 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I read somewhere that if you put more road safety features in, people
feel safer and so take more risks, resulting in the same level of safety
as before. And now I read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Apparently the idea is that because it looks more dangerous, people pay
more attention.
Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling it's only a matter of time
before some twat driving a Subaru Impreza comes along and starts trying
to drive like it's a rally circuit... :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:08:44 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Heidbanger! not you but Hans Monderman.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I read somewhere that if you put more road safety features in, people feel
> safer and so take more risks, resulting in the same level of safety as
> before. And now I read this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
>
> Apparently the idea is that because it looks more dangerous, people pay
> more attention.
Jeremy Clarkson once said that he wanted there to be a big spike on your
steering wheel rather than an airbag.
> Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling it's only a matter of time
> before some twat driving a Subaru Impreza comes along and starts trying to
> drive like it's a rally circuit... :-P
Well why not, if he can see there's nobody else about and he's not going to
harm anyone else - isn't that the whole point?
It should be illegal to drive in a dangerous manner, not to fall foul of
some arbitrary rule someone has made up, but then that would mean actual
police needed rather than machines ;-) For example, I can overtake a police
car at 80mph in pouring rain within a few metres of the car infront of me
and that's apparently fine. Yet if I drive the same road at 5am when it's
completely empty and I can see for 4 miles, I get fined for going 90mph.
How is that teaching me to drive safely?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Jeremy Clarkson once said that he wanted there to be a big spike on your
> steering wheel rather than an airbag.
That sounds like something Clarkson would say...
>> Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling it's only a matter of time
>> before some twat driving a Subaru Impreza comes along and starts
>> trying to drive like it's a rally circuit... :-P
>
> Well why not, if he can see there's nobody else about and he's not going
> to harm anyone else - isn't that the whole point?
No - the point is that people who buy Subarus seem to think it's
completely OK to drive that way no matter who else is on the road.
> It should be illegal to drive in a dangerous manner, not to fall foul of
> some arbitrary rule someone has made up, but then that would mean actual
> police needed rather than machines ;-)
Yeah, that's the one.
The *other* problem being that if everything is a judgement call, it's
much harder to prosecute people. That's kinda why they made it
explicitly illegal to use a mobile phone while driving - to make
absolutely sure people know they WILL be prosecuted and they can't
wriggle out of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The *other* problem being that if everything is a judgement call, it's
> much harder to prosecute people.
Just hand them a fine for dangerous driving, they can contest it in court if
they don't agree. There was a guy who was filmed doing 120mph or something
on an empty road by the police and was fined/banned/whatever for dangerous
driving. He went to court and the judge agreed with him that what he did
couldn't possibly be dangerous driving because the camera clearly showed a
huge distance ahead on the motorway that was totally clear.
That's how it should be, maybe in future more stuff can be detected
automatically by cameras rather than just if you are over the fixed speed
limit (tailgating should be fairly easy, as should driving too fast in
fog/rain/heavy traffic).
> That's kinda why they made it explicitly illegal to use a mobile phone
> while driving - to make absolutely sure people know they WILL be
> prosecuted and they can't wriggle out of it.
Yeh I think it was more to make people stick to the law rather than making
it easier to prosecute. Wasn't there some woman prosecuted for eating an
apple whilst sat waiting at a red light?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> The *other* problem being that if everything is a judgement call, it's
>> much harder to prosecute people.
>
> Just hand them a fine for dangerous driving, they can contest it in
> court if they don't agree. There was a guy who was filmed doing 120mph
> or something on an empty road by the police and was
> fined/banned/whatever for dangerous driving. He went to court and the
> judge agreed with him that what he did couldn't possibly be dangerous
> driving because the camera clearly showed a huge distance ahead on the
> motorway that was totally clear.
>
> That's how it should be.
Probably, yeah.
Trouble is, some people geniunely don't give a **** about anybody except
themselves. It's their personal road, and if anybody else gets in their
way, that person has absolutely no right to continue to be alive. If it
was up to these people, they'd drive *everywhere* at 120 MPH, and if
somebody gets killed... well that's their fault, right?
We have rules about speed limits so these people can't get away with it.
(Also... apparently the difference in fatality rates for collisions at
30 MPH vs 35 MPH are surprisingly large. The people who set the speed
limits will have access to all this data - whether they use it right is
another matter, obviously. But most drivers don't have this data.)
> maybe in future more stuff can be detected
> automatically by cameras rather than just if you are over the fixed
> speed limit (tailgating should be fairly easy, as should driving too
> fast in fog/rain/heavy traffic).
I'm still impressed at that guy who decided to overtake me over the
crest of a hill, on a bend, in the dark, in dense fog, at twice the
speed limit. Obviously, this person will never be prosecuted.
>> That's kinda why they made it explicitly illegal to use a mobile phone
>> while driving - to make absolutely sure people know they WILL be
>> prosecuted and they can't wriggle out of it.
>
> Yeh I think it was more to make people stick to the law rather than
> making it easier to prosecute.
Well, possibly both.
> Wasn't there some woman prosecuted for
> eating an apple whilst sat waiting at a red light?
That's a little silly. The worst thing that can happen is that you fail
to notice the lights change, and hold people up a little. Big deal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Trouble is, some people geniunely don't give a **** about anybody except
> themselves. It's their personal road, and if anybody else gets in their
> way, that person has absolutely no right to continue to be alive. If it
> was up to these people, they'd drive *everywhere* at 120 MPH, and if
> somebody gets killed... well that's their fault, right?
>
> We have rules about speed limits so these people can't get away with it.
But the speed limit rules only stop a very small proportion of dangerous
driving, a lot of dangerous driving happens below the speed limit, and a lot
of safe driving happens above the speed limit.
> (Also... apparently the difference in fatality rates for collisions at 30
> MPH vs 35 MPH are surprisingly large. The people who set the speed limits
> will have access to all this data - whether they use it right is another
> matter, obviously. But most drivers don't have this data.)
Of course, but there is *a lot* of confusion and mis-use of accident
statistics the whole time. For example, is that 30 and 35 MPH you mentioned
the speed of the vehicle before they start to take avoiding action, or is
that the speed of one car the instant they impact, or the differential speed
between the two cars? If you're driving at 70mph you're less likely to have
an accident - so speed up!
> I'm still impressed at that guy who decided to overtake me over the crest
> of a hill, on a bend, in the dark, in dense fog, at twice the speed limit.
> Obviously, this person will never be prosecuted.
Oh I think they will, they can't live their life doing moves like that
without a) ending up dead or b) ending up in a non-fatal accident and being
prosecuted for dangerous driving.
> That's a little silly. The worst thing that can happen is that you fail to
> notice the lights change, and hold people up a little. Big deal.
Yet it's illegal to use a mobile phone while sat stationary in traffic...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> It should be illegal to drive in a dangerous manner, not to fall foul of
> some arbitrary rule someone has made up,
In the USA, laws left entirely up to the judgement of the law
enforcers/courts are frowned upon. It's in the constitution and everything.
You're supposed to be able to read a law and know whether you're breaking
the law without having to actually get arrested first.
One of the problems with the anti-monopoly laws is that they are (or at
least were) very vague in these areas, to the point where it's impossible to
know before getting complained at that there's something wrong.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Yet it's illegal to use a mobile phone while sat stationary in traffic...
There's a reason to this:
Phone calls distract you, that's plain fact (the mistake the legislation makes
here is IMO that it distracts you no matter whether you use a handsfree unit or
not, but that's another story).
So here you are, concentrated on your phone call - all the more (!) since you're
in stationary traffic so what can possibly happen - and the car in front of you
starts going again. Being in the middle of conversation, you kind of
instinctively follow, but your attention is possibly still in the conversation,
and your instinct is focused on gearing up again.
Now if the person driving in front of you has a reason to hit the brake - and
hit it fast! - you and your instincts may not be attentive enough to hit the
brake yourself in time, so what you hit instead is the car in front.
Not that I'd consider such an accident dramatic, but it it's an argument that
can be made.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> In the USA, laws left entirely up to the judgement of the law
> enforcers/courts are frowned upon. It's in the constitution and
> everything. You're supposed to be able to read a law and know whether
> you're breaking the law without having to actually get arrested first.
>
> One of the problems with the anti-monopoly laws is that they are (or at
> least were) very vague in these areas, to the point where it's
> impossible to know before getting complained at that there's something
> wrong.
...so it's like Set Theory?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
