Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

Because to eliminate risk speed must equal zero, this kind of defeats the
object. I've been in cars at >180mph and not died, by extrapolating the
absolute that speed kills I should have instantly terminated at that speed.

 

Do you think we should have certification for certain professions? After
all, I could be treated by an unqualified doctor and still live.

There is no such thing as 'risk free'. The aim is to reduce risk so that the
risk of doing something is less than the risk of not doing it (nothing
happens in isolation).

'Speed kills' is a somewhat simplistic statement but, usenet hairsplitting
apart, when stated as 'an increase in speed leads to an increased risk of
death'.

And to be pedantic, for you to claim 'Speed kills' is rubbish, you would
have to show that speed has never killed.

...d

 

Do you really believe that that is practicable in the case of road use?
That the risk of using the road can become less than the risk of not using
it?

But there is no absolute right or wrong here. On the one hand we have a
group of people that demand limits be adhered to since that 'reduces risk
or accident and death' [1] and that such and such a risk is an acceptable
level.

On the other hand there is another group of people esentialy arguing that
they are more than capable of making their own judgements of what is
acceptable risk.

Essentially all you're all arguing about is what level of risk is
acceptable. No *way* are you ever going to agree. It's utterly pointless.

Well, if it's shown that many many millions of people travle very fast
every year, and very few of them die, I think we can ignore the ones that
die travelling slowly.

[1] Simplified, but fair I feel.
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Risk of what? Risk of losing the benefits that can come from travel vs risk
of accruing a cost (eg. crash).

The normal phrasing is probably cost/benefit analysis.

...d

 

Well, I assumed (possibly wrongly) the risk of having an 'accident'

Or not, I suspect.
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

In what way is it impossible to predict that a small child running on
the pavement is quite likely to run onto the road?

--
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

 

Except that is is natural childish behaviour. And that happens
relatively frequently. (It even happened to me dring my driving
test.)

And part of the rules of the road is to take extra care when there are
young children on the pavements, due to their 'unpredictable'
behavaiour.

Actually, yes, it could. Just not while treating an urban 30 as the
/minimum/ speed.

Except the person who raised it earlier in the thread

Except that you want children never to run out onto the road.


This could only be achieved by somehow magically managing to forced
them to achieve adult levels of judgement and behaviour near roads at
all times.

Or more realistically, by keeping them far away from all roads.



--
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

 

No one claims it is. Mind you, it is quite within the rules for
pedestrians to be in the middle of the carriageway and still have
right of way. (Even excluding zebra crossings)

....

--
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

 

When does 'speed kills' become 'speeds kills the speeder 100% of the
times he reaches >180mph'?




--
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

 

We don't have them now. But this is not due to cameras. Cameras have
mitigated the effect of the withdrawal of police resources from
traffic duties, but are not the cause of it.

Focussing police effort 'on the real criminals' is the culprit.

--
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 intending to have a crash on icy roads is different from failing
to anticipate a crash is much more likely when driving on icy roads..

....


--
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

 

No - a crash doesn't have any connotation of unexpectedness.

It's therefore much more neutral, describing only the event, without
attempting to ascribe any explanation of cause.

So, yes, using 'crash' is better. And it does not make them sound
more like events which just happen. Quite the reverse, in fact.



--
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

 

Just because an event is unintentional (i.e is not planned
deliberately), does not mean it cannot be anticipated.

Not even when the certainty is less than 100%.

--
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

 

And the key word in al the definitions you quoted is 'unexpected'.

Those who drive without expecting the possibility of a collision drive
without paying sufficient attention to avoiding them, or mitigating
the effects of them.



--
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 think yours is a fair post. I disagree, however, that 3,500 is 'very few'.

 

David Martin () gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Not colliding with *any* car - because you've looked first - kills even
less.

 

That wasn't the case in point. It would be just as easy to say "Not
colliding with any car because the lardarse who usually drives decided it
might actually be good for his heart, his lungs, his wallet and society in
general if he prised himself out of his tin greenhouse on wheels and got on
a bike to pop the 1 mile down to the shops fro his fags, booze and copy of
the Sunday Sport"

...d

 

Dear me...

That is one heck of a chip you're carrying on that shoulder.

 

What is your general reaction when someone claims to be able to predict
things?

 

Depends. When a bookmaker claims it, I reckon he'll do a reasonable
job of it.

When someone prepares a pricing estimate, (a prediction of price) I
generally try to fin out how competent he is.

When the DfT predict traffic volumes for proposed new roads, I know to
disbelieve it.

When someone appears on the Psychic Network, I settle in for some
mindless entertainment.



--
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