Criminals on TV

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:11:06 +0000, Ian D Henden wrote:

Surely, to be calibrated, the speedo has to be checked against equipment
at least ten times as accurate, and THAT equipment has to be calibrated
similarly, with a traceable audit trail that ends up in Teddington?

No

Tony

So.... what does constitute "calibration"?

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:19:19 +0000, Ian D Henden wrote:


What about errors in, say, time spent moving your gaze from the
landmarks to your watch, finding the second hand etc? or any delay in
pushing the STOP or START button? What about errors in deciding EXACTLY
when you are passing your landmarks? What about these BBC time pips?
one of my radios has time pips that are *around*a second late (no, the
length of the second or so is not accurately known)

Within 36 seconds in the hour is sufficient for a 1% accuracy
calibration.


Well if you can't manage to do all that within 36 seconds or your pips
are out by 36 seconds then you have other problems.

Tony

Steve Firth wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

Cyclists are not pedestrians, you cannot avail yourself of a defence
that pedestrians are neither licensed nor insured.
A defence against what, exactly? A defence against car users who wish
the law was different than it in fact is?

Cyclists want to be treated "like other road users", I'm quite happy for
that to be the case. You OTOH, along with the other lycra-loons, want to
be treated as a special case.

Other road users include pogo stick users, pedestrians, horse riders,
and operators of Pedestrian Controlled Vehicles, who all have less
restrictions on their use of the road than car drivers, and HGV drivers,
PCV drivers, and trailer operators, who all have more restrictions.
There isn't "one law for cyclists and another for other road users";
there's one law for cyclists, one law for holders of Category B
licences, one law for organisers of public processions, etc. It's not a
special case: it's a single example of a whole bunch of different
requirements attached to different uses of the road.

If your argument is that cyclists should be required to hold third party
insurance because they pose enough risk to other road users (or for some
other /actual/ reason) then make your case on its merits. All I see
from you so far is whining "it's not fair, why should you get a special
deal when everyone else has to be insured". PCV drivers could make the
same argument about car drivers not being subject to Drivers Hours
rules, and it'd be just as ********.



-dan

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:18:17 +0000, Ian D Henden wrote:


So.... what does constitute "calibration"?

Depends what you are using it for. For example if you want to calibrate
a thermometer to 0.1C all you need is some ice cubes and a saucepan of
boiling water not too far from sea level. Teddington doesn't need to
come anywhere near it. For calibrating a bike speedometer the BBC pips
and a tape measure from a manufacturer running a quality system will do
just fine for an accuracy of 0.1%.

Tony

Ian D Henden wrote:

Surely, to be calibrated, the speedo has to be checked against equipment at
least ten times as accurate,
Accurate or precise?

and THAT equipment has to be calibrated
similarly, with a traceable audit trail that ends up in Teddington?


The UK national standard speedometer, at the NPL? Do tell.

Daniel Barlow wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

Cyclists are not pedestrians, you cannot avail yourself of a defence
that pedestrians are neither licensed nor insured.
A defence against what, exactly? A defence against car users who wish
the law was different than it in fact is?

Cyclists want to be treated "like other road users", I'm quite happy for
that to be the case. You OTOH, along with the other lycra-loons, want to
be treated as a special case.

Other road users include pogo stick users, pedestrians, horse riders,
and operators of Pedestrian Controlled Vehicles, who all have less
restrictions on their use of the road than car drivers, and HGV drivers,
PCV drivers, and trailer operators, who all have more restrictions.
There isn't "one law for cyclists and another for other road users";
there's one law for cyclists, one law for holders of Category B
licences, one law for organisers of public processions, etc. It's not a
special case: it's a single example of a whole bunch of different
requirements attached to different uses of the road.

None of those individuals are screaming that "they want to be treated
liek other road users." And if you notice (I doubt you have) many
pedestrian controlled vehicles have licence plates. And most of the rest
of your list are ludicrous canards on a par with your claims that
commercial pilots (presumably in flight) are "road users".

If your argument is that cyclists should be required to hold third party
insurance because they pose enough risk to other road users (or for some
other /actual/ reason) then make your case on its merits. All I see
from you so far is whining "it's not fair, why should you get a special
deal when everyone else has to be insured". PCV drivers could make the
same argument about car drivers not being subject to Drivers Hours
rules, and it'd be just as ********.

All I can see from you is whining, that it's not fair that you should be
treated as you ask to be treated. That and a series of ludicrous claims.

Steve Firth wrote:
All I can see from you is whining, that it's not fair that you should be
treated as you ask to be treated.

Oh really? Show me where. A Message-ID or three will suffice.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Simon Brooke wrote:

JNugent ') wrote:

It isn't even that, NM. Many household policies do NOT cover the
policyholder or members of the family/household against liability for
third-party risks. Mine doesn't (and it is with a blue-chip household
name company).

So you've said before, and I don't believe you. I challenged you before
to
name the policy and company concerned. You wouldn't, and the only
reasonable reason for not doing so is that it would reveal your
dishonesty.

That's absolute nonsense, as a moment's sane consideration (assuming you
to capable of it) would reveal. Let me spell it out: I have no intention
whatsoever of giving current personal information which would be available
to "eccentric" people (you decide whether you fit into that category).

How would you revealing the name of your insurance company be of advantage
to these "eccentric" people in such a way to disadvantage you? You're
surely not their only client?

JNugent wrote:

Perhaps you think that car headlights should be banned, and that
vehicles should just be fitted with one or two of those flashing
Christmas-tree efforts that some cyclists use. OTOH, sane people take
the view: the more light, the better (as long as the lights are
properly adjusted for aim).

No, more light is not always better, especially when you're not the
only user of the road. I'm sure we'd all prefer that, but it's not
going to happen.

Even a legally-aimed light can be sufficiently bright to mask
adjacent vehicles, obstacles or other road users. If it doesn't
make other objects invisible, it will certainly attract attention,
and that attention is then removed from somewhere else. You must
have seen this yourself - if a line of cars approaches you and
only one is showing lights, your eyes are drawn to the lights
automatically. You will consciously correct for this, but can't
stop it happening transiently.

And aim isn't the only issue : there are many modern lights around
(HID seem to be particularly bad, as do the BMWs with obscured central
areas) which, while they have the required beam shape directly on-axis
seem to have a large undesirable sidewash, causing a bright blue flash
as they approach around a corner. I don't know why this is : it could
be design incompetence but it might also be manufacturers playing fast
and loose with the regulations to make the user feel he can see more
of the side of the road - keeping to the letter of the law over
high/dip shaping but emitting light in directions that the lighting
regs fail to specify.

AFAICR 'driving lights' are not subject to high/dip shaping
regulations and so should NEVER be used against oncoming traffic. Fog
lights are also unshaped and so should never be used unless there is
fog. Both of these are, I think, law; but they're commonly used
anyway. I don't know why - maybe because the drivers think more
light is always better ? Or because they think they look cool ?
Or because they don't know what the warning light means ?


-adrian

On 19 Aug, 20:03, ®i©ardo wrote:

I like the way the red herring appears about "licence plates and
compulsory third party insurance for pedestrians". As a group, whilst on
their travels, they are the least likely to break the law and/or put
other people's lives, safety or property at risk. Generally speaking,
they are the victims, be it of inconsiderate motorists or of
inconsiderate cyclists.


Assuming you mean traffic law then, according to the highway
code, there are only 3 laws a pedestrian can break. As for
putting others at risk, if you hang around uk.transport long
enough someone will tell you that 85 percent of car-pedestrian
collisions are the fault of the pedestrian. There is a far stronger
case for compulsory pedestrian insurance than cycle insurance.