Re: New Electrical Regulations

Page 5 of 13  
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:08:17 +0100, John Rumm

IMHO it is not 'excessive' speed that is the problem, buy inappropraite speed. This includes the pillock doing 30 mph in a traffic stream that is moving at 40mph. I mean what planet is he on that he is unaware of the traffic flowing all around him. I met a friend one day who was just off the phone to his daughter. She had the most amazing story of an accident which had happened right in front of her on a 3 lane dual carriageway. One car had passed her on the inside, the other on the outside and then both had attempted to occupy the empty space in front of her at the same time.
Neither father or daughter could work it out.
Paul Mc Cann
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There must be some analogy in there. One person trying to explain the situation in her left ear, one in her right ear, and the sound waves interfering destructively in the empty space inside her head ?
--
John

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul Mc Cann wrote in message ...

cars parked both sides. There are plenty of instances where 30 is excessive, and presumably illegal if circumstances dictate. Reminds me of a friend who refers to his credit card limit as a "target".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps they are both followers of the tradition that they must always drive in the middle lane, whatever speed they are driving at :-((
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harrogate wrote:

Cars leaving, entering and crossing from two small side roads on each carriageway. If you've ever tried it there you'll agree that cars doing 70+ on the 'clear open and straight stretches' are a hazzard. Without the camera an F1 start is required, and would be immpossible to join the A1 in a 7.5 tonner which has just come from the industrial estate up the eastern side road.
Toby.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not normally one to rise to personal abuse, but...

16 years of driving. The drivers I have most problems with are not those who obey traffic rules, it is those who don't, and in my personal experience, someone who passes me at 20mph over the speed limit is quite likely to get in the wrong lane at the next roundabout and exit the darned thing without signalling (just an example, but you get the idea).

Now you're being facetious :-)

wide single carriageway, a little way from the hidden dip part. Half way down it there is a light-controlled cross-roads. Houses down one side, couple of petrol stations on the other.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There is *no* safe place to cross this road. Eastwards is the 60mph section and so very few people walk along that stretch that it'd be silly to try there. Westwards lie the lights. The lights, as I said, are timed to ensure an almost continuous flow of traffic along the main road - this is a *very* busy road during the day. There are no pedestrian crossings *at all*, and certainly not a red/green man sequence to the lights. There is one island, on the Western side of the lights, but it doesn't really make things much easier, being almost directly outside one of the petrol stations. Getting to it also means we would have to cross a second (though less busy) road.
As it happens, we believe the safest place to cross is almost directly outside our house - about equidistant between the 40mph signs and the lights.

If they were not ignoring the limit they would not be speeding. I inserted "most" to cover the few occasions where a genuine mistake is made.

There isn't a bloomin' crossing, and the crossing isn't relevant anyway to the paragraph to which you are replying.
Ok, I understand what you are saying about people who drive too close. I really meant something slightly different but...
[snip. can't be bothered]

Fair comment :-)

If you only knew :-)
Hwyl!
M.
--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk /
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely.
I've been driving far longer than sixteen years but my experience has been exactly the same.
Anyone can drive fast. It takes a responsible person to drive safely.
Mary .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:00:34 +0100, "Mary Fisher"

I agree in principle with what you say. However driving slowly does not equate with driving safely.
On a motorway for example, what is the safest speed to be driving at? 70mph? 50mph? Neither - it's the speed of the rest of the traffic. If you aren't going at the same speed as the rest of the traffic then you are either (a) going too fast or (b) going too slow. And slow drivers relative to the rest of the traffic on a motorway are a PITA.
Andrew
Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Which particular cereal packet did you get this particular nugget of wisdom from?? My dictionary says that common law is that "derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes" - nowt to do with "common sense" ...
Julian
--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Look in another dictionary then, not a Kellogg one. The common in common law comes from common sense.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You must be joking.
Full OED: OED> common law. OED> OED> [cf. L. ju<nfmac>s commu<nfmac>ne, in Du Cange (where the OED> expression is used also of France and the Empire). Also F. OED> droit commun in sense 1.] OED> OED> <dag> 1. a. The general law of a community, as opposed to OED> local or personal customs, as of a caste, family, calling, OED> city, or district. Obs. OED> OED> 2. The unwritten law of England, administered by the King's OED> courts, which purports to be derived from ancient and OED> universal usage, and is embodied in the older commentaries OED> and the reports of adjudged cases. attrib. OED> OED> In this sense opposed to statute law; also used for the law OED> administered by the King's ordinary judges as distinguished OED> from the equity administered by the Chancery and other OED> courts of like jurisdiction, and from other systems OED> administered by special courts, as ecclesiastical and OED> admiralty law, and (in the Middle Ages) the law merchant. In OED> U.S.: the body of English legal doctrine which is the OED> foundation of the law administered in all the States settled OED> from England, and those formed by later settlement or OED> division from them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I am not the one who went to a dictionary. Duh!!
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Have you lost any weight yet?
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

trundling along in a world of their own, pulling out without looking, they might have indicated, but ...
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"parish" <parish_AT_ntlworld.com> wrote in message

Mary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just as "Steam gives way to Sail" afloat.
But just try challenging a tanker in your sailing dinghy. Or wandering across a dual carriageway in front of a heavy lorry. You'll find your "right to use the highway" won't count for much in court :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ahh, but it's that comon sense thing again which is so sadly lacking. What's the statistic? 90% of pedestrians involved in an accident with a vehicle after the hours of darkness are drunk? The crux of the whole speeding laws are a cheap blanket attempt to save people from their own stupidity and like all the other nanny state solutions which take responsibility for peoples actions away from them it is ultimately doomed to failure.
I am a motor cyclist and fit into the category within Hywls mind of bloody lunatic. I disregard speed limits at all times except when when there are cmaeras or policemen and drive instead in a manner I consider to be acceptabl;e for that piece of road. If that happens to be 140 mph then so be it.
I commute 35 miles eachway into and across London every day. The amount of people driving who are on the phone, reading the paper, seemingly have no indicators or fog light off switches, who will change lanes and open doors with no thought whatsoever for the consequences, is astounding. But hey, none of them are speeding ,so that's alright.
Paul
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul Coyne wrote:

Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to "common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin, RSSJ 149(3), 1986.

Just where did this discussion go from doing all you can to avoid a collision, to speeding?
R.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard wrote:

Hmm. I find that very hard to believe. However, 'scientific' studies produced by lobby groups can always find some statsitical data to show why smoking makes you healthy etc etc.

Dunno.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Yes, that well-known lobby group the peer-reviewed Royal Statistical Society Journal. Why not actually read the references before jumping to conclusions? In fact they show that UK death rates increased by ~8% for pedestrians and ~13% for cyclists with the introduction of seatbelts in cars, far outweighing the net reduction in DR for drivers & front seat passengers.
R.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.