Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
- From: Ed Chilada <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 +0000
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:06:51 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:01:22 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxxxx><snip>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:17:04 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:58:57 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:44:13 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:35:53 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:59:18 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:19:47 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Not really, the Darwin Award is for those killing themselves in
premeditated acts of stupidity where the outcome is all too obvious to
most, not simple accidents or stumbles.
Not paying attention is just as bad. What's with this crazy idea in modern society to protect people from themselves? People suing the council for not gritting a pavement, etc?
What we're talking about is not people being protected from
themselves, it's being protected from others who don't care about
looking out for anyone other than themselves - which appears to be
your rather self-centered attitude.
Care about looking out for dumbasses who don't look before crossing you mean?
Yes, that's just what I mean. 3 year old kids for example. People who
stumble over a loose pavement, people who simply make a mistake.
Whether you want to call them "dumbasses", to make you feel better is
irrelevant, it still doesn't give you the right to drive in a way that
totally disregards the safety of anyone who might make a mistake in
the vicinity of your car.
I don't believe in rights.
So you're happy to forego any rights you might be reasonably expected
to have? If someone mugs you at knifepoint, you're OK with that
because you don't believe you have the right to take issue with it?
That's rather different.
Of course it is, because in that scenario *you* are the victim and all
of a sudden you feel a bit different about whether you "believe in
rights". The mugger decided that he doesn't "believe in rights", and
you have to pay the penalty for that.
Still taking the same stance now, or has the penny dropped?
But the other factors dictate whether that mistake results in mere
injury or death. And you think that's "irrelevant"?!
Yes, you shouldn't have made the mistake.
So are you saying that once a person makes a simple mistake, they
deserve whatever outcome that results in, however much that outcome is
dictated by and could be easily avoided by another person?
Yes
And you'd be happy if you were killed by someone with that same
attitude?
Yes.
Happy? You'd be *happy* to be killed?
If I made a mistake, it would be my fault.
But are you happy that the mistake results in your death because
someone else was speeding or not paying attention? Or would you prefer
that they weren't speeding and dealt with your mistake entirely?
What's your preference there?
What about if everyone working in A&E had that attitude and
turned you away because the accident was your fault?
They're paid to fix things.
Indeed they are, but that doesn't change the question. What if it was
hospital policy that you were turned away from A&E for anything deemed
to be your own fault? Do you think that's a good policy and would you
be happy with that, even if it resulted in your being turned away at
some stage?
No, why would I?
To avoid being a hypocrite when the shoe is on the other foot, since
this is the very attitude to profess to having as a driver on the
road.
Let me ask you this: In all your years of driving and indeed simply
existing, have you never made a mistake which you got away with or
which was dealt with by another person?
Probably, but I shouldn't have.
And are you grateful that the other person dealt with that issue, or
do you think they should have let you get the full potential
consequences of your mistake?
That's up to them, I wouldn't have held it against them if they did.
Well you might well not have had the opportunity to bear a grudge to
the other driver, but your grieving relatives might have.
why do you distinguish between falling off a cliff and falling onto a road?
I don't. I distinguish between natural hazards which are ever present
(the rocks), and man made hazards which are easily avoidable (speeding
cars). There's a huge difference between removing an existing hazard
and simply avoiding creating one in the first place.
Not when it costs a fortune to do so.
It doesn't cost a fortune to stop doing 110mph in at 30mph. It just
takes common sense.
It costs time.
Time is not more important than safety - especially as IME many
drivers have a completely skewed idea of how much of a rush they're in
when they're driving.
Trust me, you are *never* in so much of a rush that you can justify
110mph in a 30mph zone. Even if you were an ambulance driver.
The point is not about removing dangers that are already there, it's
about not adding entirely unnecessary ones. If a person stumbles into
an urban road, there's the very real danger that they might get hit by
a car doing 30mph. There shouldn't be *any* danger that they'll get
hit by a car doing 110mph.
There is none if they look or listen. How loud do you think a 110 mph car is?
Louder than 30mph sure, but then it still poses a danger when it's
considerably further away than the one doing 30mph. How loud is a car
when it's much further away?
Loud enough at 110.
Not if it's far away it isn't. Which at 110mph, it will still pose a
danger when considerably further away than one doing 30mph.
And be very loud.
If a vehicle is doing double the speed limit but double the distance
away from a pedestrian, then impact will be at the same point in time,
yes? Now then, if that vehicle is twice as loud, but at double the
distance, then the volume is the same, at the same number of seconds
before the impact - y'see?
I'm sure there are square laws in there.
Perhaps, but the point remains.
That seems very naive. I'm disappointed that you start trying to
predict people's behaviour rather than simply anticipate the action
regardless of whether they look likely or not to do it. Sounds like
you'd get quite easily caught out.
How many people slow right down as they pass a pedestrian waiting for a bus? Virtually none. How many slow right down when they pass a pedestrian facing the road, looking like they're about to cross? Most.
Personally, I'd make sure I'm going slow enough to handle either
scenario. That seems to make sense to me - not to you?
I don't slow down unless they look like they're about to cross.
So you make assumptions?
Yes. Driving is full of assumptions.
Indeed, and perhaps experience shows us to assume the worst case
scenario, whereas naive newbies make best case assumptions.
Why always assume the worst?
In short, to minimize the chances of having an accident.
An experienced driver identifies *every* possible hazard, and that
involves ascertaining the worst case scenario. If you make best case
assumptions, then you simply don't prepare for, or deal with possible
scenarios.
You must get very depressed - do you assume you'll lose your job tomorrow?
Nope, but then if I did, it hasn't got the capacity to kill or maim
anyone.
To what kind of speed? And how far in the distance would you have to
be able to see them in order to reduce your speed enough by the time
you reached them?
There is no definite answer, there are many things to consider.
That's just avoiding the question. Perhaps consider those many things
and come up with a typical figure, based on average conditions.
To 50 if they weren't looking like they were about to cross.
You'd drive past someone on the pavement at 50mph if you believed that
they weren't about to cross? And how quickly could that "look",
change? What if that person with their back to the road were to turn
around and step towards the road as you were doing 50mph mere yards
away? You gonna slam on then? Or have you just assumed they won't do
that?
Depends how close they are to the edge.
If that person were to run into the road and into your path, do you
expect to be able to stop from 50mph, or do you consider it OK to get
down to the legal limit or so for the road?
I expect to be able to stop.
And do you know what your 50mph stopping distance is, in your car?
Why? They were only responsible for barging past you. They didn't even
intend to push you into the road. The driver on the other hand is the
one that killed you. He had such blatant disregard for everyone's
safety that he decided to drive along a busy road without bothering to
look where he was going. Getting pushed into the road was the chavs
fault. Getting run over and killed was the driver's fault.
The road is for cars. If people wish to cross it, they should look first. If I was pushed into the road by someone else, they are responsible for it.
But you wouldn't care if a driver was speeding so that they don't have
chance to stop in time, and then run you over? Versus a slower driver
who easily stops and allows you do get back up and walk away? Are you
OK with being killed by the speeding driver? Do you think you deserve
it for being in the road in the first place?
Like I said only the person who pushed me is responsible. I would not blame the speeding or otherwise driver at all.
Hmm. yet in that real scenario I posted, you blamed the speeding
driver 50%. What was different in that scenario that made your
conclusion so different?
Re-paste the scenario, I can't find it.
Your "half each" response is in message <op.ux1mydd44buhsv@i7>. Do a
search for "Barry Higham" if it helps (he's the name of the guy that
was killed).
So, what in that scenario that made your conclusion so different?
"The deceased was running down an embankment then fell on to the floor."
Someone running towards a road presents a likelihood of running onto the road.
As I've said before, the guy had already fell into the road before the
driver came around the corner. So, once again I ask you, what in that
scenario made your conclusion so different?
If someone is stood still and is pushed, this cannot be predicted so easily.
Would you be prepared for it, or would you have assumed that nothing
like that could happen?
Common sense suggests that if you run over and kill someone, there's
going to be fragments of blood, skin, hair, clothes all over your car
and in nooks and crannies that you're never going to entirely clean.
Then there's all the car paint residues and car parts that you'll
leave at the scene of the crime.
Are you denying all that?
Depends how much of your car they hit.
Enough to kill them. Now then, are you denying all that?
I'm denying the police are clever enoguh to use all that.
They're probably clever enough to use a spell checker...
My email program didn't have one in version 9. Version 10 which I now have does though.
Great, though personally I think I could have got "enough" correct
without one.
All it takes is the left hand to operate slightly quicker than the right.
Huh?
Right, so perhaps you can explain again how the extra 'momentum' helps
you get out of the way of a car coming at you instead of moving to a
train/person example that didn't even relate.
Because you're going faster, so you move out of the way faster!
You really don't have a clue do you. The faster you're going, the more
time and space you need to change direction. Experience ought to have
told you that, if common sense hadn't done so already.
If you are hardly moving, you must accelerate out of the way.
Er.. in what scenario? Besides, we were talking about speed, not
acceleration.
If you already have momentum, you don't need to accelerate to obtain movement.
You only have momentum in one direction whereas the movement you
require is in a *different* direction. It's precisely because of that
forward momentum you have that gives you far less time and space to
change to the required direction.
Imagine a car traveling at 40mph North. And another that's stationary, facing West. The 1st car turns sharply left, and the second accelerates. The 1st will get to 50mph West first.
It may well do, but it will also be much further North when it does,
and in terms of avoiding a hazard that you're travelling towards, it's
avoiding going North that's the key, not what speed West you achieve.
Surely you can see this?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
- From: Peter Hucker
- Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
- Prev by Date: Re: This guy was hammering it - even by my standards!
- Next by Date: Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
- Previous by thread: Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
- Next by thread: Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
