petes wrote:I'd actually be as bold as to say that anyone who cannot understand such basic reasoning really isn't fit to drive.
Do you live in a bungalow, or do you risk having to use stairs everyday?
petes wrote:Having read the responses to this post, I agree with MGF's sentiment that in the non-ideal world we live in, slower must mean safer.
I'd actually be as bold as to say that anyone who cannot understand such basic reasoning really isn't fit to drive.
The fact that YOU may be an advanced driver and feel safe and comfortable driving at higher speeds doesn't change the fact that for the general masses, accidents can happen, and when they do, the consequences are more severe is the vehicles involved are travelling faster. Simple.
akirk wrote: we can easily find logic to show that slower must mean safer is not always true, e.g. crossing a railway line with a train coming - lets do it at 40mph - big gap, 30mph - oops a bit tight, 20mph - wow that train is big, 10mph - crash
MGF wrote:Absent a desire by the public to improve driving standards the authorities are left with little option other than to slow everything down.
Horse wrote:akirk wrote: we can easily find logic to show that slower must mean safer is not always true, e.g. crossing a railway line with a train coming - lets do it at 40mph - big gap, 30mph - oops a bit tight, 20mph - wow that train is big, 10mph - crash
At 10mph approach speed, you would have had far more time (roughly 4x ) than at 40mph to have a good check that it's clear before doing something as stupid as going over train tracks without being certain that you'd get off the other side in one piece . . .
petes wrote:I get the impression this forum needs an injection of life into it.
petes wrote:I get the impression this forum needs an injection of life into it.
petes wrote:Has anyone every suggested tapping into social networking as a way of boosting this site's activity?
Gareth wrote:Of the current members, a fair number may have stopped visiting. I'd estimate perhaps 100-200 members are reasonably active contributors. More would be needed to increase 'activity'.
jont wrote:Look how often the same questions come up on here time and again!
Gareth wrote:petes wrote:Has anyone every suggested tapping into social networking as a way of boosting this site's activity?
Might be a nice idea - could it be automated? Extra work for the site owner, keeping any automation in step when various social media sites change their behaviour. Since it's his own money and time, I'm not sure he'd want any extra headaches. Many posts aren't all that interesting so it might need to be a manual process, how else could it work?
It's interesting to consider how many people contribute to these fora versus how many are readers only. Currently there are 2073 members, that being the pool of potential posters, but it's hard to know how many more read the fora but aren't registered.
Of the current members, a fair number may have stopped visiting. I'd estimate perhaps 100-200 members are reasonably active contributors. More would be needed to increase 'activity'.
petes wrote:I know I started this post, but 5 weeks later . . .
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests