My theory on why the GPS argument will never be settled

Paul,

Sorry to pick on you, but your post is an example of why these
arguments go on so long. Let me explain...

Paul Saunders wrote:

> modern commercial aircraft navigate by GPS.

Very true.

> Ships navigate by GPS.

Again, true.

> The A-Z update their maps using GPS.

I'll take your word for it, seems reasonable.

> The OS map by GPS.

True again.

> Everyone who's anyone uses GPS these days.

And, you see, here's where things start to break down. The implication
here is that if you don't use GPS then you aren't 'anyone', which many
(most?) non-GPS users will find insulting. And thus the argument is
propagated. Especially when you use 'antique' in a pejorative manner
to describe a compass, the natural inference of which is that a compass
is in some way flawed because it is old technology.

FWIW, getting away from Paul's post, I'm not sure anyone said that a
compass was 'better' than a GPS, and if they did then it's a daft thing
to say since they are two different beasts. It's like saying a car is
better than a bike; they are related tools, but have different
purposes. Many people have both a car and a bike, or multiples
thereof, because sometimes they will want to use one, and sometimes
they will want to use the other.

But if a bike owner chooses not to own a car, is it right for the car
owners to say 'I'm amazed this person doesn't have a car when it would
make their life so much easier' (to paraphrase an earlier post in this
thread). And if a car owner chooses not to own a bike, should the
bike-owning part of the population say 'your dependence on technology
puts you at risk, because technology is fallible'?

Well, both statements could be true. And here's a reliable axiom:
Technology is imperfect, yet useful. But car owners have no more right
to force cyclists into cars than cyclists have to force drivers onto
bikes. And if someone chooses to take a GPS into the hills, what is
that to anyone who chooses not to? And if that piece of technology
saves a life that would otherwise have been lost, isn't that a good
thing? And if another person chooses to navigate only by map and
compass, even in difficult conditions, it remains their choice, even if
this brings an added level of risk. But different people have
different tolerances to risk, as well as different skills that affect
levels of risk, so for one person to say 'this is how you should deal
with risk' doesn't really work.

Colin

PS. Paul, I'm not getting at you, just using your post as an example.
Forgiveness appreciated.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Motorcycle and a car licence?
    ... 3rd party cover will only pay out to damage caused to *other* people. ... underwritten the greater the risk. ... Car drivers in the main, ... you said bike riding was as safe as being in a car. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Accident report (Edinburgh)
    ... I had noticed the car nosing out to see past an obtrusively corner ... bent rear carrier which was carrying heavy photographic gear bag. ... Shows site of accident and bike damage, ... avoiding the risk. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Accident report (Edinburgh)
    ... I had noticed the car nosing out to see past an obtrusively corner ... bent rear carrier which was carrying heavy photographic gear bag. ... Shows site of accident and bike damage, ... avoiding the risk. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: GPS on a bike
    ... I'll often find out its GPS cor-ords and put the GPS on the bike ... "Haven't you got a GPS in your car?" ... terribly poor that they couldn't afford a car and were forced into ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Motorcycle cost of operation
    ... But it is far less forgiving of error than a car. ... up in numbers that say OVERALL, riding a motorcycle is ... I can't say I feel MORE safe on a bike than in a car, ... of the greater risk, and I think that offsets the risk to the extent ...
    (rec.motorcycles)