Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

Actually the whole retired population lives off the work of the
succeeding generation(s).

It's just that, as fewer kids are born, there's fewer of them to share
around the necessary work....


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

A rule of thumb? So we're talking a hypothesis or theory? What I'm really
looking for is some evidence that it's true. Clearly the severity of outcome
is likely to go up with increased speed but I'm talking about the specific
statistic mentioned.

 

Yep - it even happened to me during my driving test. I had spotted
the little darling on the pavement and lifted off the throttle in
case, so when she ran out, I was, thankfully, ready to stop.

I think it compensated for the fact that my earlier, 'fake' emergency
stop during the test wasn't that good.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Granted, but I can think of several situations I've experienced recently
where this was demonstrably not the case.

Often, over time, after the original lights are put in, more phases are
added, perhaps other lights augment the system from nearby and the whole
thing gets too complex for the original logic. Reset it all and the
system finds a balance - at least locally, who's to say that this
increased flow doesn't get stuck further down the track is fair comment.

 

You can drive safely, with due care, yet break laws - or is there some
definition of due care that involves "you're not displaying due care if
any law is being broken"?

 

That's right. Just as every aspect of life is a balance between risk
and desired outcome.

While true, this doesn't mean that it is meaningless whether we kill
10,000 people or 10 people.

It is possible to allow transport, and still try to mitigate its fatal
effects.

Most particularly, it would be possible to save 1000 more lives a year
with no more resources than are used at present.

We would only need to move the resources put into saving 5 lives a
year on the railway into saving lives on the road instead.

Not true. Attempting to minimise deaths is both more moral and more
ethical than accepting that bodies might as well pile as high as they
go.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:57:41 +0000 (UTC), "Andrewr At Work"

....

And it was addressed the last time you posted it.

Except, where is the evidence that this is true? As was pointed out,
it's not supported by the facts.

So the implication is that it's a straw man proposal, given to attempt
to support the outcome that you favoured to start off with.

Aha! thought so.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Just zis Guy, you know?"

Ah ha. It becomes clear now...
Better dust off that little Gauleiter's badge and cap you keep in the
downstairs cupboard. I hear they're recruiting Block Wardens already.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

We are taxed to that level. We are spending £20m per life saved.
(not just £2m).

What would be more sensible would be to take the total amount spent,
and spend it on road safety rather than on rail safety.

We would then save about 1000 lives instead of 5.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Not at current, when 10%+3mph is tolerated even for people caught.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

To be true, only the driver of a single vehicle ever suffers injury
death or property damage in any given road traffic accident?

This isn't true.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Ah ha. It becomes clear now...

He /does/ have a funny moustache....

 

True - but these aids don't actually alter the figures in the
direction you think they do.

The average vehicle lasts 14 years. That means that a substantial
number of '92 vintage cars are stil on the roads in any event.

Guy has already raised the issue of risk compensation on the part of
drivers - when drivers know they have safety aids, they tend to drive
faster and brake later, rather than driving just they way they always
did.

And newer cars which are built like tanks (and so becoming much
heavier and less fuel efficient) tend to pulverise older cars. Rather
than a collision being of two cars each which use their crumple zones
equally.

While true, it is possible to do multi-variate analyses which are
informative (even tho' they can never be absolutely definitive)




--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Actually, as Guy ponted out, there are numerous studies which have
quantified this effect.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

I'd say that's the 'at worst' outcome'. I've certainly worked for
large corporations that took this sort of thing seriously - i.e. used
its disciplinary procedures for bringing the company into disrepute.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

On 16 Aug 2004 01:57:11 -0700, (David) wrote
(more or less):
....

Of course, you received such nonsensical outcomes because you posed
the original question in what appeared to be a nonsensical way.

(Feel free to swap 'nonsensical' for 'moronic', if you prefer.)

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Yes you are because society has decided that if you want the convenience
of road travel then you should not speed with impunity at the cost of
people's lives. Just as they've decided you should not exceed a blood
alcohol level with impunity or use petrol with lead in.

I agree that is obviously crap. Speed limits have nothing to do with
the maximum speed that is safe for a road in perfect conditions. Its
all to do with what society deems, through our elected representatives,
to be the maximum speed they will accept for motorists on that stretch
of road. That's why the standard speed limit for a built up area is
30mph irrespective of the details of the area.

Tony

 

No, not at present, because we don't presently adhere to zero tolerance.

However, you stated that you supported zero tolerance, which brings us back
to my point ...


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Ah, so you are saying it's more ethical to murder 5 people than 10, eh?

The unethical part is saying that we should accept some people will die for
the convenience of others, campaigning to have fewer people die is just
moral cowardice.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

No it wasn't, you simply said our motorways were already some of our safest
roads.

That's very nice, but if motorways were limited to 20mph then fatalities on
them would be almost non-existant. So we could save people by doing nothing
more than putting a 20mph limit on all roads.

But haven't you been saying that the rate of fatalities is proportional to
the speed of impact? If we limited all cars to 20mph then, by your own
logic, it follows that fatalities will fall.

So in fact it's not a straw man, it's a perfectly valid suggestion. You're
opposing it because uses your own logic to show that the position you
support leads to extra deaths (just as the position I support does).

Why not? If they're just going fast, but not being dangerous for the
conditions then what harm is being done?


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.