Nuxx:Qb29l.187544$Gh5.139057@newsfe16.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!69.16.177.246.MISMATCH!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe16.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: A Simple Question Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:33:30 +0000 References:  	<4961c21f_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> <878wpprk1e.fsf@toy.config> 	 <873afxrg8g.fsf@toy.config> 	 <6sflpqF5mqslU1@mid.individual.net> 	<52I8l.1418$2c4.482@newsfe21.ams2> <87aba4pn7l.fsf@toy.config> 	<6sh6lvF6092aU1@mid.individual.net> <6f82afd1-9d97-4619-b35f-6213eed4dd51@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com> 	<6sjbehF66o59U1@mid.individual.net> <5975b271-bd25-467b-bc90-d41897c979d5@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Lines: 32 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5975b271-bd25-467b-bc90-d41897c979d5@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe16.ams2 1231335254 82.21.204.127 (Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:34:14 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:34:14 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 3130 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:682440

james.annan@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 7, 6:37 pm, Matt B  wrote: >> Let's run through what we know: >> 1. Car parks, even those through which thousands of cars per day travel, >> have few serious crashes. >> 2. Car parks do not have speed limits, yet traffic travels slowly enough >> to avoid bad crashes. >> 3. Car parks without speed humps also enjoy slow traffic. >> >> What is it that influences drivers' speeds in such a dramatic way, and >> which does not rely on legal sanctions to achieve the goal of safe roads? > > Um...small-radius right-angle bends every few yards, cars moving in > all directions, and no pressing need to "make progress" due to the > short travel distances involved. And despite the low speeds, crashes > are actually common. In fact without seeing statistics, I wouldn't be > too confident about fatalities per passenger mile. > > I suppose you could line B&Qs end-to-end up alongside the M1, using > adjacent sections of the motorway as their car parks, but...what's > your point exactly? It is hardly surprising that if road are > sufficiently obstructed that speeds are really slow, of course people > are less likely to get killed. But any time it is proposed that car > speeds are curtailed by any effective means, a bunch of whiners are > quickly up in arms about it. > Of course, if knobheads like you would only stop RLJ'ing, there'd be even *less* accidents, eh you hypocritical retard?

> Sheesh. > You're not kidding...