NW, welcome back, but you're up a gum tree as usual with all the carp about 'speed culture' etc.... it isn't a culture, people just like speed and always will.
However I think the case of Naseem is a good candidate for a lifetime driving ban. The driving, in a very competent machine, was an utter disgrace, so stupid and thuggish as to be almost beyond belief.
Apparently premiership football teams now hire instructors to teach their players how to drive their new toys without doing a Naseem.
|
|
|
You're just guessing as to whether he'd have attempted the overtaking maneuvre. Besides, he could have overtaken at 70 on a 40mph Dual Carriageway.
Too much emphasis is placed on speed and not how to drive safely. And that's dangerous because lots of people think that as long as they're under the limit, they're safe. I'd much rather be a passenger in a certain friend's car who drives fast but is very observant, than in another friend's car who drives slower than my Grandma did but couldn't tell you what colour the car in front was.
|
|
Adam, if you have an idiot driving towards you, would you prefer that idiot to be doing 70 or 90?
|
I doubt I'd be in much of a state to care either way.
|
|
The guy in the VW seems to be very much in a state to care.
|
You asked whether I'd care. Not him.
|
|
|
"hit at 70mph or 90mph"
A silly, pointless and irrelevant question. I don't want to be hit at all.
He wasn't hit because the car was doing 90mph (or whatever speed it was) he was hit because there was a plonker behind the wheel. Deal with the problem (the plonker) not some half-assed, socially popular, fashionable and irrelevant perceived issue such as the speed he was doing at the time.
The trouble is thats a little bit difficult, not as fashionable, and just not as snappy when shouted from a soapbox.
And how much is one man's life worth ? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but a life does have a worth (somewhat higher if its your won, of course). One coudl argue that signficantly chaing the life of 10 people to save another life is a valid and worthwhiel exercise. Equally one could argue that changing the life of 10 million people to save the life of one is not. Between the two there is a line. These days the temptation is too draw that line too low - IMO only, of course.
I do not believe that lfie with no risk is a requirement, nor do I see it as desirable. Neither do I believe that a lfie which is faced with so much risk that it will fail is an acceptable situation either. Yet again we draw the line too low.
First and foremost we are here to live and be fulfilled, by whatever standards or qualities that goal is judged. To have no negative impact on others or on our environment is important,. but nonetheless secondary.
|
[sigh] when will we either get a spell checker in here, or when will I finally be able to type as well as I already believe I can.
won=own
lfie = life
and, as ever, so many more.
|
Don't worry, it's such an accurate and brilliant post that I can forgiv your erors.
|
|
Yet again we draw the line too low.
>>
Unfortunately, that line will have to remain low - until we are able to devise a driving test that measures whether or not you are an arrogant/inconsiderate/unthinking etc twerp. I.e. able to weed out the subject of this post.
|
low, perhaps, but not *too* low.
Would you stop all mountain climbing because it kills a few ? A weak analogy as one climber doesn't usually kill another through their own incompetence, but there is some relevance.
On the roads there is an apparant drive and perceived need amongst a few to remove all risk. This is not realistic and will never happen. It would be and is ridiculous to try.
There is a need to reduce that risk or to maintain it as low as is reasonable - which might not be the same as "as low as is possible". Where the desire to reduce risk makes the activity itself unrealistic, unreasonable or unpleasant, then that desire to reduce has perhaps gone too far.
Let us not forget that we are human beings designed to enjoy our lives, not to sit still, too terrified to move in case we harm someone, damage something, take a risk, do something wrong, etc. etc. That will merely generate a non-comeptitive, stagnating and frustrating, limiting environment. As it is already beginning to do.
|
|
Yes FMR. Can't play rugby or football at school because the school is in a funk about being sued. Can't fix your own house electrics because you aren't 'qualified' (there are only three wires after all. What kind of qualification do you need to separate three colour-coded wires and put them in the right holes?). And so on.
|
It is a matter of balancing collective and individual responsibilities, collective in respect of society's development of reasonable laws, safe road layouts, driving tests and licensing, safety in car design etc however ultimately we as individuals do have to have responsibility for how we act and we can never legislate against mistake or recklessness.
For instance the law quite rightly says that we should not keep an AK47 at home however we can easily kill a number of people by driving a car into a bus queue, this kind of action, be it evil intent, recklessness or fatal error cannot be legislated against.
Clearly lives have to have a worth however it is equally clear that the value of a life within our society is not infinite because if it was we would not allow ourselves to take any risk and almost everything we do is a risk, from simple commuting etc etc.
|
in reply to nowwheels -
1. kinetic energy increase from 70mph to 90mph - you are underestimating the increase. i think it is near 65% increase.
2. deaths and risks; according to the latest uk stats that i can find, quotes from stats:
a. "{Excessive speed is a contributory factor in over 1,000 deaths and over 40,000 injuries every year. }"
b. "{The Information Centre for Health and Social Care, which publishes government health data, said that out of 501,000 adult deaths in England and Wales in 2004, an estimated 89,000 (18 per cent) were caused by smoking.} "
now where do you think the focus should be on saving lives, and at where do you see the most cost/benefit ?
|
1. kinetic energy increase from 70mph to 90mph - you are underestimating the increase. i think it is near 65% increase.
I think you are both right - you are just saying the same thing in different ways.
(90^2)/(70^2)
ans =
1.6531
(70^2)/(90^2)
ans =
0.6049
Where I disagree with No Wheels is where she says the extra kinetic energy goes through the occupants' bones - some of it does, OK, but not all of it.
Number_Cruncher
|
Would you stop all mountain climbing because it kills a few? A weak analogy as one climber doesn't usually kill another through their own incompetence,>>
A weak analogy, yes; would I stop mountain climbing, no. People climb mountains for the thrill of it, they know they are taking a risk. As a young man, I used to ride passenger on a road-racing Morgo Triumph 750 outfit for a thrill and I knew we were taking a risk. But, the important thing is that I wasn't endangering everyone else going about their daily business when they are entitled to feel relatively safe. Responsibility is out of fashion, but I'd feel terrible if I'd killed or maimed someone because of my own stupidity. Driving on our roads has changed since the days of Mr Toad, parp, parp.
Mrs Waino teaches 9/10-year olds and she can pick out the irresponsible drivers at THAT age, believe it or not. [Blair is correct in this respect]. Every Friday she reads the magistrate's court briefs in the local rag and has a little chuckle ;>)
|
Mrs Waino teaches 9/10-year olds and she can pick out the irresponsible drivers
I always knew teachers pre judged and pigeon holed their students. Pity its done so young.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
>> I always knew teachers pre judged and pigeon holed their students. Pity its done so young.
It's a pity, but it can be done so young. Didn't someone one once say "Give me the child when he is seven, and I will show you the man"?
|
Are you joking when you say she can spot the bad drivers?
|
Are you joking when you say she can spot the bad drivers?
Well, she can certainly spot the traits that lead to appearances in the magistrate's court - and these usually manifest themselves as driving offences. And, of course, you can see arrogance and aggression. Ask any teacher - they'll all say the same. I wouldn't claim that she'd spot the one who'd get a parking ticket, or a fine for doing 35 in a 30 area!
When Blair is talking about spotting potential ASBOs at an early age, this is what he's on about. Whether anything could be done about it is a different matter.
|
well pigeon holing them, clasifying them as failures and potential criminals is the surest way to esnure that exactly what they become
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
well pigeon holing them, clasifying them as failures and potential criminals is the surest way to esnure that exactly what they become ------------------------------
No, no, no, they come 'ready pigeon-holed'. Teachers spend the next 10 years trying to move them to a better pigeon hole. It's called added value. Come, come, TVM, you should know all this.
|
>Well, she can certainly spot the traits that lead to appearances in the magistrate's court - and these usually manifest themselves as driving offences. And, of course, you can see arrogance and aggression. Ask any teacher - they'll all say the same. I wouldn't claim that she'd spot the one who'd get a parking ticket, or a fine for doing 35 in a 30 area!<<
Hmmm - you managed to recover yourself there I think! I agree to an extent - certainly not with motoring offences but with other more serious misdemeanours. I and my mates did some pretty stupid things when we were kids - some of us got into trouble more than others (not with the Police or anything like that) but each and every one of them is responsible now - and with the exception of one, good drivers. (That "one" isn't reckless, he's just a crap driver!)
Of course, the other side of the coin is that some idiots at school have been locked up since - two for some serious stuff. (Not my mates I hasten to add) and you coudl spot them a mile off. But a lot of my mates got appalling reports at school, detentions and held back during lunch but they're (mostly) responsible and clever people. (I do hope none of them read this - it will give them rather large heads). Whilst they not be great at financial management, might be a bit reckless when drunk (who isn't?) and some of them are downright ugly, they're still cracking people and certainly wouldn't be getting any ASBOs or the like.
I can feel myself wandering off loads now so I'll shut up with just this final thought. Childhood is for growing up - being reckless - getting into trouble. That's what it's all about. To be honest, I think some adults could do with being a bit more reckless and thinking "to Hell with the consequences". And before anyone has a go, I do not mean the Prince there. I condemn his actions as much as the rest of you.
Adam
|
It's a pity, but it can be done so young. Didn't someone one once say "Give me the child when he is seven, and I will show you the man"?
St Ignatius of Loyola, Jesuit Numero Uno....
|
>> St Ignatius of Loyola, Jesuit Numero Uno....
Although what I think he said was 'give me the child until he's seven'...
|
"Give me the child whenhe is seven, and I will show you the man"?
It is "give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man" and it was the Jesuits!
|
There is a need to reduce that risk or to maintain it as low as is reasonable - which might not be the same as "as low as is possible". Where the desire to reduce risk makes the activity itself unrealistic, unreasonable or unpleasant, then that desire to reduce has perhaps gone too far.
Mark, driving at 90mph on public roads is already illegal, and has been for over thirty years.
Unless one is already a lawbreaker, how does physically preventing 90mph driving make motoring "unrealistic, unreasonable or unpleasant"? or the driver who already obeys speed limits, it makes zero difference.
A limiter is like adding a lock to a door which already has a "no entry" sign: it simply prevents something which is already illegal.
Let us not forget that we are human beings designed to enjoy our lives, not to sit still, too terrified to move in case we harm someone, damage something, take a risk, do something wrong, etc. etc. That will merely generate a non-comeptitive, stagnating and frustrating, limiting environment. As it is already beginning to do.
Anyone who wants the risks can go mountain-climbing or swimming with stingrays, or whatever, and run their own risks without engangering others.
I'd go further, and make seatbelts and airbags optional. Those laws are nannying: they protect people from themselves, not from each other.
|
>>I'd go further, and make seatbelts and airbags optional. Those laws are nannying: they protect people from themselves, not from each other.
Tremendous!! I couldn't agree more NW!!
Number_Cruncher
|
You've made a connection between your note and my note quoted by you which I did not. I was replying to Waino. I made no comment about preventing driving at 90mph. I made no comment about what is or is not against the law. I made no link between physically preventing 90mph and making motoring unrealistic, unreasonable or unpleasant. I made no comment about what risks should or should not be taken. I made no comments about limitersnor no entry signs.
We already know you'll not agree with my opinion, but please actually try and disagree with an opinion I actually have or better have actually voiced rather than simply making them up.
|
You've made a connection between your note and my note quoted by you which I did not. I was replying to Waino. I made no comment about preventing driving at 90mph. I made no comment about what is or is not against the law. I made no link between physically preventing 90mph and making motoring unrealistic, unreasonable or unpleasant. I made no comment about what risks should or should not be taken. I made no comments about limitersnor no entry signs.
Mark, you did comment on all, those things at www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=44651&...e
I'm sorry if I confused you by bringing them up later in the thread, but I assumed that you had not changed your mind in the intervening 24 minutes.
We already know you'll not agree with my opinion, but please actually try and disagree with an opinion I actually have or better have actually voiced rather than simply making them up.
Mark, please re-read what you write before you accuse others of making things up.
|
|
NW, I can't be bothered. If you can, read it again. You are wrong.
|
NW, I can't be bothered. If you can, read it again. You are wrong.
I have read it again, Mark.
You wrote: "some half-assed, socially popular, fashionable and irrelevant perceived issue such as the speed he was doing at the time."
If you don't believe that doing 90mph on a back road increases the likelihood of an accident and increases the severity of any impact, that's your privelige. Plenty of people believe that the earth is flat, and that's their privelige too.
But please don't get snippy with someone who responds to you when you make that sort of claim.
|
NW,
Your blind ability to see something you want to see, believe something you want to believe and hear something you want to hear in the face of reality, evidence to the contrary or simple non-existence is what makes people like you so very, very dangerous. The most frightening thing about your ilk, including the likes of Tony Blair, is that you are honest people. You blind youselves to the point where you are genuinely convinced by your own "rightness". You then proceed with all the force and eneergy of the just and the justified seeking only to protect your fellow man and benefit society, but with a foundation somewhere between fantasy and clay. That's scary.
Play with someone else, your statements range between boring me and irritating me and neither is something I am likely to seek out; neither do I wish to further legitimise your opinions by paying any attention to them..
|
NW, Your blind ability to see something you want to see, believe something you want to believe and hear something you want to hear in the face of reality, evidence to the contrary or simple non-existence is what makes people like you so very, very dangerous.
Mark, you are truly a fascinating person. You engage in a discussion, but when you don't like the fact that someone picks up on what you say and considers its implications, you then start to sidestep the issues and engage in personal attack.
Call me blind or whatever you like. But if you can't see the difference betwen an impact at 70mph and one at 90mph, I don't think that I am the one with the eyesight problem.
|
OK you two. Enough please.
DD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
