Would be very easy to do if you live in some remote part of the country. I've had some half dozen insurance claims over the years due to damage when my car was parked. And a couple of others where I was run into, and the other person's insurance paid. Only one damage only claim which was my fault - and that didn't involve another vehicle.
I observe what experience has taught me I have to observe. General experience suggests to me that stationary and inanimate objects set back at least several feet from the kerb, have extremely low relevance, so I spent disproportionately less time looking there, than for example looking directly ahead at my expected course.
The question is how accurate that judgment needs to be. As I say, no one does 70mph in a 30 limited town centre without realising it, but I'm pretty sure I could do 35mph in a 30 without realising it.
Generally, you use the note of the engine, but even that is misleading if say you are accustomed to petrol engines and then step into a diesel, or if you are accustomed to larger engines and then step into a car with a smaller one. And I don't know about you, but I have driven all sorts of vehicles, and I almost exclusively use instrumentation for ascertaining vehicle speed - any other means would be far too haphazard in this day and age.
That said, at lower speeds in lower gears, there is quite a radical tonal change over a relatively small range of vehicle speeds - but in higher gears and at higher speeds, this is less so. I would struggle to judge the difference between 50mph and 55mph in 5th or 6th gear, based purely on the engine note.
Someone who is musically-trained might be able to make extremely quick and accurate judgments based on tone, but I'm not one of them.
The self-confidence is indeed matched by skill. I'm not arrogant - I'm not saying my driving does not involve risk, or that my skills are perfect, or that they could not possibly be improved. I'm saying that the risk, tiny as it is, is acceptable in my view, in the circumstances that prevail. One cannot be obsessed with every tiny risk in daily life.
I don't think the world would be a better place at all, if people like you got full control of the levers of power, as we suffered all sorts of unpleasant regimes designed to make us "safe".
No. I'm simply making clear that whereas I will not comply willingly with these measures to improve my safety, because I do not accept that there will be any significant improvements in safety as against the costs of the measures to me (whether in terms of consuming more time, brainpower, or whatever), nor will I comply with your attempts to enforce them against my will.
If I'm successfully forced, for example, to spend more time driving at slower speeds, then I intend to reallocate that time to other interesting things, like listening to the radio or making telephone calls, so that in net effect I will recoup the time that you have stolen from me, and the effects of that will almost certainly be to increase danger in a way that offsets the improvement in safety attributable to the lower driving speeds.
On the contrary, I was referring to two different scales. As I say, you *must* be able to make some sort of judgment from the general circumstances about what is a reasonable speed, otherwise you would often be travelling too fast (albeit below the legal maximum). What I am asking you, is what happens in your mind when your own judgment about what is a reasonable target speed, yields a figure that exceeds the posted limit?
Do you insist that your own judgment is wrong, or do you insist that the judgment of the person who posted the sign is wrong?
I assume you meant, "... can't judge your speed ..."
I will take a bet that if you were to cover your speedometer and state what speed you think you are driving as you take a drive along several roads of varying surface type, many of your judgements will be out by quite a margin. In particular the range between 30MPH and 50MPH is especially hard to judge in most modern cars without fairly frequent references to the speedo, and an error of 10MPH is very likely.
Mainly the engine sound. Try the foloowing: Put on a rock music CD and turn the volume up *loud* Cover your tacho and speedo. See how well you cope with changing gears at the appropriate time.
And who had more power to influence the terms of such a contract?
I should think I would be outraged. But then, if I was the builder rather than the consumer, I would think the suggestion eminently reasonable.
Seeing myself as being both a consumer and a producer, it is obvious that in general I want some sort of balance between the two. And even as the builder, I don't really want individual consumers to be stung with covering the full cost of my family emergency. But clearly I want some general power to take time off to deal with irregular emergencies, without total collapse of my lifestyle and reduction to penury.
Can you not see that for a great many employers, paying an extra salary every month to someone who does not actually do any work can be just as devastating, and could easily result in bankruptcy for the employer? That would especially be the case if such a thing became law, because for every genuine case there would bound to be several chancers who did not *really* have to stay at home as a carer.
If money were to be taken from someone (I suspect you would like it to come from myself and other taxpayers) to pay for you to look after a disabled relative, how about a situation in which your partner leaves you or dies and you are left literally holding the baby? You will have to find a way to care for your infant in that situation.
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I mentioned
- friends and relatives who do not work step in and help. The second is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility that you will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's disability.
Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a profit?
No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for the state (ie taxpayer)
So would you privatize it while making it compulsory? The snag with voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to them. Look at what is happening to pensions in the UK now so many employers have pulled out of providing them without choice to their employees.
Take our former industry, Charles. At one time the majority working in it were staff and could look forward to a company pension. This is not the case now, and many industries are the same. In a few years time perhaps the majority will only have a sate pension plus any savings to live on. Because they have been given the choice, and chose to have jam now. I'm glad I won't be around to see it.
no, just let the state learn from the private sector work out how to make it more efficiently.
RBS. I rest my case. And countless insurance companies have gone bust over the years.
Which is why private companies are essential to bridge the gap.
Countless! Absolute bollocks.
Still it's a funny world, isn't it, the RBS on a one off got the same support that the NHS gets on a permanent basis. Still, only £12billion for their failed computer operation - which will be blamed on someone else, of course.
Private companies whose core business is not pensions should be forbidden by law from providing them. Private pensions (which is what all these company pensions are) should be provided by pensions companies.
My health insurer will pay $150 (£100) for dental work without question. Guess how much a clean, scrape and polish costs. The InsCo doesn't care: it just factors the cost into the premiums, same as in the UK with whiplash claims.
IF such a thing became law? Have you ever looked at the rights for pregnant women?
Andy
My wife's family is from Ireland, she has no family over here (her parents moved here before she was born and have now died) and we couldn't really expect her extended family to come and live here for a very extended period. My parents are well into their seventies and certainly couldn't help her up and down the stairs or grab her when she moved and her balance went; or look after our three young kids for extended periods over many, many months. All our friends are in full time work or live many miles away. No, I am not making up a scenario here, this is simply the case.
SteveW
You don't have to take the risk to get caught out. I had insurances that paid most of my commitments, but they generally only last one year (and even that is very expensive) - our wonderful NHS bounced my wife around various consultants and tests, with long waits for each, for two and a half years before they diagnosed her condition. Total time being seen or tested during that time, less than a day, discounting waiting. Along the way, one consultant stated that he didn't know what the problem was, but could take away the symptoms - he "offered" and then pushed for my wife to let him permanently blind her in her left eye! In the end it turned out to be a problem that could be alleviated with medication.
Two things would have saved my employment - a more flexible employer (working reduced hours for reduced pay, but at least still working or very flexible hours) or the NHS seeing people in a reasonable time (measured from GP referral to diagnosis, rather than separate times for each re-referral).
My wife happens to work in the NHS and I know that she has referred patients for treatments that will sort their problems out, only for the budget committee to decide to send them for a cheaper option, that they know will not work, but will push the problem out of this year's budget! These are mental health patients, with severe conditions and by extending their illnesses in this way, they and their families are badly damaged and the total cost to the economy is increased ... but that's from "different" pots, so doesn't matter!
SteveW
"Think" is not the right word and neither is "innocent". There's a big difference between "suspecting" that someone has your stolen tools and having actually seen him take them from your vehicle and make off with them!
SteveW
Because most of the brains visual system works subconsciously. The brain is incapable of taking in and processing all the imformation that it is bombarded with, so it notes those of importance and ignores others. The driver *will* see the speed camera, but may only process it as an inanimate object that he in not going to hit and that is not going to hit him, without ever consciously recognising what it actually is.
Gatsos do, others don't.
All drivers are human. Even if they know the limit and are within it, they still have momentary doubts and check again.
Then no person at all should ever be allowed to drive. That's the way human brains are constructed and we're stuck with it.
Competent, does not and can not mean perfect.
Because every driver and the information presented to them will be different, different people, different cars, clouds, lighting, noise, animals, even leaves on trees and everyone is processing it differently. A particular distraction (in this case a camera) might only distract one in a million, but if you ran it all again, it could be a different driver that was distracted and on a different day. This is not a nice simple Newtonian system where everything runs a perfect, preset course.
When the lights suddenly change to amber and you are close, there is always a moment where you have to decide is it safer to stop quickly or continue through. That is why amber means "stop, only if it is safe to do so." I personally don't have a problem with the idea of red light cameras, as they are sensibly adjusted so that someone misjudging slightly and going through a little late won't be caught, but someone blatently forcing their way through red will.
Anyone can get the speed limit wrong, such as missing the signs because of parked vehicles totally obscuring them - probably why some people hit the brakes when they see a camera and they have a moment of self-doubt. In your world, they'd be punished for no fault of their own. No one can be blamed for not seeing a sign that someone has parked a truck in front of or are you only going to allow drivers with X-ray vision? And before you say it, I have seen (or rather not) two signs that I knew were there only because it was a familiar road, each completely concealed by a 7.5 tonner (one parked on the left, one stationary in traffic on the right)
Even at walking pace, pedestrians bump into things. No-one can take in all the information and use it. They can only take what they subconciously recognise as the most important bits and most of the time they are right. Once in a while everyone over-prioritizes one piece of information to the detriment of another - most of the time they get away with it. Most of the time they will never even know. If you drove to work today, I can absolutely guarantee that you missed some things. Some of those won't have mattered, but some might have if the circumstances had been slightly different. Today you were lucky. You may well be for the rest of your life, but if not, then that is just bad luck, because you're made just like everyone else.
And if the lamposts in a village are just above or just below the required distance apart? Could be NSL or could be 30. Admittedly unusual, you'd expect terminal signs, but as I've shown earlier, these can be totally hidden.
It would be if roads were designed correctly. A European study criticised the UK's roads some years ago, as many were designed for higher speeds than the limits then set on them. This unconciously caused drivers to exceeed the posted speed limits or concentrate more of their effort into keeping their speed down - to the detriment of concentation of everything else around them! This was a major study of roads throughout Europe.
SteveW
You're saying that as if someone is choosing to ignore information. They are not. All human brains ignore information automatically, as they cannot cope with it all - even at rest!
Look straight ahead. Now look quickly to your right. You saw a continuous moving scene didn't you? Well no, you didn't. You saw ahead of you and to your right, but while you were turning you actually saw nothing for a moment, then your brain went back and filled in a memory of what it thought you "ought" to have seen. That is the way our brains work and part of what I have said elsewhere about information we can take in.
SteveW
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.