 million
convictions are handed out each year?

Because that many drivers are stupid enough to ignore this
enforcement of course.

Which proves the point really. Speed limits, even with camera
enforcement, do not deliver even speeds within the speed limit at one
specific location within their range, let alone safe speeds throughout.

In my experience that it not true. My wife has 9 points and now sticks
to the limit all the time as she will lose her licence if she continues
to be caught by cameras. The cameras have forced her to stick to the
limit and so are doing their job.

You have mentioned your disdain for your wife on previous occasions. Why
don't you say what you really think of her?

For instance, you say: "The cameras have forced her to stick to the limit and
so are doing their job", but it is that obvious that you are really thinking
something along the lines: "And serve the stupid bitch right".

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:19:03 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Fail. Motor traffic is the leading cause of injury death in children
and accounts for around 3,000 deaths and ten times that number of
serious injuries annually. More people have been killed in road
traffic collisions since 1945 than in all the wars during the same
period. Compare that with the hysteria over the swine flu epidemic,
total death toll last time I checked was about 20 with around 5,000
confirmed cases worldwide. Sounds to me as if the "everyone" in
question turns out to be the standard driver's definition of
"everyone", meaning the driver himself.

Exactly the reaction I expected. As usual, you failed to read my post and
thus missed the words "under appropriate conditions".

No, because you completely failed to read /my/ post which shows that
the judgment of "appropriate" is usually wrong, and the people making
the judgment are often wrong in their base assumptions.

But never when it's you making the judgments or assumptions, eh?

mileburner wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote:

Indeed, one can fail one's driving test for failing to make progress
according to road and traffic conditions, i.e. driving too slowly.

I am beginning to wonder if this is some kind of urban myth. I don't know of
anyone failing their driving test for driving too slow, but I do see a fair
number of driving school cars pootling about at 15 - 20 mph.

It very definitely *isn't* a myth. A relative of mine failed a driving test
for exactly that reason, just a handful of years ago.

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Brimstone" considered Sun, 17 May
2009 22:37:52 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Brimstone" considered Sun, 17 May
2009 18:03:29 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:45:58 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:


What ever their self beliefs, most people don't cause collisions.
Really? There are five million motor insurance claims in the UK
every year. That's a lot of people failing to not cause collisions.
It is indeed a lot, but it's not "most".

I think you may have failed to understand Lennox-Boyd's proposition
that collisions are caused in the main not by the taking of large
risks but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of times.

Each collision is caused by one or more people getting it wrong.

But (thankfully) the majority of instances of "people getting it
wrong" do not result in a collision, so people get it wrong FAR more
frequently than the collision statistics alone would indicate.
Indeed, but until we can find a way of eliminating human error we're stuck
with it to a greater or (hopefully) lesser degree. Bawling and shouting at
people won't cure the problem.

No, we aim to minimise the amount of damage when people do get it
wrong,

Yes, by making the system (as) fail-safe (as possible).

and set standards so that those who are totally incapable of
getting it right don't get to do it at all.

No, whether it is actually right to even try to stop them, we can't. We
just get more illegal drivers when we try.

If they get it wrong badly enough, or often enough, we stop them doing
it again.

And will generally fail again.

Sometimes, we even redefine "wrong" when we find that some "right"
things don't actually work very well - like when we lower speed
limits.

Remember, speed limits themselves have no real effect on travel speeds,
and do not adapt well enough to circumstances. 30 mph might be safe at
some times and places in a town, but is certainly very dangerous at
other times an places. What use is a mechanism as unreliable as that!

The people who can't tell the difference between "right" and "wrong"
are called sociopaths, and when they are identified, they get put in
places where they can only do it in their heads, or computer games.

They shouldn't be allowed to dictate road policy any more than they are
allowed to dictate any other policy.

--
Matt B

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Brimstone" considered Sun, 17 May
2009 22:18:50 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Brimstone" considered Sun, 17 May
2009 17:19:03 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:05:10 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

You've left out any reference to fast driving being (relatively)
safe under appropriate conditions.
Safe for whom?
Everyone.
Fail. Motor traffic is the leading cause of injury death in children
and accounts for around 3,000 deaths and ten times that number of
serious injuries annually. More people have been killed in road
traffic collisions since 1945 than in all the wars during the same
period. Compare that with the hysteria over the swine flu epidemic,
total death toll last time I checked was about 20 with around 5,000
confirmed cases worldwide. Sounds to me as if the "everyone" in
question turns out to be the standard driver's definition of
"everyone", meaning the driver himself.

Exactly the reaction I expected. As usual, you failed to read my
post and thus missed the words "under appropriate conditions".

If you (or anyone) could show a set of conditions under which none of
those deaths and serious injuries occurred, you might have a point.
Which conditions are you referring to?

These magical "appropriate conditions" where you assert that speeding
is perfectly safe.

"Speeding" (speed above the limit), just like speed below the limit,
remember their is no magic formula used when determining a speed limit,
is only safe if the selected speed is appropriate for the given
circumstances.

--
Matt B

On 17 May, 19:27, "pk" wrote:
"Simon Mason" wrote in message

. uk...



. My wife has 9 points and now sticks to

the
limit all the time as she will lose her licence if she continues to be
caught
by cameras.

How do you cope being married to such a morally reprehensible person?

pk

Do you know how much a divorce costs? Speeding fines are MUCH cheaper.

--
Simon Mason