Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:56:08 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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>
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:

<snip>
<snip>
<snip>

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?

No, your analogy was flawed.

Analogies usually are to be fair.


I did nothing to warrant the knife attack. If someone walks in
front of a car, they have caused the problem themselves.

But you said "I don't believe in rights", with no caveat, no
qualification, no clauses. If now you're saying that you don't believe
anyone who makes a mistake has any rights then that's different,
albeit only slightly less stupid.



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?

Why should they have to change the way they drive just in case I do something stupid?

Because driving whilst speeding and driving whilst not paying
attention is wreckless (and illegal of course), and when they give you
your driving licence, you're supposed to appreciate that a car is
dangerous and should be driven with care.

And you seem to have dodged the question:

"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?"

I'd like to think the answer was obvious, but asking such questions is
more about making you think.


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.

Why do you persist in trying to compare completely different things?

I'm trying my best to help you think by explaining the scenarios in
different ways. Perhaps if you realised that you benefit from other
people not having your selfish attitude towards you, you'd realise
that perhaps you ought to have a little more concern about others
yourself.


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.

And?

Did you miss the point so easily? You. Would. Be. Dead. Do you not
care about the pain that your relatives would experience? Or do you
not think that they would care? Would your family be better off
without you or something?



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.

Safety is put before far too many things nowadays.

I doubt it. Certainly when you're driving, safety should be your
majority concern, not speed or the time your journey might take.


Someone tried to put me on a course on how to climb a ladder the other day.

"Why do you persist in trying to compare completely different things?"

And did you refuse to take it because you know best?



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.

Just pay attention before crossing, ok?

Sure, and pay attention to the speed limits and common sense before
you drive.


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.

Allowing for the worst case is silly. Allow for what is likely to happen.

110mph in a 30mph zone is *not* allowing for what is likely to happen.




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.

You might starve to death.

Even if that were true, it's not like I'll have killed or maimed
anyone in doing so, which was rather the point.



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 they're already in the road, that's even more blame to the driver!

Really? You've changed your tune. Hasn't the bloke in the road lost
all his rights and anything that happens is his fault? But now you're
acknowledging the blame of the driver at last! We might be getting
somewhere.


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?

I would assume it's not likely. Unless the people are in a group and arguing.

Pretty tricky to ascertain quickly as you approach them in a car where
you won't be able to hear them - especially if they're not
gesticulating madly. But why bother to try and decide exactly what
they're doing and how likely it is (based on your momentary evaluation
of their character and their behaviour), that they'll become a hazard?
Why not simply accept that they're a potential hazard and drive
appropriately and concentrate on driving instead?



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?

As soon as you have turned to NNW, you're going to avoid it.

Depends highly on what their reaction is and if they make the same
swerve, you're bolloxed. You'll be passing a *lot* closer than if
you'd been going slower and were able to travel W or even NWW.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
    ... If I made a mistake, ... that they weren't speeding and dealt with your mistake entirely? ... Even if you were an ambulance driver. ... Don't forget to salt them. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
    ... "are you happy that the mistake results in your death because someone ... they weren't speeding and dealt with your mistake entirely? ... Only if you're an idiot or an immature/naive/inexperienced driver. ... but perhaps not at the speeds you like to race ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
    ... people who simply make a mistake. ... the vicinity of your car. ... because in that scenario *you* are the victim and all ... the other driver, but your grieving relatives might have. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
    ... rights, but only when it suits you to, only when you're the victim? ... "are you happy that the mistake results in your death because someone ... they weren't speeding and dealt with your mistake entirely? ... makes you a very poor driver. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: 110mph in a 30mph zone!!
    ... people who simply make a mistake. ... that they weren't speeding and dealt with your mistake entirely? ... Only if you're an idiot or an immature/naive/inexperienced driver. ... but perhaps not at the speeds you like to race ...
    (uk.rec.driving)