Telegraph article

[John Hearns]

'On Pain of Death' by Sir John Whitmore

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/12/03/mfwhit03.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2005/12/03/ixmot.html
http://tinyurl.com/ajngh

[Sue White]

John Hearns > whizzed past me shouting
>'On Pain of Death' by Sir John Whitmore
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/12/03/
>mfwhit03.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2005/12/03/ixmot.html
>http://tinyurl.com/ajngh


So how about a TV campaign centred on the distress of drivers who kill
someone - "This could be you if you don't turn that phone off "?

--
Sue ]:(:)

Bicycle helmets are really a bit of a scam.
They make most cyclists slightly less safe but there's money in selling them.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:34:51 +0000, John Hearns >
said in >:

>'On Pain of Death' by Sir John Whitmore

A very good article, 50% "well said" and 50% blood-boiling fury at the
lengths he goes to to comfort perpetrators of what he calls "mindless
folly". Just the job for a Sunday afternoon :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:34:51 +0000, John Hearns >
> said in >:
>
>> 'On Pain of Death' by Sir John Whitmore
>
> A very good article, 50% "well said" and 50% blood-boiling fury at the
> lengths he goes to to comfort perpetrators of what he calls "mindless
> folly". Just the job for a Sunday afternoon :-)

I love to boil my blood on a Sunday afternoon. Although I went out for a
little trundle to the local viewpoint and froze my lungs instead. Next time
I go for a ride I'll remember that I get slightly asthmatic exercising hard
in cold weather.

The view was lovely. And I just realised that one of the things I really
love on the bike is riding along a beautiful path in the woods. I already
knew that bit, but I also realised that one of the feelings that I love is
when you go through a muddy patch (on a well made path, of course), and
you're pointing straight ahead, and your back wheel slides out a bit, but
you still carry on going the way you're pointing. It's just the feeling of
control it gives you. Not sure I described it right, but it's excellent.
--
Ambrose

[Kinetic]

>From the article:

"What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
could we do? I don't know. Do you?"

Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
negligent driving, for a change? If someone discharges a weapon out of
negligence, and it kills, they go to prison. If a pilot crashes a plane
out of negligence, and passengers are killed, he goes to prison. If a
forklift operator in a warehouse crushes a worker to death out of
negligence, he goes to prison. If a driver kills out of negligence, he
gets a fine of few hundred quid.

Yes, killing a pedestrian by "accident" will cause a life life-long
feeling of guilt. Fair enough.
But that's not much of a deterrent, is it? Especially since, by the
author's own admission, most drivers are not aware of the danger
they're causing until it's too late.

If the same tough laws that apply to operators of most dangerous
machines were applied to drivers, it would change the whole culture of
motoring. Defensive driving would emerge naturally. There would be no
need for lessons.

[Matt B]

Kinetic wrote:
>>From the article:
>
> "What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
> Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
> could we do? I don't know. Do you?"
>
> Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
> negligent driving, for a change?

You can bet that if there is any evidence of negligence the police will
find it and act. There are more charges specifically for driving
offences than there are for anything else that the majority of the
population do on a regular basis. The police will apply the most
serious offence that they can find evidence for. They'll even attempt
to charge people with an offence even it was truly an accident.

> If someone discharges a weapon out of
> negligence, and it kills, they go to prison. If a pilot crashes a plane
> out of negligence, and passengers are killed, he goes to prison. If a
> forklift operator in a warehouse crushes a worker to death out of
> negligence, he goes to prison.

Nobody will go to prison for any of those things *unless* there is
evidence of a serious offence and they are convicted for it.

> If a driver kills out of negligence, he
> gets a fine of few hundred quid.

No. If a driver is convicted of a technical offence, or careless
driving, he may escape with a fine. If a driver is convicted of a more
serious offence such as causing death by dangerous driving he will in
all probability be sent to prison.

> Yes, killing a pedestrian by "accident" will cause a life life-long
> feeling of guilt. Fair enough.
> But that's not much of a deterrent, is it? Especially since, by the
> author's own admission, most drivers are not aware of the danger
> they're causing until it's too late.

An accident is, by definition, unexpected and unintentional. Should
everyone be gaoled for every accident they are involved in, or should
the sentence be based on the outcome of the accident?

If, OTOH, the consequences were intentional, or could reasonably have
been foreseen then we have a different matter to consider, and these are
the judgments that the investigating officers have to make. This is why
the police treat every serious road accident as a potential crime, and
close the road for so long whilst they collect evidence, and take the
vehicles for forensic examination, and analyse phone records, etc. until
they satisfy themselves whether any offence has been committed.

> If the same tough laws that apply to operators of most dangerous
> machines were applied to drivers, it would change the whole culture of
> motoring. Defensive driving would emerge naturally. There would be no
> need for lessons.

I think you'll find there are *more* laws that apply specifically, and
exclusively, to driving than to any other public activity.

--
Matt B

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:31:14 +0000, Matt B > wrote:
> Kinetic wrote:

> > out of negligence, and passengers are killed, he goes to prison. If a
> > forklift operator in a warehouse crushes a worker to death out of
> > negligence, he goes to prison.
>
> Nobody will go to prison for any of those things *unless* there is
> evidence of a serious offence and they are convicted for it.

Eh? What more evidence do you want than dead bodies? Bear in mind
that H&S legislation enforcement specifically adopts the approach that
the actual consequence of specific lapse should be considered in the
sentencing - that is, in H&S offences, if you kill someone you do get
sentenced more severely than if you merely might have done.

> > If a driver kills out of negligence, he
> > gets a fine of few hundred quid.
>
> No. If a driver is convicted of a technical offence, or careless
> driving, he may escape with a fine. If a driver is convicted of a more
> serious offence such as causing death by dangerous driving he will in
> all probability be sent to prison.

Not in practice.

> > Yes, killing a pedestrian by "accident" will cause a life life-long
> > feeling of guilt. Fair enough.
> > But that's not much of a deterrent, is it? Especially since, by the
> > author's own admission, most drivers are not aware of the danger
> > they're causing until it's too late.
>
> An accident is, by definition, unexpected and unintentional. Should
> everyone be gaoled for every accident they are involved in, or should
> the sentence be based on the outcome of the accident?

Actually, at the moment neither of those options is what
actually occurs. One of tehm should.

> > If the same tough laws that apply to operators of most dangerous
> > machines were applied to drivers, it would change the whole culture of
> > motoring. Defensive driving would emerge naturally. There would be no
> > need for lessons.
>
> I think you'll find there are *more* laws that apply specifically, and
> exclusively, to driving than to any other public activity.

I think you're wrong. It might depend how you define 'laws', but
I reckon I can come up with more Acts or SI that apply to paying tax
than to driving motor vehicles, for example. I think you'll struggle
to find more than two dozen motoring / road use . I can find many
many more current relevant acts than that relating to social security:

National Insurance Act 1965
Equal Pay Act 1970
Social Security Act 1973
Pensioners’ Payments and National Insurance Act 1973
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975
Social Security Pensions Act 1975
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979
Social Security Act 1979
Social Security Act 1980
Forfeiture Act 1982
Criminal Justice Act 1982
Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications
Act 1983
Social Security Act 1986
Social Security Act 1989
Social Security Act 1990
Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991
Child Support Act 1991
Criminal Justice Act 1991
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
Social Security Administration Act 1992
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992
Local Government Finance Act 1992
Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Act 1992
Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992
Social Security Act 1993
Pension Schemes Act 1993
Social Security (Contributions) Act 1994
Statutory Sick Pay Act 1994
Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994
Jobseekers Act 1995
Merchant Shipping Act 1995
Pensions Act 1995
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Industrial Tribunals Act 1996
Social Security (Overpayments) Act 1996
Employment Rights Act 1996
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997
Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997
Social Security Act 1998
Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.)
Act 1999
Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Child Support, Pensions and Social Act 2000
Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000
Social Security Fraud Act 2001
State Pension Credit Act 2002
National Insurance Contributions Act 2002
Employment Act 2002
National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004
Pensions Act 2004

And that's before we move onto regulations and statutory
instruments, I reckon there's probably five times as many of them...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> Kinetic wrote:
>>>From the article:
>>
>> "What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
>> Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
>> could we do? I don't know. Do you?"
>>
>> Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
>> negligent driving, for a change?
>
> You can bet that if there is any evidence of negligence the police will
> find it and act. There are more charges specifically for driving
> offences than there are for anything else that the majority of the
> population do on a regular basis. The police will apply the most
> serious offence that they can find evidence for. They'll even attempt
> to charge people with an offence even it was truly an accident.

In the thirty years I've been driving I've heard of precisely one
accident which was not caused by negligence. They do happen, but they're
extremely rare.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>
>
>>Kinetic wrote:
>>
>>>>From the article:
>>>
>>>"What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
>>>Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
>>>could we do? I don't know. Do you?"
>>>
>>>Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
>>>negligent driving, for a change?
>>
>>You can bet that if there is any evidence of negligence the police will
>>find it and act. There are more charges specifically for driving
>>offences than there are for anything else that the majority of the
>>population do on a regular basis. The police will apply the most
>>serious offence that they can find evidence for. They'll even attempt
>>to charge people with an offence even it was truly an accident.
>
>
> In the thirty years I've been driving I've heard of precisely one
> accident which was not caused by negligence. They do happen, but they're
> extremely rare.

You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
motor vehicle?

--
Matt B

[dkahn400]

Matt B wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:

> > In the thirty years I've been driving I've heard of precisely one
> > accident which was not caused by negligence. They do happen, but they're
> > extremely rare.
>
> You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
> accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
> motor vehicle?

If you read accident investigation reports you will find that there is
almost always a chain of events leading up to the accident, not just a
single cause. Even where the immediate cause of an accident is
mechanical there is usually a human failing somewhere along the line.

--
Dave...

[Kinetic]

Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.

An air traffic controller can't cough up the excuse "I was just a bit
distracted for a minute".
A surgeon won't get away with saying "sorry - I turned around to check
on the kids and forgot I had my scalpel stuck in an artery".

So how come drivers do get away with it?

Yes, being an air traffic controller or surgeon is stressful and
requires absolute concentration at *all* times, as well as specialist
training. But why should the same not apply to driving? Just because
more people do it? A car is a dangerous machine. I think the motto
should be "If you can't bear the prospect of stress and absolute
concentration at all times, then don't drive". I'm not anti-car. I'm am
a driver myself, but I have huge respect for the machine and I always
operate it with above attitude (in fact, driving freaks me out every
time). But unfourtunately, most people are not like that and just see
like taking a walk in the park - we nead a change of culture.

Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer people
than a scatterbrained air traffic controller. But even just a single
victim is still a tragedy. I'm not suggesting long prison sentences,
but a small fine is ridiculous, and no deterrent. Carelessness has
crept into all aspects of driving culture. There are no strong
messenges.

For example: If we had the rule "causing death while 10% above speed
limit = mandatory two month prison sentence" how many people would
still speed in built up areas, *conscious* that
they don't have enough reaction time to stop for a child that jumps
onto the road?

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 5 Dec 2005 12:45:36 -0800, "Kinetic" > said in
om>:

>Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer people
>than a scatterbrained air traffic controller.

In aggregate, though, scatterbrained drivers win that ****ing contest
quite tidily. Which was, of course, your point.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

[sothach]

Kinetic wrote:
>Matt B wrote:
>> You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
>> accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
>> motor vehicle?

> Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.

There is a note inside the police driver's manual 'Roadcraft':

"After this book went to press, The Association of Chief Police
Officers made a formal decision to stop using the word accident to
describe a road traffic accident (RTA) involving injury and/or damage.
This decision was prompted by the Transport Research Laboratory
findings indicating human error as a cause of 95 per cent of such
incidents".

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message >, Matt B
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kinetic wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From the article:
>>>>
>>>>"What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
>>>>Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
>>>>could we do? I don't know. Do you?"
>>>>
>>>>Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
>>>>negligent driving, for a change?
>>>
>>>You can bet that if there is any evidence of negligence the police
>>>will
>>>find it and act. There are more charges specifically for driving
>>>offences than there are for anything else that the majority of the
>>>population do on a regular basis. The police will apply the most
>>>serious offence that they can find evidence for. They'll even attempt
>>>to charge people with an offence even it was truly an accident.
>>
>> In the thirty years I've been driving I've heard of precisely one
>> accident which was not caused by negligence. They do happen, but
>> they're extremely rare.
>
> You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
> accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving
> a motor vehicle?

A friend's offside front stub axle sheared while driving on a straight
dual carriageway. The wheel came off, and the car went across the
central reservation and the whole width of the other carriageway,
fortunately hitting nothing. The car had been maintained by an approved
dealer to the manufacturers recommended schedule. That, in my opinion,
was an accident - but it's the only car accident I've ever heard of. All
the rest (including the ones I've had) could have been prevented by the
driver(s) of the vehicle(s) involved being just a bit more careful. In
other words, they were caused by negligence.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

[Matt B]

Kinetic wrote:

[reinstated context:
You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
motor vehicle?]

> Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.

Which - all, or just those involving motor vehicles?

> An air traffic controller can't cough up the excuse "I was just a bit
> distracted for a minute".
> A surgeon won't get away with saying "sorry - I turned around to check
> on the kids and forgot I had my scalpel stuck in an artery".
>
> So how come drivers do get away with it?

Police incompetence at the scenes of incidents? Difficulty in finding
evidence? You tell us what you think it is.

> Yes, being an air traffic controller or surgeon is stressful and
> requires absolute concentration at *all* times, as well as specialist
> training. But why should the same not apply to driving? Just because
> more people do it? A car is a dangerous machine. I think the motto
> should be "If you can't bear the prospect of stress and absolute
> concentration at all times, then don't drive". I'm not anti-car. I'm am
> a driver myself, but I have huge respect for the machine and I always
> operate it with above attitude (in fact, driving freaks me out every
> time). But unfourtunately, most people are not like that and just see
> like taking a walk in the park - we nead a change of culture.

Yes, I for one, agree with that.

> Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer people
> than a scatterbrained air traffic controller. But even just a single
> victim is still a tragedy. I'm not suggesting long prison sentences,
> but a small fine is ridiculous, and no deterrent.

Prison sentences are the norm for serious offences such as "death by
dangerous driving" - what do you mean? Small fines are only the norm
for technical or minor offences. What are you suggesting? Kangaroo
courts? Summary justice based on supposition rather than evidence?
Legislating against "momentary lapse in concentration"?

> Carelessness has
> crept into all aspects of driving culture. There are no strong
> messenges.

Perhaps it is time to rethink our attitude towards roadmanship? Is it,
in your opinion, more, less, or as important as: Art? Geography?
History? Languages? Literacy? Music? Numeracy? PSHE? Science?

> For example: If we had the rule "causing death while 10% above speed
> limit = mandatory two month prison sentence" how many people would
> still speed in built up areas, *conscious* that
> they don't have enough reaction time to stop for a child that jumps
> onto the road?

Who knows, but why wait until someone is killed? Isn't the act the
same? Why get away with it because you were lucky and you never hit
anyone? Is the act of attempting to murder someone somehow less
abhorrent because, despite your best efforts, you failed?

What if we had a street scene that meant we each respected each others'
space, and conflict was eliminated and we didn't need any draconian laws.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

sothach wrote:
> Kinetic wrote:
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
>>>You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
>>>accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
>>>motor vehicle?
>
>
>>Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.
>
>
> There is a note inside the police driver's manual 'Roadcraft':
>
> "After this book went to press, The Association of Chief Police
> Officers made a formal decision to stop using the word accident to
> describe a road traffic accident (RTA) involving injury and/or damage.
> This decision was prompted by the Transport Research Laboratory
> findings indicating human error as a cause of 95 per cent of such
> incidents".

I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)

--
Matt B

[sothach]

Matt B wrote:
> I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)

Implication: speeding is a sub-class of human error.

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> A friend's offside front stub axle sheared while driving on a straight
> dual carriageway. The wheel came off, and the car went across the
> central reservation and the whole width of the other carriageway,
> fortunately hitting nothing. The car had been maintained by an approved
> dealer to the manufacturers recommended schedule. That, in my opinion,
> was an accident - but it's the only car accident I've ever heard of. All
> the rest (including the ones I've had) could have been prevented by the
> driver(s) of the vehicle(s) involved being just a bit more careful. In
> other words, they were caused by negligence.

Are motorists immune from the charge of negligence, or are the police
incompetent - what is your view?

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

sothach wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)
>
>
> Implication: speeding is a sub-class of human error.

Lol.

--
Matt B

[[email protected]]

Kinetic wrote:

> Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer
> people than a scatterbrained air traffic controller.

What about a scatterbrained driver who causes the driver of a blasting
explosives delivery truck to swerve into the control tower of a busy
airport, leading to a number of airliners falling out of the sky, each
one plunging onto a packed football stadium?

N. Lenderby (Mrs)

[sothach]

wrote:
> Kinetic wrote:
>
> > Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer
> > people than a scatterbrained air traffic controller.
>
> What about a scatterbrained driver who causes the driver of a blasting
> explosives delivery truck to swerve into the control tower of a busy
> airport, leading to a number of airliners falling out of the sky, each
> one plunging onto a packed football stadium?

Not really newsworthy compared to the 9 pedestrians killed by cyclists
over the last four year. Maintain a sense of proportion, please!

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> sothach wrote:
>> Kinetic wrote:
>>
>>>Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>>You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
>>>>accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents"
>>>>involving a motor vehicle?
>>
>>
>>>Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.
>>
>>
>> There is a note inside the police driver's manual 'Roadcraft':
>>
>> "After this book went to press, The Association of Chief Police
>> Officers made a formal decision to stop using the word accident to
>> describe a road traffic accident (RTA) involving injury and/or damage.
>> This decision was prompted by the Transport Research Laboratory
>> findings indicating human error as a cause of 95 per cent of such
>> incidents".
>
> I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)

/All/ of which are human error. The car doesn't speed by itself.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Matt B
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> A friend's offside front stub axle sheared while driving on a straight
>> dual carriageway. The wheel came off, and the car went across the
>> central reservation and the whole width of the other carriageway,
>> fortunately hitting nothing. The car had been maintained by an
>> approved dealer to the manufacturers recommended schedule. That, in my
>> opinion, was an accident - but it's the only car accident I've ever
>> heard of. All the rest (including the ones I've had) could have been
>> prevented by the driver(s) of the vehicle(s) involved being just a bit
>> more careful. In other words, they were caused by negligence.
>
> Are motorists immune from the charge of negligence, or are the police
> incompetent - what is your view?

The police are not even trying to do their job on this one. It's not
incompetence - it's an ingrained turning of the blind eye, analogous to
what the Lawrence enquiry called 'institutional racism'. The police know
it's wrong, but they've been ignoring it for so long that there's huge
inertia to go on ignoring it. Basically, if you've had a crash (and I
have) then you should have done jail time (and I haven't).

If you drive with 'due care and attention' (as airline pilots fly), then
your chances of having a crash in your lifetime are virtually
non-existent.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous

[Roos Eisma]

Simon Brooke > writes:

>/All/ of which are human error. The car doesn't speed by itself.

Our car is trying to - the throttle/accelerator cable gets stuck
two-thirds of the way down sometimes....
Though it probably is human error to keep believing that some WD40 and oil
fixes it while it only works for a short while and we should really get it
to a garage!

Roos

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Matt B
> ') wrote:
>>sothach wrote:
> >>
>>>[TRL] findings indicating human error as a cause of 95 per cent of such
>>>incidents".
>>
>>I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)
>
> /All/ of which are human error.

No, some speeding is deliberate and willful.

> The car doesn't speed by itself.

--
Matt B

[sothach]

Matt B wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > in message >, Matt B
> > ') wrote:
> >>sothach wrote:
> > >>
> >>>[TRL] findings indicating human error as a cause of 95 per cent of such
> >>>incidents".
> >>
> >>I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)
> >
> > /All/ of which are human error.
>
> No, some speeding is deliberate and willful.

I think it would be an error to deliberatly and willfully speed, human.

[Tony Raven]

sothach wrote:
>
> "After this book went to press, The Association of Chief Police
> Officers made a formal decision to stop using the word accident to
> describe a road traffic accident (RTA) involving injury and/or damage.
> This decision was prompted by the Transport Research Laboratory
> findings indicating human error as a cause of 95 per cent of such
> incidents".
>

IIRC 90% of air accidents are caused by human error. And these are
people who have a strong vested interest in not having an accident.



--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

[David Martin]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> If you drive with 'due care and attention' (as airline pilots fly), then
> your chances of having a crash in your lifetime are virtually
> non-existent.

I am not convinced by that. There are some conditions where, even
proceeding cautiously, can lead to a chain of events that is forseeable
but subsequently unavoidable crash. And there are the occasions where
wild animals collide with the vehicle in which you are travelling (it
has only happened to me 3 times - 1 deer, 1 pheasant, one mountain hare
- the makings of a good pie!)

...d

[Peter Clinch]

David Martin wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:

>>If you drive with 'due care and attention' (as airline pilots fly), then
>>your chances of having a crash in your lifetime are virtually
>>non-existent.

> I am not convinced by that. There are some conditions where, even
> proceeding cautiously, can lead to a chain of events that is forseeable
> but subsequently unavoidable crash.

Furthermore, ISTM it needs to assume that everyone /else/ is driving
with the same DC&A as well. If I proceed /incredibly/ cautiously up to
a blind bend and some loon thunders round it on my side of the road
within their possible stopping distance then we'll have a prang.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Dave Larrington]

In article >, Peter Clinch
) wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> >>If you drive with 'due care and attention' (as airline pilots fly), then
> >>your chances of having a crash in your lifetime are virtually
> >>non-existent.
>
> > I am not convinced by that. There are some conditions where, even
> > proceeding cautiously, can lead to a chain of events that is forseeable
> > but subsequently unavoidable crash.
>
> Furthermore, ISTM it needs to assume that everyone /else/ is driving
> with the same DC&A as well. If I proceed /incredibly/ cautiously up to
> a blind bend and some loon thunders round it on my side of the road
> within their possible stopping distance then we'll have a prang.

And, for example, that the other guy's spanner-wielder has also been
doing his job properly. I do not, for example, think any blame
whatsover can be attached to the driver of a motorcar I once saw struck
by a large - truck / bus size - wheel which impacted his motorcar smack
in the middle of the bonnet, having flown over the wall separating the
entrance to the Hyde Park Corner underpass from the eastbound slip road.
It is mot the simplest matter to look out for an approaching hazard
which is arriving from both above and behind simultaneously.

However, such incidents are a comparative rarity in comparsion with
those directly attributable to numptyism.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
My other motto is in Latin.

[David Martin]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> And, for example, that the other guy's spanner-wielder has also been
> doing his job properly. I do not, for example, think any blame
> whatsover can be attached to the driver of a motorcar I once saw struck
> by a large - truck / bus size - wheel which impacted his motorcar smack
> in the middle of the bonnet, having flown over the wall separating the
> entrance to the Hyde Park Corner underpass from the eastbound slip road.
> It is mot the simplest matter to look out for an approaching hazard
> which is arriving from both above and behind simultaneously.

I was at the scene of a similar incident. Two lanes of traffic in each
direction. Car coming one way accelerates and loses the rear wheel,
literally. This puts a decent sized dent in the front of a 1 week old
jaguar, bounces onto the pavement (where I had to step smartly to one
side to avoid it - too smart to try and catch it), hits a wall, and
goes back into the road, colliding with a sierra and making it's
presence felt. Not a lot one can do to avoid that except to avoid the
numpty garages.

However, these incidents are rare.

...d

[Alan Braggins]

David Martin wrote:
>Dave Larrington wrote:
>> And, for example, that the other guy's spanner-wielder has also been
>> doing his job properly. I do not, for example, think any blame
>> whatsover can be attached to the driver of a motorcar I once saw struck
>> by a large - truck / bus size - wheel which impacted his motorcar smack
>> in the middle of the bonnet, having flown over the wall separating the
>> entrance to the Hyde Park Corner underpass from the eastbound slip road.
>> It is mot the simplest matter to look out for an approaching hazard
>> which is arriving from both above and behind simultaneously.
>
>I was at the scene of a similar incident. Two lanes of traffic in each
>direction. Car coming one way accelerates and loses the rear wheel,
>literally. This puts a decent sized dent in the front of a 1 week old
>jaguar, bounces onto the pavement (where I had to step smartly to one
>side to avoid it - too smart to try and catch it), hits a wall, and
>goes back into the road, colliding with a sierra and making it's
>presence felt. Not a lot one can do to avoid that except to avoid the
>numpty garages.

Someone I used to work with had his Peugeot 205 written off when a
wheel (and hub) came off a car going around the M25 in the opposite
direction and bounced over the central reservation, on one of those
rare occasions when M25 traffic was going 70mph both ways. Crumpled the
windscreen pillar and driver side door, another foot to his left and
it would probably have killed him.

Luckily, as you said, rare.

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>> I was at the scene of a similar incident. Two lanes of traffic in
>> each direction. Car coming one way accelerates and loses the rear
>> wheel, literally. This puts a decent sized dent in the front of a 1
>> week old jaguar, bounces onto the pavement (where I had to step
>> smartly to one side to avoid it - too smart to try and catch it),
>> hits a wall, and goes back into the road, colliding with a sierra
>> and making it's presence felt. Not a lot one can do to avoid that
>> except to avoid the numpty garages.
>
> Someone I used to work with had his Peugeot 205 written off when a
> wheel (and hub) came off a car going around the M25 in the opposite
> direction and bounced over the central reservation, on one of those
> rare occasions when M25 traffic was going 70mph both ways. Crumpled
> the windscreen pillar and driver side door, another foot to his left
> and it would probably have killed him.
>
> Luckily, as you said, rare.

I'd have to sheepishly admit that the wheel of my car came off at 40mph
causing almost no damage to anything except the verge and my wallet,
thankfully. Since then, I've discovered spare wheelnuts stored in my car, so
I suspect that given that the hub seemed crossthreaded when I was tightening
the nuts, I was not the first to suffer from losing wheelnuts in that car
(I'd had it 3000 miles at the time, and replaced the brake discs almost as
soon as I got it.) However, I was deeply stupid not to check the wheelnuts
when trying to figure out what the vibration had been for the 150 miles
previously.

Fortunately, the wheel ended up between the barriers in the central
reservation, and hurt no one.

--
Ambrose

[Chris Gerhard]

Dave Larrington wrote:
>
> And, for example, that the other guy's spanner-wielder has also been
> doing his job properly. I do not, for example, think any blame
> whatsover can be attached to the driver of a motorcar I once saw struck
> by a large - truck / bus size - wheel which impacted his motorcar smack
> in the middle of the bonnet, having flown over the wall separating the
> entrance to the Hyde Park Corner underpass from the eastbound slip road.
> It is mot the simplest matter to look out for an approaching hazard
> which is arriving from both above and behind simultaneously.
>

When I cycled LEJOG many years ago we were approaching Inverness three
in a line one behind another with me at the back. I noticed a large
thing shoot in front of me and narrowly miss the rider in the middle. A
fraction of a second later I saw another go in front of him an miss the
front rider.

Then the articulated lorry that was passing us shed it near side rear
wheel from the trailer which missed the front rider by what looked like
inches, went up the bank then back down and across the road and down
into the valley (It went miles I've often wondered if they retrieved it
or just got a new one). Followed shortly by the other wheel off that
axle stub. The things that had been flying between us were evidently the
wheel nuts.

We continued on for a bit passing the lorry that had eventually stopped.
When we stopped after about ten minutes for breakfast it then dawned on
us exactly how close we had come to being mince meat. Even being hit by
one of the nuts would have been very nasty.

The lorry was from a clothes shop and we did consider going back and
asking if he had any clean underpants.

--chris

[Dave Larrington]

In article >, Alan Braggins
) wrote:

[Wheel-o-BLEAN]

I once had to take violent evasive action in my motorcar, when the
under-car spare wheel carrier of some ancient French heap finally gave
in to the Rust Monster and deposited said wheel in the centre of the
northbound A1. Which was alarming.

And earlier this year I had to make an unscheduled take-off through a
red traffic light when a rear wheel came off a low-flying police Astra
and started heading in my direction. Which was /very/ alarming, as it
was being followed by the Astra, which was umop-ap!sdn and thus, it may
reasonably be assumed, not under the full control of the driver.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
This Unit is a productive Unit.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Alan Braggins
') wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>>Dave Larrington wrote:
>>> And, for example, that the other guy's spanner-wielder has also been
>>> doing his job properly. I do not, for example, think any blame
>>> whatsover can be attached to the driver of a motorcar I once saw
>>> struck by a large - truck / bus size - wheel which impacted his
>>> motorcar smack in the middle of the bonnet, having flown over the
>>> wall separating the entrance to the Hyde Park Corner underpass from
>>> the eastbound slip road. It is mot the simplest matter to look out
>>> for an approaching hazard which is arriving from both above and
>>> behind simultaneously.
>>
>>I was at the scene of a similar incident. Two lanes of traffic in each
>>direction. Car coming one way accelerates and loses the rear wheel,
>>literally. This puts a decent sized dent in the front of a 1 week old
>>jaguar, bounces onto the pavement (where I had to step smartly to one
>>side to avoid it - too smart to try and catch it), hits a wall, and
>>goes back into the road, colliding with a sierra and making it's
>>presence felt. Not a lot one can do to avoid that except to avoid the
>>numpty garages.
>
> Someone I used to work with had his Peugeot 205 written off when a
> wheel (and hub) came off a car going around the M25 in the opposite
> direction and bounced over the central reservation, on one of those
> rare occasions when M25 traffic was going 70mph both ways. Crumpled the
> windscreen pillar and driver side door, another foot to his left and
> it would probably have killed him.

Similarly, a friend was driving on the M2 when four brand new large
television sets (still in their boxes) fell off a truck and bounced on
the carriageway, one bouncing off the bonnet of her car denting it very
badly. Very frightening indeed but not necessarily an accident. It's
highly probable that all these incidents were down to human error. It
does occasionally happen that something just breaks without warning, as
in the case I cited up thread. However it's likely in most of these
'wheel came off' incidents that someone simply forgot to tighten the
wheelnuts, or to put the split pin through a crown nut; or, in the
television incident, failed to properly latch the back door of the
truck.

Real accidents are /very/ rare.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron

[ian henden]

"John Hearns" > wrote in message
...
> 'On Pain of Death' by Sir John Whitmore
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/12/03/mfwhit03.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2005/12/03/ixmot.html
> http://tinyurl.com/ajngh

So why do cyclists insist on riding across the firing ranges when a suitable
path is provided avoiding such a dangerous area?

[dkahn400]

ian henden wrote:

> So why do cyclists insist on riding across the firing ranges when a suitable
> path is provided avoiding such a dangerous area?

Because the path is through the minefield.

--
Dave...