Nuxx:42f0efa2-a578-42f1-9976-3841be143236@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <42f0efa2-a578-42f1-9976-3841be143236@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.transport Subject: Re: IAM Cycle Safety presentations Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:32:36 -0700 (PDT) References:      <8m6i35tsroolbv1ueoajob644rl2c26iij@4ax.com>    <6u0l351kn05n7iqv5tirr18ce9djt6hpfr@4ax.com> <9c8q3557qm8todor57k4r9lvu9jo7201tr@4ax.com> Lines: 65 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245529956 20030 127.0.0.1 (20 Jun 2009 20:32:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4539 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:710902

On Jun 20, 6:52=A0pm, Judith M Smith  wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:25:55 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > > > >  wrote: > >On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:41 +0100, "MrBitsy"  > >wrote: > > >>"Simon Brooke"  wrote in message > >>news:a9f0c001-f355-4f44-8bf5-4157193d441a@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com.= .. > >>On 17 June, 23:10, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  > >>wrote: > >>>> Ace wrote: > >>>>> You're only making the same mistake of confusing the consequences o= f > >>>>> an accident with the inherent safety. No-one would argue that the > >>>>>former are not generally more severe at higher speeds, but you leap = to > >>>>> the conclusion that faster=3D=3Dmore likely to have an accident, wh= ich is > >>>>> something entirely different. > > >>>> Indeed. But handily we are mostly aware here that TRL research shows > >>>> faster > >>>> =3D more likely to crash (or "have an accident" as you seem to prefe= r). So > >>>> that clears that one up nicely. > > >>>Also, even given the probability of crash being invariant with speed, > >>>the amount of physical damage done increases with the second power of > >>>the closing speed, and the probability of injury to human beings > >>>increases with the fourth power of the closing speed. So even, as I > >>>say, if the probability of a crash were the same, the probability of > >>>serious injury or fatality goes up sharply, and therefore 'inherent > >>>safety' declines equally sharply. > > >>>To put it in numerical terms, an increase of ten miles per hour from > >>>thirty mph to forty mph increases the probability of a death by more > >>>than 300%, even if the probability of a crash is unchanged. > > >>Yes, I will agree to statement, but only if road conditions stay exactl= y the > >>same. =A0A good driver will not increase speed if conditions stay the s= ame, > >>only if they improve. =A0So, for a quick example, 30mph through a villa= ge will > >>be as safe as 60mph on an open road with perfect visibility. > > >That is irrelevant. =A0Motorists, on the whole, cannot be trusted. =A0Th= ey > >have chosen to indulge in a dangerous, selfish and unnecessary > >activity by driving, and therefore need to be treated like the > >reckless idiots that most of them are. > > You are an irrational fool Chapman. > > No wonder you are so despised.

According to Crapmaninov, that post was a "forgery". Interesting that you, and no doubt others, still thought it was him, despite the fact that the post demonstrated a deranged hatred of motorists, and Chapman doesn't hate motorists at all (he says that, so it must be true). No wonder he felt the need to point out that it was a forgery.