You ARE kidding? You mean you are aware of risk compensation, yet
still you drive more dangerously when wearing a seatbelt?
I thought the reason airbags were developed was due to the refusal of
American drivers to wear seatbelts; ie airbags were intended really an
alternative to seatbelts rather than an adjuct. (Could be wrong!)
That is my understanding also.
Then they discovered they helped with belts as well.
Americamns don't wear belts, or havbe them swing away when th edors
open, because they can't reach round their enormous guts.
I seem to have missed Richards reply to this..
However, the mention of common sense came froma rply by someone called
Richard to Laurence Paynes post. and I was merely pointing out that it was
The pedestrian stat was from The Speedtrap bible <
to the TRL report 323:
"Incidence of commonest precipitating factors, by type of accident.
This is perhaps a more telling chunk of information which aims to show the
most common factors involved in different types of accident, such as
vehicle-pedestrian, single-vehicle etc. Excessive speed doesn't feature
directly in this information because it is considered to be a subcategory of
"loss of control" (see above). The government and road safety campaigners
will always tell us that pedestrians are killed because of speeding
motorists. This simply is not the case. Would you believe a staggering 84%
of pedestrians involved in accidents are killed or seriously injured due to
their own incompetance? In the TRL report, the prime factors involved in
pedestrian fatalities are listed as:
a.. Pedestrian entered carriageway without due care (84%)
b.. Vehicle unable to avoid pedestrian in carriageway (12%)
c.. "Other" (4%)
So in the real world, it's not motorists tearing up and down town centre
roads at speed that is to blame for pedestrian fatalities, but pedestrians
stepping in front of moving vehicles without bothering to look where they're
An amusing little sub-note for you here - another report further
subcategorises "entering the carriageway without due care", and shows that
after dark, 77% of all adult pedestrian fatalities are caused when the
pedestrian is above the legal drink-drive limit - ie. is technically
classified as drunk - and staggered into the path of an oncoming vehicle."
So it was a mere 77%. The point was that speeding is blamed for the deaths
of lots of peds when the reality is that they die because they don't look
where they are going.
Not sure, I just jumped in at the tail end. I suspect it was certain peoples
venting about reckless speeders tailgating and driving like maniacs that
provoked it. I was merely attempting to point out that there are many things
far worse than speeding form a causing accidents perspective that don't get
addressed because it's difficult to police and there isn't as much revenue
to be gained...
Which, depending on the final state of the victim, may not have been a bad
I don't think it's reasonable to say a "Minor Bump", (fender bender)
can be turned into a catastrophic accident by any reasonably
proportional increase in speed. Take the ACPO guidelines (7% + 3mph,
is it?). It might, just, reasoning by chaos theory, but by the same
token the extra speed might just make the difference in clearing the
junction before "Reginald Mole - Husband" (remember him?) reverses
out of his drive into the main road without looking.
I can see that someone who is in enough of a hurry to chose to break
speed limits (his 1st priority is speed) might well find he then
can't get back into the correct lane at roundabouts/junctions.
Far more people are just plain incompetant. For instance I notice that
people who dither, or hesitate when the traffic moves off do not
hesitate to drive through the red light if there hesitation has caused
them to miss the green phase of the lights. It's the 5 or 6 cars
behind them that get disadvantaged. I suppose they have to do this if
they hesitate and dither everytime the car has to start moving or
they'd never get anywhere.
I know several women who will drive round and round supermarket car
parks until they find a pair of spaces "nose to tail" (Or worse, find
a parking space that has free spaces *all around it*) . so they can
drive in and through, so they don't have to reverse either in or out.
Don't tell me they're competant to be on the road
The number of people who mis-manage joining a motorway amazes me. I
frequently encounter people reversing back down the on - ramp because
they've taken the wrong one. Instead of joining the motorway and
coming off at the next exit and rejoining in the opposite direction.
IIRC the recent carnage on the motorway involving tank transporters
was caused by incompetant driving within the speed limits.
The Great Heck incident was caused by bad driving not exceeding the
speed limit. The recent level crossing incident on the main line
(fruit pickers in a minibus) was caused by bad driving at low speed.
The Fatal accident on the Romney, Dymchurch, and Hythe miniature
railway was caused by someone who drove slowly past the waiting cars
at the level crossing into the path of a miniature train. A miniature
train that probably had the mass of about 50 cars!
Ive seen an ambulance driven by a Ca 22 year old girl stationary at
the end of a motorway slip road on the eastbound A58(M) at a point
where it is in a deep cutting with limited visibility consulting a
very large road map, with all the cars barrelling down the sliproad
behind her accelerating to match the speed of the traffic on the
motorway (50 mph, camera monitored) and screeching to a halt when they
realised she's actually parked, like something out of a Tom/Jerry
cartoon. Ambulance drivers are supposed to be "professionals" who have
extra training and are even permitted to break speed limits. However,
once again speeding not an issue.
Last week I came across a character joining the westbound A58(M) in
Leeds from The Claypit Lane Gyratory. The 2 lane sliproad diverges
into 2 single lanes seperated by double white lanes and cross
hatching, the left lane diverts to the left to avoid a bridge
stanchion and joins the motorway 150m further along. This guy had only
driven down the left lane to the very last possibility before stopping
and trying to cross about 8 feet of double white lines and force
himself into the traffic on the right hand lane, speeding not an
Hey, I could go on...
It takes more than that otherwise they'd could do away with the
driving test and just give licences to "responsible" people.
I strive to drive my car the way my mother used to use her sewing
machine. Effectively, competantly, with precision. Oh, and legally as
Or even incompetent. Some can't be bothered to use a spell checker, how can
we trust them to drive well?
That's funny, I notice that men can't seem to reverse into a space. Or even
their drives. And certainly not parking spaces no matter how large.
Don't tell me they're competEnt to be on the road.
In fact, when someone makes irrelevant judgements of people's driving
because they don't have willies in which to keep their brains it makes me
not bother to consider the rest of their posts.
From an e-mail I received entitled "The Female Guinness Book Of Records":
The smallest kerbside space successfully reversed into by a woman was
one of 19.36m (63ft 2ins), equivalent to three standard parking spaces,
by Mrs. Elizabeth Simpkins, driving an unmodified Vauxhall Nova 'Swing'
on 12th October 1993. She started the manoeuvre at 11.15am in Ropergate,
Pontefract, and successfully parked within three feet of the pavement 8
hours 14 minutes later. There was slight damage to the bumpers and wings
of her own and two adjoining cars, as well as a shop frontage and two
And just look what happened when they opened a women-only car park in
How do they know? It's nonsense. When I drove a very long car, a Humber
Imperial (longer than our current Laguna estate but you'd probably not know
the model), I always reversed into parking spaces, often only 2' longer than
the car. It was measured by those (men of course) who couldn't believe their
eyes because they couldn't have done it.
I still do, of course, with the Laguna. It's far easier to reverse into any
space than to drive into it.
And I've never damaged a car by reversing. Or even going forward, before you
oh-so-wittily suggest it.
<sigh> It was a joke. I didn't add a smiley coz I thought it would have
been obvious, but here it is, even if somewhat late :-)
I think I remember which one you are talking about, but thank you for
the complement implying that I am too young ;-)
Obviously, since you effectively have rear wheel steering so you can
swing the back (front) in.
I wasn't going too, but I remember watching a programme on Sky about
inventions which featured a turntable that could be recessed into the
drive so you could drive in, rotate the car, and drive out. One (oldish)
guy (note, not woman) they interviewed who had bought one of these
things (at a cost of several thousand pounds) lived on a main road and
said that the turntable had been a godsend, and worth every penny, as
"everybody speeds along this road" and finished with the statement that
he "had once been involved in an accident whilst reversing out of the
drive". The interviewer failed to point out that he *caused* the
accident, or they edited it out.
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.