Double hit& run on a cyclist

In article ,
says...

1) Guess who's doing a social studies OU course?

I did that one last year!

What do you think - anti-speeding activity by the authorities: moral
panic or unjustified all-out attack on our way of life?

A social studies course where a question only has two possible
answers. Interesting.


The question wasn't in the course.

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:42:00 -0000 someone who may be Colin
Blackburn wrote this:-

Secondly, it is possible to filter posts based on the words therein

It is possible to filter posts, but only downstream of the filtering
computer.

since it is possible to moderate newsgroups.

An interesting concept, but not a correct one.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:36:11 -0000 someone who may be "Doki"
wrote this:-

The vast majority of people who are run over are
run over because they've wandered out into the road without looking, often
drunk.

Highway Code, Rules 180-185.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:36:11 -0000 someone who may be "Doki"
wrote this:-

The vast majority of people who are run over are
run over because they've wandered out into the road without looking,
often drunk.

Highway Code, Rules 180-185.

That's irrelevant. The figures I saw were Govt stats on who was at fault in
for pedestrian VS car fatalities. Clearly if you run someone down because
you're not looking where you're going, it's your fault, whereas if you run
someone down because they decide to walk across the road when you're too
close to stop, it's their fault. I imagine the Police spend quite some time
working out who's fault it is. I'll have a look and see if I can find the
url.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:36:11 -0000 someone who may be "Doki"
wrote this:-

The vast majority of people who are run over are
run over because they've wandered out into the road without looking,
often drunk.

Highway Code, Rules 180-185.


I've known two people killed as pedeisrtians.

One elderly gent, was almost functionall blind with bottle bottoms for
glasses who used to do his best to see if anything was coming then make a
dash for it across a 60 mph trunk road to get to a friends house. Eventually
his luck ran out.

The other elderly gent, used to stick his walking stik out infront and walk
boldly across a couple of miles down the same road and expect drivers to see
him and stop. Eventually one didn't.

Nice gents both of them. But it was the drivers i felt sorry for.

pk

since it is possible to moderate newsgroups.

An interesting concept, but not a correct one.

Weird, I could have sworn I was subscribed to a moderated newsgroup. They even
have people called moderators. It's soc.history.war.us-civil-war if anyone
wants to tell me that it's not really a newsgroup.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:36:11 -0000, "Doki"
wrote in message :

I'm not sure that's true. The vast majority of people who are run over are
run over because they've wandered out into the road without looking, often
drunk.

This obscures the fundamental fact that much of the improvement in
"safety" on our roads has been achieved simply by their being so
dangerous that vulnerable road users are frightened off them. Those
whose transport choices are most limited - children and the elderly -
have much higher involvement in traffic crashes. If children are less
than perfectly deferential to motor traffic it is primarily because
they are children - it is ourt business as drivers to ensure that the
additional lethal potential of our vehicles is minimised. The ABD
thinks this is best done by rewqriting the Highway Code with a
requirement for everybody to get out of the drivers' way. I think
it's best achieved through home zones and the like.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

And old people die because of the reasons the previous poster mentions. That
is, they are slow and disabled. Should they drive instead?

According to the Tory party, they should, on grounds of road safety of course.
This nugget of information was on a political show at the weekend when she of
the kitten heels was being interviewed on Tory policy on speed. Seems where
it's not safe for the elderly to walk across the roads in their village shop
any more, due to the level and speed of traffic going through their village,
they should drive to an out-of-town supermarket to be safer... I kid you not.

Cheers, helen s




--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
I'm not sure that's true. The vast majority of people who are run over
are
run over because they've wandered out into the road without looking,
often
drunk.

This obscures the fundamental fact that much of the improvement in
"safety" on our roads has been achieved simply by their being so
dangerous that vulnerable road users are frightened off them. Those
whose transport choices are most limited - children and the elderly -
have much higher involvement in traffic crashes. If children are less
than perfectly deferential to motor traffic it is primarily because
they are children - it is ourt business as drivers to ensure that the
additional lethal potential of our vehicles is minimised. The ABD
thinks this is best done by rewqriting the Highway Code with a
requirement for everybody to get out of the drivers' way. I think
it's best achieved through home zones and the like.

The children of the poor are killed as pedestrians at five times rate of
rich children. The inner city child who has no garden to play in is run over
by the commuting "villager" and then the poor are blamed for letting their
children run wild.
And old people die because of the reasons the previous poster mentions. That
is, they are slow and disabled. Should they drive instead? As car use
becomes more and more essential for full participation in society, so those
too young, old or poor are disadvantaged more and more. As my parents age I
am more and more aware of this problem. They live in a village with a couple
of shops, which is two better than many villages, but the nearby town is the
real shopping centre. At the moment there is a surgery, but the practice
proposes to close it and operate only in the next village. When Dad is too
old to drive safely they will loose a great deal of autonomy. Their children
will face perhaps the thankless job of persuading the old fellow he is
really past it.

Mike Sales

PK wrote:
I've known two people killed as pedeisrtians.

One elderly gent, was almost functionall blind with bottle bottoms for
glasses who used to do his best to see if anything was coming then
make a dash for it across a 60 mph trunk road to get to a friends
house. Eventually his luck ran out.

The other elderly gent, used to stick his walking stik out infront
and walk boldly across a couple of miles down the same road and
expect drivers to see him and stop. Eventually one didn't.

Nice gents both of them. But it was the drivers i felt sorry for.



********

Its two old blokes who have to chose between safety and the freedom to visit
friends I feel sorry for.

What sort a **** witted system is it that lets people operate dangerous
machinery in a public place that depends on everyone else keeping out of its
way.

Shall I practice my chainsaw juggling in tesco's, after all they make a
racket so everyone will know to keep a safe distance?


--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/