Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "dennis@home" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
> : : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : : news:[email protected]...
>
> [snip]
>
> : : : What have I said that isn't true..? Are you saying it
> : : : *isn't* dangerous to drive at 31mph in a 30 limit..?
> : :
> : : You have claimed my logic is wrong.. it isn't.
> : : Yours is.
>
> All I am getting from you is an "I'm right, you're wrong" apology for an
> argument, with no facts to support it.
>
> : : : : : : : : It does say its illegal to drive past at
> : : : : : : : : 31mph if the speed limit is less. It also
> : : : : : : : : says that it may be dangerous to drive past
> : : : : : : : : at 5mph.
> : : : : : :
> : : : : : : Very true, but why is it illegal to drive at
> : : : : : : 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..?
> : : : : :
> : : : : :
> : : : : : Because it is.
> : : :
> : : : That doesn't answer the question. It's also not good
> : : : enough.
> : :
> : : It is an exact and concise answer.
> : : If it isn't good enough take it up with Parliament.
>
> Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it illegal to drive at
> 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the law is
> not an answer. The question is *why* is it the law..?
>
> If you cannot or will not answer, there is no point in continuing.
>
>
> Ivor
>

Because an act of parliment said it is so. you are confusing common
sense with law. as you cant legislate for common sense, we have to have
specific definitions in the law. a decision has ben made that sets the
speed limit for that particular stretch of road that has defined the
speed limit. if you travel faster than that speed then you have broken
the law.

---

› See More: Mobile Phones Usage During Driving - Some Facts

"The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it illegal to drive at
>>> 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the law is
>>> not an answer. The question is *why* is it the law..?
>>
>> Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the answer or care.
>>
>
> Let's put it another way
>
> "Why, if they represent no danger are we gassing all the Jews, Mr
> Gestapoman?"

Now you have shown yourself to be unable to discuss anything.

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one will believe you Ivor. They are all starting from the
>>>> assumption that 'speed kills' and no matter what you say, they will
>>>> find some incredibly long and tedious explanation - in this case
>>>> typically 'you shouldn't have been overtaking' to demonstrate why if
>>>> you had left the bike at home, doing 0mph, you never would have BEEN
>>>> in that situation.
>>>>
>>>> If you HAVE to overtake,
>>>
>>> Name one occasion where you HAVE to overtake.
>>
>> When you are 6" from my backside and there is stopped/parked car in
>> the road?
>>
>
> Only an idiot like you wouldn't slow down if the car behind was tailgating.

Oh I would, but I find that you just drop back and then come rushing up
behind again. I can slow to 2mph and you still won't overtake? I don't
have any choice.

>
>> No, you are right. Best to make a 3 car pile up.
>
> No you would rather take out the traffic coming the other way as well.

What traffic? you have just made that up...do you honestly thk I would
not have worked that out about 5 minutes ago?

>
>>
>> Lets try another one. You are nicely bumbling along in the slow lane
>> minding your own business when Boy Racer rushes past you on the
>> outside, cuts in front and tries to make the exit ramp..which is
>> unfortunately full. So he slams on the brakes right in front of you.
>> His brakes are better than yours. What should you do? Up the bank and
>> turn the camper over? slam into the back of him? or overtake...you
>> have half a second to make up your mind.
>
> You aren't going to accelerate out of that one so you have lost it.

YOu asked when would would have to overtake, not accelerate. acclerating
is part of overtaking.

Moving goalposts again. Can't bear to admit you are a total tosser,and
execrable driver, and wrong. Have you EVER overtaken a moving behicle?
even on a motorway?

> You take avoiding action and you already know which way as you were
> aware of your surroundings and knew that there was an idiot like you there.
>

Exactly. Avoiding action being overtaking and using the gas to avoid get
shafted up the arse by Dennis at home..
>
>> Ditto when someone pulls OUT of a slip road and you are in the 'slow
>> lane', or, worse still, on a single carriageway..
>>
>> You had better be in practice or you have a crash on your hands. It
>> wasn't my fault' you moan as the ambulance crew extracts you from the
>> crushed wreck of your car 'I was only doing 50mph: he came out
>> straight in front of me and I couldn't do anything': your erstwhile
>> pious friends shake their heads at you 'he must have been SPEEDING'
>> 'He couldn't stop as he wasn't leaving a big enough GAP'
>
> So far you have shown yourself to be incapable of sound judgment even
> with your made up scenarios so I think its safe to assume you really are
> stupid when it comes to driving and its people like you that the rules
> are made for as you are incapable of driving without them. Like I said a
> black box in your car would make things much better for all.

It's really let's say, being kind - a shade unsafe to project your
mentality and understanding out into the world and assume everybody is
like you. Actually the rules are made for YOU. You are hat most
dangerous of persons: one who is so stupid they don't realise that
intelligence actually exists, and can be used.



>
>> Right,. and wrong. There were things you COULD have done, if you knew
>> about things like 'dropping it a couple of cogs and flooring it', and
>> controlling the swerve that is bound to unsettle the car..but of
>> course, overtaking is dangerous and so is speed, so YOU never
>> practiced any of that did you? And you didn't want to risk crossing
>> that double white line, in case you got a fine and some points n your
>> license.
>>
>> Well now you have a broken spine and a life in a wheelchair.
>> Serves you right. Should have learnt how to drive, *including*
>> overtaking.
>>
>> Shuld have learnt that in an emergency you have the ability to
>> accelerate in all four directions, backwards, forwards AND side to
>> side and when two are going to see you dead, the other two MAY be
>> worth a try.,
>
> Most of the population manage to avoid accidents in cars you would
> consider to have no acceleration so that wipes your argument out at a
> stroke.
>

Evey car has acceleration. You adjust your style to use it.

The average Fiat Punto accelerates faster than an MG Midget used to, and
corners better too.

>>> Lets take that statement apart shall we..
>>>
>>> 120 mph = 176 ft/sec so assuming 1G stopping power (Jag, dry road)
>>> stopping distance about 500 ft.
>>> 60 mph = 88 ft/sec so assuming 1/2G stopping power (legal mot
>>> minimum) stopping distance about 330 ft.
>>
>> Legal retardation at 30mph or less not at 50mph plus..
>>>
>>> So was your camper an MOT failure then?
>>
>> Not at all. Brand new (to em) fully tested and in tip top condition.
>> I'm sure it COULD stop in that distance, ..If I didn't mind showering
>> myself with whatever would probably burst out of the cupboards and
>> killing the dogs. And assuming it was dead level on a flat dry road
>> with no bends and no wet bits, in which case it would probably spin
>> and end up on its side.
>>
>> And assuming no brake fade..
>>
>> The jag did a bit better than 1g too.
>>
>> You don't know much about the practical aspects of driving, do you?
>
> I admit you know a lot more about crashing than I do.
> I will bow to your superior knowledge now you have told us all how to
> crash.
>

Well you had better take it all on board. Cos you in partcular wILL.

>>
>> Now where did I read about the person who was killed (or was it their
>> son/daughter) by the computer they had on the back seat that broke her
>> necks when they slammed on the brakes?
>
> So now you don't brake because you carry dangerous, unsecured loads.
> Anymore excuses for your bad driving, alternative realities are a good
> one to try.
>

Ad you of course have never carried something in the back seat?
>>
>> Full of theory Mr Smart guy..
>>
>> Roundabouts that could be taken at 60 in the Jag are tyre squealers at
>> 30 in the camper.
>
> I have had to avoid a Jag that thought he could take an island at the
> same speed as me.. shame he screwed it and went off. I didn't btw even
> though it was close and I could feel the traction breaking. More
> progressive tyres I suppose?

No, somone so infuriated by your poor driving they felt they had to get
past probably. ;-)

Or did you deliberately force them off the road in a fit of jealousy?

>
>>
>>
>> So its the slow lane and 25mph... ;-)
>>
>> Just the way it is, in 2 1/2 tons of top heavy small van. With rear
>> drum brakes and less tyres than a 1960's morris oxford. It SLIGHTLY
>> better than driving on the handbrake cos your brake line just
>> fractured..a rare event these days..but not an unkown event in my
>> youth. Or the cables to the brakes just SNAPPED. I don't suppose you
>> have ever drive with cable brakes except on a bicycle..have you?
>
> I wouldn't drive such a vehicle.. you may be stupid enough to do so but
> not me.
>
Right. So you say in effect, that anyone driving a car with worse
performance than yours ,shouldn't be on the roads.

In which case M'lud, I insist we all drive Jaguars!


>>> BTW can you show me a road in the UK where taking more than 5 seconds
>>> to stop is safe?
>>
>> Almost anywhere. 5 secs at 1g is 109mph. 5 seconds at 0.5g which is
>> DAMN good for a truck on a DRY road..is 55mph.
>>
>> Calculate the braking distance/time on a fully wet road..for a 30 ton
>> truck doing 55mph.. I'd say around 9-10 seconds.
>
> Have you gone into the back of a truck yet? You will.

Not in 40 years, no. I leave BIG gaps, you see.

>
>
>> Are you proposing tha 25mph is the speed limit for a laden truck in
>> wet weather?
>>
>> Does it not make the 2 second rule - broken by 95% of the motorist on
>> the M25 at a rough count last time I used it - look more like an
>> extremely dangerous ABSOLUTE MINIMUM and hope that you notice the
>> stationary traffic ahead?
>
> It is designed for idiots like you.
>

No,it isn't because leave MORE. I don't NEED that rule.

>
>> Of course when the inevitable pile up occurs, it was 'going too fast
>> to stop: we must lower the speed limits'. Utter bollocks. Travelling
>> too close is FAR more dangerous.
>
> They are the same thing.. anywhere it says travelling too close also
> means too fast or are you completely brain dead?

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.So speed limits will stop people travelling too
close? they are after all the same thing?

Did you actually PASS a driving test? Thats 4 complete failures we have
come across so far.

> .
>
>> You ca do the mathematics if you like: not totally accurate, but since
>> you like to show your smarts here's some of mie.
>
> You forgot the thinking distance, but what do I expect from someone that
> doesn't think.
>

I din'. YOU did however.

>>
>> Every second at 1g braking you can bleed off 21 mph. So there's me at
>> 3 seconds if I can achieve it, and very uncomfortable at 2, and
>> downright paranoid at a one second gap, with the MAJORITY of the
>> traffic travelling at half a second or less..at 70mph.
>
> Its also a very simplistic view that I used for your benefit as the real
> equations involve bleeding off energy which is velocity squared.

Energy is not anywhere in the equation ..until you ntroduced it.

Look lie you didn't understand the maths either.


> For the simple minded i.e. you, that means the braking distance goes up
> with the square of the speed and not just linearly as in 1G.

ut we wer talking time. and teh energy is only accidetally relaed t the
stopping distance, ad is irrelevam.

More moving goalposts.

You are John Prescott and I claim my £5.

> In reality your jag would take at least four times the distance it does
> a 60 mph.

Ideed, but that s OT waht we wer talkig about. YOU aid '5 seconds' not
'3/4 of a mile'

> Now shut up and talk about something you understand.

Exctly, you ignorant stupid dangerous arrogant ****wit.

>
>>
>> I can get down to less than 5mph in my nice Jag (if I had it still)
>> in 3 seconds. Losing 65mph. Joe public in his Renault Laguna 0.5
>> second up the tailpipe of Mrs Mop in her Fiesta, chatting to her
>> hubby, can get down to just 65mph in his gap. If the brakes are up to
>> it. To be that (un)safe with a 3 second gap, *I would have to be doing
>> 130mph*.
>>
>> So who is travelling too fast - me at 90mph and a three second gap, or
>> Joe Public doing 70mph with a half a second gap?
>
> Both of you!
>
>> Never mind - pearls before swine.
>>
>> Remember 100% of people who get killed on the roads have 'never been
>> in a fatal accident before'
>>
>> You don't get MUCH chance to practice them.
>
> You have been trying though.

Sure. Every time I turn an ignition key and move into a public road I
practising not to crash.

Unlike you, who thinks they know it all already.



>
>> Statistically, I;d say that about 95% of people who get killed on the
>> roads have never been in ANY accident before. They all thought they
>> were good drivers.
>>
>> Despite claims by others, I don't say i am a good driver, just a
>> survivor who KNOWS what is bad about his driving, and strives to
>> correct it.
>
> You know you speed, you do not attempt to correct it, you attempt to
> excuse it, don't lie about trying to improve.
>

I know that I drive, and I attempt to do it is safely as I know how. I
just think that the actual speed is really the least of my problems. So
it just happens as part of the overall art of defensive driving. I
simply do not let a bunch of arbitrary number painted on signs dicatete it.



>> And knows when others are WORSE. My abiding sin is inattention. ONE of
>> the best ways to counter it is to scare yourself a little. Focusses
>> the mind. A little fast driving does a fair job sometimes..you HAVE to
>> concentrate. However thats a private affair, not to be done in
>> company. Except on a race track., where its good fun and very
>> educational. I dob;'t THNK its possible anymore, but Brands Hatch in a
>> downpour in a go-kart is possibly the best ever way to understand
>> aquaplaning, under steer and what to do when you are going down a
>> steep hill on slicks with a stream running across it at the
>> bottom..yes, where the bend is..probably saved my car one early frosty
>> morning when the nasty patch of ice in deep shadow and totally
>> invisible came along..
>>
>
> The more you say the more you sound crazy and that you should be banned.
>

See. Learning to drive is now 'crazy'.

>>
>> Frankly the test never has and still does not teach ANYONE how to
>> drive: it merely affirms that you can do the most basic and simple
>> things with a car, and know a set of rules more or less.
>> Most of which the average driver soon forgets. Most drivers do NOT
>> look in their mirrors unless they have to, do NOT indicate where they
>> are going on e.g. roundabouts, drive with sidelights on or with
>> foglamps when there is no fog (both strictly illegal). Most (despite
>> protestations) do > 30mph in 30mph limits. I followed a POLICE car the
>> other day that did ALL of those..most follow other cars on motorways
>> at WELL under 2 second gaps..not illegal, but I wish it WAS..and, if
>> the person who bithley sailed ou front of me without even a cursory
>> check to their mirror, and was utterly uncomprehending as I managed to
>> get past them gesticulating wildly, is anything to go by, simply DID
>> NOT KNOW they had done ANYTHING WRONG...
>>
>> It's the only explanation that I have for the extraordinarily poor
>> standard of driving that a majority of people display, and yet, here
>> on the internet, everyone is a ****ing perfect driver except me?
>
> Is that what you think? I don't I think all drivers are idiots.

Bt you cearly stated that you did!


> Maybe you should try the same and you would realise you can't rely on
> the other drivers to get you out of the mess you get yourself into and
> will then take more care.
>

I don' get into messes. Other drivers put me in them. If I don't work
out their game before it happens,which these days I usually do, still
there is always a new version of insanity to come along and test you
every day really.. people like you are unbelievably creative with yheir
utter stupidity and carelessness.


I spend my driving life getting out of them.

>>
>> Weird or what?
>>
>> You are the classic example. You don't know how long it takes to stop
>> a real; life vehicle, you think five seconds is a dangerously long
>> time to take..you can't see any reason ever to overtake?
>
> You are just plain stupid, even the rules in the highway code are too
> lax for someone that stupid.
> Maybe they should print stopping distances up to 120 mph just so you
> have a clue.

Don't need to. About 3/4 of a mile typically.

>
>>
>> God, you know so LITTLE you don't know how utterly BAD you ARE!
>>
>> I wonder how many accidents you have caused that you didn't even know
>> you had. Smug and safe in your little tin cocoon 'safely' 1mph under
>> the speed limit, thinking you are just great.
>
> I bet you have caused more than you have been in.
>
Shame no one can prove it one way or another. Or I would take that bet
ad be a shade richer.

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Don't pass the buck. Answer the question. Why is it illegal to drive
>>>> at 31mph if it is not dangerous to do so..? The fact that it's the
>>>> law is not an answer. The question is *why* is it the law..?
>>>
>>> Ask your MP, there is no reason I should know the answer or care.
>>>
>>
>> Let's put it another way
>>
>> "Why, if they represent no danger are we gassing all the Jews, Mr
>> Gestapoman?"
>
> Now you have shown yourself to be unable to discuss anything.
>
>
>
Nor at all. I merelty extended your principle of refusing to have any
interest in the political social and legal systems you live under, to a
slightly more severe conclusion.

If that doesn't illustrate why you are a dangerous ****wit, and you
can't see it, then you are even stupider than you appear.

"Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[snip]

: : Because an act of parliment said it is so. you are
: : confusing common sense with law. as you cant legislate
: : for common sense, we have to have specific definitions
: : in the law. a decision has ben made that sets the speed
: : limit for that particular stretch of road that has
: : defined the speed limit. if you travel faster than that
: : speed then you have broken the law.

That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if it isn't dangerous. Still
waiting for an answer on that one.

Ivor

"The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No one will believe you Ivor. They are all starting from the
>>>>> assumption that 'speed kills' and no matter what you say, they will
>>>>> find some incredibly long and tedious explanation - in this case
>>>>> typically 'you shouldn't have been overtaking' to demonstrate why if
>>>>> you had left the bike at home, doing 0mph, you never would have BEEN
>>>>> in that situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you HAVE to overtake,
>>>>
>>>> Name one occasion where you HAVE to overtake.
>>>
>>> When you are 6" from my backside and there is stopped/parked car in the
>>> road?
>>>
>>
>> Only an idiot like you wouldn't slow down if the car behind was
>> tailgating.
>
> Oh I would, but I find that you just drop back and then come rushing up
> behind again. I can slow to 2mph and you still won't overtake? I don't
> have any choice.
>
>>
>>> No, you are right. Best to make a 3 car pile up.
>>
>> No you would rather take out the traffic coming the other way as well.
>
> What traffic? you have just made that up...do you honestly thk I would not
> have worked that out about 5 minutes ago?

Read what you posted.
You quite specifically said you had to pull out around someone who got in
your way while being tailgated, how did you have time to check the oncoming
traffic. You got into that stupid situation by driving too fast. Its funny
that you create scenarios where its your fault in an attempt to justify your
bad driving. It just shows how flawed your judgment is.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Lets try another one. You are nicely bumbling along in the slow lane
>>> minding your own business when Boy Racer rushes past you on the outside,
>>> cuts in front and tries to make the exit ramp..which is unfortunately
>>> full. So he slams on the brakes right in front of you. His brakes are
>>> better than yours. What should you do? Up the bank and turn the camper
>>> over? slam into the back of him? or overtake...you have half a second to
>>> make up your mind.
>>
>> You aren't going to accelerate out of that one so you have lost it.
>
> YOu asked when would would have to overtake, not accelerate. acclerating
> is part of overtaking.
>
> Moving goalposts again. Can't bear to admit you are a total tosser,and
> execrable driver, and wrong. Have you EVER overtaken a moving behicle?
> even on a motorway?

Can't you understand that everything you have said indicates you don't
understand how to drive.
You sound just like the 13 year olds just before they kill their first
victim.

>> You take avoiding action and you already know which way as you were aware
>> of your surroundings and knew that there was an idiot like you there.

>>
>
> Exactly. Avoiding action being overtaking and using the gas to avoid get
> shafted up the arse by Dennis at home..

You still can't grasp that it is you that sounds like a loony.
You really do sound as though you shouldn't drive.

>>> Ditto when someone pulls OUT of a slip road and you are in the 'slow
>>> lane', or, worse still, on a single carriageway..
>>>
>>> You had better be in practice or you have a crash on your hands. It
>>> wasn't my fault' you moan as the ambulance crew extracts you from the
>>> crushed wreck of your car 'I was only doing 50mph: he came out straight
>>> in front of me and I couldn't do anything': your erstwhile pious friends
>>> shake their heads at you 'he must have been SPEEDING' 'He couldn't stop
>>> as he wasn't leaving a big enough GAP'
>>
>> So far you have shown yourself to be incapable of sound judgment even
>> with your made up scenarios so I think its safe to assume you really are
>> stupid when it comes to driving and its people like you that the rules
>> are made for as you are incapable of driving without them. Like I said a
>> black box in your car would make things much better for all.
>
> It's really let's say, being kind - a shade unsafe to project your
> mentality and understanding out into the world and assume everybody is
> like you. Actually the rules are made for YOU. You are hat most dangerous
> of persons: one who is so stupid they don't realise that intelligence
> actually exists, and can be used.

>>> Right,. and wrong. There were things you COULD have done, if you knew
>>> about things like 'dropping it a couple of cogs and flooring it', and
>>> controlling the swerve that is bound to unsettle the car..but of course,
>>> overtaking is dangerous and so is speed, so YOU never practiced any of
>>> that did you? And you didn't want to risk crossing that double white
>>> line, in case you got a fine and some points n your license.
>>>
>>> Well now you have a broken spine and a life in a wheelchair.
>>> Serves you right. Should have learnt how to drive, *including*
>>> overtaking.
>>>
>>> Shuld have learnt that in an emergency you have the ability to
>>> accelerate in all four directions, backwards, forwards AND side to side
>>> and when two are going to see you dead, the other two MAY be worth a
>>> try.,
>>
>> Most of the population manage to avoid accidents in cars you would
>> consider to have no acceleration so that wipes your argument out at a
>> stroke.
>>
>
> Evey car has acceleration. You adjust your style to use it.
>
> The average Fiat Punto accelerates faster than an MG Midget used to, and
> corners better too.
>
>>>> Lets take that statement apart shall we..
>>>>
>>>> 120 mph = 176 ft/sec so assuming 1G stopping power (Jag, dry road)
>>>> stopping distance about 500 ft.
>>>> 60 mph = 88 ft/sec so assuming 1/2G stopping power (legal mot minimum)
>>>> stopping distance about 330 ft.
>>>
>>> Legal retardation at 30mph or less not at 50mph plus..
>>>>
>>>> So was your camper an MOT failure then?
>>>
>>> Not at all. Brand new (to em) fully tested and in tip top condition. I'm
>>> sure it COULD stop in that distance, ..If I didn't mind showering myself
>>> with whatever would probably burst out of the cupboards and killing the
>>> dogs. And assuming it was dead level on a flat dry road with no bends
>>> and no wet bits, in which case it would probably spin and end up on its
>>> side.
>>>
>>> And assuming no brake fade..
>>>
>>> The jag did a bit better than 1g too.
>>>
>>> You don't know much about the practical aspects of driving, do you?
>>
>> I admit you know a lot more about crashing than I do.
>> I will bow to your superior knowledge now you have told us all how to
>> crash.
>>
>
> Well you had better take it all on board. Cos you in partcular wILL.
>
>>>
>>> Now where did I read about the person who was killed (or was it their
>>> son/daughter) by the computer they had on the back seat that broke her
>>> necks when they slammed on the brakes?
>>
>> So now you don't brake because you carry dangerous, unsecured loads.
>> Anymore excuses for your bad driving, alternative realities are a good
>> one to try.
>>
>
> Ad you of course have never carried something in the back seat?

What do you think boots are for?
Once you understand a bit of physics you would never carry anything
unsecured on the back seat. I have fitted rear seat belts in every car I
have had and made people use them just because I do understand what happens.
You on the other hand don't have a clue.

>>>
>>> Full of theory Mr Smart guy..
>>>
>>> Roundabouts that could be taken at 60 in the Jag are tyre squealers at
>>> 30 in the camper.
>>
>> I have had to avoid a Jag that thought he could take an island at the
>> same speed as me.. shame he screwed it and went off. I didn't btw even
>> though it was close and I could feel the traction breaking. More
>> progressive tyres I suppose?
>
> No, somone so infuriated by your poor driving they felt they had to get
> past probably. ;-)
>
> Or did you deliberately force them off the road in a fit of jealousy?

It was probably you driving and couldn't keep your foot off the gas.

>>> So its the slow lane and 25mph... ;-)
>>>
>>> Just the way it is, in 2 1/2 tons of top heavy small van. With rear drum
>>> brakes and less tyres than a 1960's morris oxford. It SLIGHTLY better
>>> than driving on the handbrake cos your brake line just fractured..a rare
>>> event these days..but not an unkown event in my youth. Or the cables to
>>> the brakes just SNAPPED. I don't suppose you have ever drive with cable
>>> brakes except on a bicycle..have you?
>>
>> I wouldn't drive such a vehicle.. you may be stupid enough to do so but
>> not me.
>>
> Right. So you say in effect, that anyone driving a car with worse
> performance than yours ,shouldn't be on the roads.

It wouldn't pass construction and use regulations, but you are too stupid to
know that..

>
> In which case M'lud, I insist we all drive Jaguars!
>
>
>>>> BTW can you show me a road in the UK where taking more than 5 seconds
>>>> to stop is safe?
>>>
>>> Almost anywhere. 5 secs at 1g is 109mph. 5 seconds at 0.5g which is DAMN
>>> good for a truck on a DRY road..is 55mph.
>>>
>>> Calculate the braking distance/time on a fully wet road..for a 30 ton
>>> truck doing 55mph.. I'd say around 9-10 seconds.
>>
>> Have you gone into the back of a truck yet? You will.
>
> Not in 40 years, no. I leave BIG gaps, you see.
>
>>
>>
>>> Are you proposing tha 25mph is the speed limit for a laden truck in wet
>>> weather?
>>>
>>> Does it not make the 2 second rule - broken by 95% of the motorist on
>>> the M25 at a rough count last time I used it - look more like an
>>> extremely dangerous ABSOLUTE MINIMUM and hope that you notice the
>>> stationary traffic ahead?
>>
>> It is designed for idiots like you.
>>
>
> No,it isn't because leave MORE. I don't NEED that rule.
>
>>
>>> Of course when the inevitable pile up occurs, it was 'going too fast to
>>> stop: we must lower the speed limits'. Utter bollocks. Travelling too
>>> close is FAR more dangerous.
>>
>> They are the same thing.. anywhere it says travelling too close also
>> means too fast or are you completely brain dead?
>
> Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.So speed limits will stop people travelling too
> close? they are after all the same thing?
>
> Did you actually PASS a driving test? Thats 4 complete failures we have
> come across so far.
>
>> .
>>
>>> You ca do the mathematics if you like: not totally accurate, but since
>>> you like to show your smarts here's some of mie.
>>
>> You forgot the thinking distance, but what do I expect from someone that
>> doesn't think.
>>
>
> I din'. YOU did however.
>
>>>
>>> Every second at 1g braking you can bleed off 21 mph. So there's me at 3
>>> seconds if I can achieve it, and very uncomfortable at 2, and downright
>>> paranoid at a one second gap, with the MAJORITY of the traffic
>>> travelling at half a second or less..at 70mph.
>>
>> Its also a very simplistic view that I used for your benefit as the real
>> equations involve bleeding off energy which is velocity squared.
>
> Energy is not anywhere in the equation ..until you ntroduced it.
>
> Look lie you didn't understand the maths either.
>
>
>> For the simple minded i.e. you, that means the braking distance goes up
>> with the square of the speed and not just linearly as in 1G.
>
> ut we wer talking time. and teh energy is only accidetally relaed t the
> stopping distance, ad is irrelevam.

You are about as stupid as they come.
Did you take a test?

> More moving goalposts.
>
> You are John Prescott and I claim my £5.
>
>> In reality your jag would take at least four times the distance it does a
>> 60 mph.
>
> Ideed, but that s OT waht we wer talkig about. YOU aid '5 seconds' not
> '3/4 of a mile'
>
>> Now shut up and talk about something you understand.
>
> Exctly, you ignorant stupid dangerous arrogant ****wit.

Losing the ability to fabricate "facts" and resorting to insults?

>>> I can get down to less than 5mph in my nice Jag (if I had it still) in
>>> 3 seconds. Losing 65mph. Joe public in his Renault Laguna 0.5 second up
>>> the tailpipe of Mrs Mop in her Fiesta, chatting to her hubby, can get
>>> down to just 65mph in his gap. If the brakes are up to it. To be that
>>> (un)safe with a 3 second gap, *I would have to be doing 130mph*.
>>>
>>> So who is travelling too fast - me at 90mph and a three second gap, or
>>> Joe Public doing 70mph with a half a second gap?
>>
>> Both of you!
>>
>>> Never mind - pearls before swine.
>>>
>>> Remember 100% of people who get killed on the roads have 'never been in
>>> a fatal accident before'
>>>
>>> You don't get MUCH chance to practice them.
>>
>> You have been trying though.
>
> Sure. Every time I turn an ignition key and move into a public road I
> practising not to crash.
>
> Unlike you, who thinks they know it all already.

I didn't say that.
However it is apparent that you know far too much, most off it is wrong and
you lack the judgment to understand which and why.

>>> Statistically, I;d say that about 95% of people who get killed on the
>>> roads have never been in ANY accident before. They all thought they were
>>> good drivers.
>>>
>>> Despite claims by others, I don't say i am a good driver, just a
>>> survivor who KNOWS what is bad about his driving, and strives to correct
>>> it.
>>
>> You know you speed, you do not attempt to correct it, you attempt to
>> excuse it, don't lie about trying to improve.
>>
>
> I know that I drive, and I attempt to do it is safely as I know how. I
> just think that the actual speed is really the least of my problems. So it
> just happens as part of the overall art of defensive driving. I simply do
> not let a bunch of arbitrary number painted on signs dicatete it.

So you drive dangerously.. other road users will be expecting you to obey
the limit and it will be your fault when someone pulls out in front of you
when there should have been a big enough gap but wasn't because you were
speeding.

>>> And knows when others are WORSE. My abiding sin is inattention. ONE of
>>> the best ways to counter it is to scare yourself a little. Focusses the
>>> mind. A little fast driving does a fair job sometimes..you HAVE to
>>> concentrate. However thats a private affair, not to be done in company.
>>> Except on a race track., where its good fun and very educational. I
>>> dob;'t THNK its possible anymore, but Brands Hatch in a downpour in a
>>> go-kart is possibly the best ever way to understand aquaplaning, under
>>> steer and what to do when you are going down a steep hill on slicks with
>>> a stream running across it at the bottom..yes, where the bend
>>> is..probably saved my car one early frosty morning when the nasty patch
>>> of ice in deep shadow and totally invisible came along..
>>>
>>
>> The more you say the more you sound crazy and that you should be banned.
>>
>
> See. Learning to drive is now 'crazy'.

You are crazy, learning is not.

>>> Frankly the test never has and still does not teach ANYONE how to drive:
>>> it merely affirms that you can do the most basic and simple things with
>>> a car, and know a set of rules more or less.
>>> Most of which the average driver soon forgets. Most drivers do NOT look
>>> in their mirrors unless they have to, do NOT indicate where they are
>>> going on e.g. roundabouts, drive with sidelights on or with foglamps
>>> when there is no fog (both strictly illegal). Most (despite
>>> protestations) do > 30mph in 30mph limits. I followed a POLICE car the
>>> other day that did ALL of those..most follow other cars on motorways at
>>> WELL under 2 second gaps..not illegal, but I wish it WAS..and, if the
>>> person who bithley sailed ou front of me without even a cursory check
>>> to their mirror, and was utterly uncomprehending as I managed to get
>>> past them gesticulating wildly, is anything to go by, simply DID NOT
>>> KNOW they had done ANYTHING WRONG...
>>>
>>> It's the only explanation that I have for the extraordinarily poor
>>> standard of driving that a majority of people display, and yet, here on
>>> the internet, everyone is a ****ing perfect driver except me?
>>
>> Is that what you think? I don't I think all drivers are idiots.
>
> Bt you cearly stated that you did!

What are you talking about?
I have told you multiple times I think all drivers are idiots, why do you
come back to this again?
Do you think it will help your case by keep asking the same question and
denying the answer.

>
>
>> Maybe you should try the same and you would realise you can't rely on the
>> other drivers to get you out of the mess you get yourself into and will
>> then take more care.
>>
>
> I don' get into messes. Other drivers put me in them. If I don't work out
> their game before it happens,which these days I usually do, still there is
> always a new version of insanity to come along and test you every day
> really.. people like you are unbelievably creative with yheir utter
> stupidity and carelessness.
>
>
> I spend my driving life getting out of them.

I spend mine avoiding getting into them.
Its usually better. to do it that way around.

>
>>>
>>> Weird or what?
>>>
>>> You are the classic example. You don't know how long it takes to stop a
>>> real; life vehicle, you think five seconds is a dangerously long time to
>>> take..you can't see any reason ever to overtake?
>>
>> You are just plain stupid, even the rules in the highway code are too lax
>> for someone that stupid.
>> Maybe they should print stopping distances up to 120 mph just so you have
>> a clue.
>
> Don't need to. About 3/4 of a mile typically.
>
>>
>>>
>>> God, you know so LITTLE you don't know how utterly BAD you ARE!
>>>
>>> I wonder how many accidents you have caused that you didn't even know
>>> you had. Smug and safe in your little tin cocoon 'safely' 1mph under the
>>> speed limit, thinking you are just great.
>>
>> I bet you have caused more than you have been in.
>>
> Shame no one can prove it one way or another. Or I would take that bet ad
> be a shade richer.
>
>

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> [snip]
>
> : : Because an act of parliment said it is so. you are
> : : confusing common sense with law. as you cant legislate
> : : for common sense, we have to have specific definitions
> : : in the law. a decision has ben made that sets the speed
> : : limit for that particular stretch of road that has
> : : defined the speed limit. if you travel faster than that
> : : speed then you have broken the law.
>
> That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if it isn't dangerous. Still
> waiting for an answer on that one.

It makes too much noise?
It wastes fuel?
It accelerates road wear?
It increases congestion?
The residents want a limit?

There are lots of reasons that a speed limit may be imposed but I have said
this earlier in the thread so I don't suppose this post will make any
difference.

In message <[email protected]>
"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> [snip]
>
> : : Because an act of parliment said it is so. you are
> : : confusing common sense with law. as you cant legislate
> : : for common sense, we have to have specific definitions
> : : in the law. a decision has ben made that sets the speed
> : : limit for that particular stretch of road that has
> : : defined the speed limit. if you travel faster than that
> : : speed then you have broken the law.
>
> That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if it isn't dangerous. Still
> waiting for an answer on that one.

Danger isn't the only reason to make something illegal. For
example, it's illegal to make noise at night that would be
legal during daytime. The reason is consideration for others.

Dave

"Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
: : In message <[email protected]>
: : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

: : : That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if it
: : : isn't dangerous. Still waiting for an answer on that
: : : one.
: :
: : Danger isn't the only reason to make something illegal.
: : For example, it's illegal to make noise at night that
: : would be legal during daytime. The reason is
: : consideration for others.

What difference does 1mph make..?

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] : : In message
> <[email protected]>
> : : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> : : : That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if it
> : : : isn't dangerous. Still waiting for an answer on that
> : : : one. : : : : Danger isn't the only reason to make something illegal.
> : : For example, it's illegal to make noise at night that
> : : would be legal during daytime. The reason is
> : : consideration for others.
> What difference does 1mph make..?

An accident or not as with *all* crashes.

"dennis@home" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
: : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: : news:[email protected]...
: : : "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in
: : : message news:[email protected] : :
: : : In message <[email protected]>
: : : : : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]>
: : : : : wrote:
: : :
: : : [snip]
: : :
: : : : : : That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if
: : : : : : it
: : : : : : isn't dangerous. Still waiting for an answer on
: : : : : : that
: : : : : : one. : : : : Danger isn't the only reason to
: : : : : : make something illegal.
: : : : : For example, it's illegal to make noise at night
: : : : : that would be legal during daytime. The reason is
: : : : : consideration for others.
: : : What difference does 1mph make..?
: :
: : An accident or not as with *all* crashes.

So I'll crash at 31mph but not at 30..? Hmm.

Ivor

In message <[email protected]>
"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> : : In message <[email protected]>
> : : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> : : : That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if it
> : : : isn't dangerous. Still waiting for an answer on that
> : : : one.
> : :
> : : Danger isn't the only reason to make something illegal.
> : : For example, it's illegal to make noise at night that
> : : would be legal during daytime. The reason is
> : : consideration for others.
>
> What difference does 1mph make..?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. All legal cases have to "pass
a test" to determine whether an offence has been committed. Choice
of some particular speed gives an objective test.

Dave

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "dennis@home" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected] : : "Ivor Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : : news:[email protected]...
> : : : "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> : : : message news:[email protected] : :
> : : : In message <[email protected]>
> : : : : : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]>
> : : : : : wrote: : : : : : : [snip]
> : : : : : : : : : That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if
> : : : : : : it : : : : : : isn't dangerous. Still waiting for an answer on
> : : : : : : that : : : : : : one. : : : : Danger isn't the only reason to
> : : : : : : make something illegal. : : : : : For example, it's illegal to
> make noise at night
> : : : : : that would be legal during daytime. The reason is
> : : : : : consideration for others.
> : : : What difference does 1mph make..?
> : : : : An accident or not as with *all* crashes.
>
> So I'll crash at 31mph but not at 30..? Hmm.

Its obviously true under some circumstances.. do you have a problem with
that?

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] : : In message
> <[email protected]>
> : : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> : : : That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if it
> : : : isn't dangerous. Still waiting for an answer on that
> : : : one. : : : : Danger isn't the only reason to make something illegal.
> : : For example, it's illegal to make noise at night that
> : : would be legal during daytime. The reason is
> : : consideration for others.
> What difference does 1mph make..?
>
> Ivor
>
The difference between breaking the law, and not breaking the law. That
might sound petty, but what happens when you set the speed limit at
93.7865343 miles per hour. Well, when you travel at 93.7865342 miles per
hour you are within the law and when you travel at 93.7865345 miles per
hour you are not. The difference between the two will make absolutely no
difference in an accident or when you run over that child that dashed
out in front of you, but the imit has to be set somewhere, and it has to
be an arbitrary position, because there is no other way to enforce it.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:38:53 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"dennis@home" <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]
>: : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>: : news:[email protected]...
>: : : "Dave Higton" <[email protected]> wrote in
>: : : message news:[email protected] : :
>: : : In message <[email protected]>
>: : : : : "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]>
>: : : : : wrote:
>: : :
>: : : [snip]
>: : :
>: : : : : : That still doesn't explain why it's illegal if
>: : : : : : it
>: : : : : : isn't dangerous. Still waiting for an answer on
>: : : : : : that
>: : : : : : one. : : : : Danger isn't the only reason to
>: : : : : : make something illegal.
>: : : : : For example, it's illegal to make noise at night
>: : : : : that would be legal during daytime. The reason is
>: : : : : consideration for others.
>: : : What difference does 1mph make..?
>: :
>: : An accident or not as with *all* crashes.
>
>So I'll crash at 31mph but not at 30..? Hmm.

Unlikely, but if you're going to impose speed limits you have to draw
the line somewhere.

The problem is that too many people are so lacking in driving skills
that they need fixed rules like to be enforced to protect others from
them. On any given stretch of road, you can't say that one particular
fixed speed limit is always appropriate. Depending on a variety of
factors such as weather conditions, proximity to pedestrians, time of
day, visibility, road surface conditions etc. the maximum safe speed
will vary enormously even over just a few yards. Unfortunately,
because so many idiots fail to recognise that they're driving too fast
in dangerous conditions we need to impose lower limits for everyone.

Chris