Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Not a great deal of
Not a great deal of information, but for what it’s worth…
Employ someone else and call them “Driver”.Or just stand down as director and appoint someone else.
Sriracha wrote:
kill them in droves year roundI thought it was the droves that were only a few days in the year?
the angle of the north!Is that related to the Mull of Kintyre test?
How come everyone’s
How come everyone’s overlooked this case of someone crashing a car into the most famous building in the country?
Podc wrote:
where the risk of injury and death is actually reduced by the risk reduction measures then it doesn’t really matter if people change their behaviour. When it does matter is when the actual risk isn’t reduced – just people’s perception – and then the risk increases.Not quite. What matters is whether the risk reduction from the measures is greater than any increased risk from changed behaviour, and then whether that net gain in safety is worth any loss of freedom from the imposition of the measures.
Arguably, it also matters who that risk is to. If an activity poses a danger to a third party, it’s more reasonable to impose measures on those taking part in that activity, before demanding that the third party protect themselves. Or if a measure increases overall safety, but does so by protecting those taking part at the expense of the safety of bystanders, then that’s morally questionable, since the former at least have a choice about whether to take part.
As far as this article goes, it seems to me that it’s guilty of precisely the inverse of what it’s arguing against. It criticises people for taking the risk compensation concept and applying it liberally as an objection to any proposed safety measure without evidence. But then it turns around and takes a handful of cases where it doesn’t appear to outweigh the benefits, and tries to use these to argue that we should basically ignore risk compensation altogether. But since every intervention is different, and will have a unique psychological impact, the more valid approach would be to try to model what role it might play on a case-by-case basis.
Having gone to the trouble to
Having gone to the trouble to put it all out for you, I’m pretty sure they’d be offended if you left any.
depends on your definition of advanced reallyFurther ahead in the queue.
I’ve been using the bike less for communing over the last couple of yearsIs that because of the lockdown ban on group rides?
Could be an odd way of saying
Could be an odd way of saying that instead of maintaining a steady speed behind them, they accelerated into the back of them. It sounds as though the investigators aren’t much clearer at this point either, though, given that it says they are ‘trying to piece together’ what happened.
They tried to, but their aim
They tried to, but their aim was poor and they ended up liking it 5 times instead.
I think we’re better off just ignoring them as they crave the attention.I think it’s clear that the squirrel in that image is craving attention the most.
Well fair play – balancing on its tail like that is impressive.
…Squirrel LegsWe are the road.cc Borg…
Thanks – never heard that one
Thanks – never heard that one before. I guess from the idea of ‘shoulder’ as boundary area (like a hard shoulder)?
Your reply reminded me to go look it up – unsuccessfully, but I now know that ‘shoulder dates’ are those where demand for a theatre show etc. starts to fall away and you can’t make a full house.
Every day’s a school day.
Reversing priority at pedestrian crossings has a problem with how drivers are supposed to press the button.Only if it’s an actual button. We already have virtual sensor-based beg buttons at junctions where motor vehicle interactions with each other have to be managed – no reason why those couldn’t be used for pedestrian crossings too (though they’d probably need supplementing with a physical button for when they ignore bicycles, as they typically seem to do).
