Torygraph argues that driving crime is not real crime...

Melanie wrote:
Would you rather a limit that ensured 90% drove above it, or no limit,
therefore no incentive to drive faster than your comfort level?

It may well be true that 90% drive above the speed limit, but they tend
to do so within certain self-imposed boundaries, eg not more than 40mph
in a 30mph zone.

In other words, the speed limit does at least regulate their speed to
some degree, the degree being determined by the influence of their
conscience. Remove the speed limit altogether and they suddenly have no
reason not to drive at 60mph in the same road where they previously
drove at 40mph.

d.

Melanie wrote:

Would you rather a limit that ensured 90% drove above it, or no limit,
therefore no incentive to drive faster than your comfort level?

You seem to be inferring that a typical comfort level would be below the
level at which people currently drive. I frankly doubt that, I think
people drive at their comfort level anyway, or at a level adjusted
/downwards/ towards the speed limit.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

dwb wrote:


If everyone who drove a car got on a bicycle, do you think the accidents
would disappear?

I think the number of deaths and injuries would
drop *DRAMATICALLY*, and as a side effect,
the population's health would improve.
Some people commute runs could take a while though.

Thank you for asking.

BugBear

bugbear wrote:
dwb wrote:


If everyone who drove a car got on a bicycle, do you think the accidents
would disappear?


I think the number of deaths and injuries would
drop *DRAMATICALLY*, and as a side effect,
the population's health would improve.
Some people commute runs could take a while though.
I can imagine some huge pile-ups happening if the streets were crowded
with cycling commuters, especially in the first couple of weeks. They
would probably lead to the kind of minor cuts, abrasions and bruising
which helmets are useful for.

One of my scariest cycling experiences was riding through Gouda some
years ago. We passed a factory gate at 'going home' time and the streets
were suddenly full of bicycles.

bugbear wrote:
dwb wrote:


If everyone who drove a car got on a bicycle, do you think the
accidents would disappear?

I think the number of deaths and injuries would
drop *DRAMATICALLY*, and as a side effect,

How do you know though? - people might suddenly find new ways to kill
themselves.

the population's health would improve.
Some people commute runs could take a while though.

i don't think there would be much to commute to if this was in our current
economy.

Melanie wrote:

Do we know how many people killed by speeding motorists are not
themselves?

We know it's not a small number, because some hundreds of the dead were
walking or riding bicycles at the time.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Melanie wrote:

Do we know how many people killed by speeding motorists are not
themselves?

We know it's not a small number, because some hundreds of the dead
were walking or riding bicycles at the time.

Do we assume that none of the peds or cyclists were in any way to blame
themselves?

--
Melanie xxx

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:48:02 +0100, Melanie wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Melanie wrote:

Do we know how many people killed by speeding motorists are not
themselves?

We know it's not a small number, because some hundreds of the dead
were walking or riding bicycles at the time.

Do we assume that none of the peds or cyclists were in any way to blame
themselves?

Why should we do that?
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "A modest little person, with much to be modest about."-
Winston Churchill
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Melanie wrote:
Do we assume that none of the peds or cyclists were in any way to blame
themselves?

It's probably safe to assume that some of them were guilty of
contributory negligence, but do we therefore assume that /all/ of them
were /entirely/ responsible for their own demise?

d.

davek wrote:
Melanie wrote:
Do we assume that none of the peds or cyclists were in any way to
blame themselves?

It's probably safe to assume that some of them were guilty of
contributory negligence, but do we therefore assume that /all/ of them
were /entirely/ responsible for their own demise?

Not at all. I'm trying to imagine how many people of the 3500 are the
victim of some sort of "crime". Not many, seems to be the conclusion, so
far.

--
Melanie xxx