Nuxx:51c6f772-f126-4ff6-9aa6-830db4a8555a@y19g2000yqy.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!y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <51c6f772-f126-4ff6-9aa6-830db4a8555a@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Keep right at chicane. Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 00:39:08 -0700 (PDT) References: <2YSdndZTQdvK-s3XnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk>   <59ca5f79-a5e7-496e-a05d-09fbebe5b33a@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <6cb59a85-8b22-4c0b-b200-966cbe6b3d50@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <65u355ds2tn4nou5mht0bmn5ekbs3rt466@4ax.com>  <52c0fb8a-f39b-434d-ba09-3e333379f625@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>  <209e0927-44c1-4c53-aa83-02be4c0bf08a@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 40 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.163.209.43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1247038748 8593 127.0.0.1 (8 Jul 2009 07:39:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:39:08 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.163.209.43; 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: 3951 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:715706

On Jul 7, 9:20 pm, "Simon Mason"  wrote: > I don't mind people overtaking me on a motorway doing 100 mph > [...] > when, unlike the motorway's second overtaking lane example you use, there is > no way I can move over and let him by safely

Sounds like you're admitting that 100mph on a motorway is (in the right conditions) safe. Oh no, I forgot, it's only safe on the Autobahn isn't it, despite the road types being essentially the same.

> He is then free to do 50 in a 20 as you would support.

Usually 50 in a 20 would probably be excessive. But as ever, it depends on the conditions (especially since we are getting more and more ludicrous 20s and 30s these days, thanks to anti-car councils and fallacious nonsense like "Lowering the speed limit will probably make things safer, and definitely won't make things any less safe, and it makes people think we're doing something, so we might as well do it...after all, making the roads safer is as easy as changing the numbers on a few signs, and it keeps working again and again and again and....").

You can't judge for sure whether a speed's excessively fast using just numbers (unless you take things to extremes which never occur in the real world). 100 in some 30s is safe in the right conditions; under other circumstances 1 in a 70 would be deadly. The driver is by far the best placed to decide. Trying to take that responsibility away from the driver is extremely dangerous and foolhardy. Surely you can see where I'm coming from there?

(Don't worry, in URCM you won't have to read posts like these anymore. I know that thought-provoking and/or well-constructed posts in defence of the "wrong" points of view are exactly the sort of thing "they" are desperate to stamp out.  What self-respecting car-hater wants to be bothered by someone making a good case against anti- motorist measures?  It's no fun when people come on here and make difficult-to-refute points in favour of the "wrong side"; much better to carry on pretending things are a particular way and gag the dissenters.  Job done, without having to bite the bullet and face up to reality.)