70mph is the speed limit, not the recommended driving speed. I drive at 60mph on the motorway because of the distance I drive and fuel economy.

Exactly

Well said that girl.

constuction workers revealed to me another victorian dump location managed to find a really really big old rusty key, looks ancient

If property has been abandoned, there is no legal owner, therefore it is not theft. Criminal damage to someone's land however, is a crime, and that's what you need to be conscious of, permission form the person who owns the land.

I'll repeat and rephrase my earlier question - where exactly do do you believe I was being denigrating? I believe my criticism was entirely fair and accurate. I was certainly a lot more fair and polite than many people's posts on this forum.


Your first hand experience is of you looking the wrong way. It is irrelevant. An illuminated vehicle is visible earlier than an unilluminated vehicle, but if you're not looking at all then you won't see it. In any case, your post gives no logical reason against running lights. You simply believe they would have made no difference.


I've provided first hand witness of experiences where I think it would have made a difference. Other people on this forum have also talked of their first hand experience. Professional organisations more qualified than either of us think it will make a difference.

My point is, in light of evidence that it may increase safety by however little, whether you believe it or not, you need to provide an argument why they should not be fitted. The only valid reasons put forward so far are increased expense and CO2 production, both of which are by such a tiny amount as to be insignificant compared to any potential increase in road safety.

Perhaps I read too much into your initial post. I believed you were saying they shouldn't be required. If you were just ranting about them being ugly, then I've been arguing a mute point. Yes, they can be ugly.

That of itself (given I believe it) is a logical reason against having them. Something irrelevant should not be mandatory.


What evidence is that again? I don't remember anyone actually presenting any. So far your argument seems to be that as the legislation exists there must be evidence to support it and that evidence must be conclusive. I don't find that a very convincing argument to be honest with you. I'm more sceptical, both about the effectiveness of the lights and the capabilities and motivations of the people who rule us.


See my first sentence above. I believe they will make no difference. Therefore fitting them is a waste of time and wasting time is something we should avoid. It's not tortuous logic. And in any case, as I said earlier, 'no good reason not to not do something' is not logically equivalent to 'there is a good reason to do something'. The absence of disproof does not constitute proof.


Ah, a potential increase in road safety. This is one of the problems you see. You (and by the way I don't mean 'you JJW' I mean 'you' as in the population as a whole, just to be explicit) can't get proper data that proves they work unless you do make them mandatory because the number of accidents avoided when people have voluntarily switched them on is a number that's impossible to measure. The only measure you can realistically get is a drop in the accident rate after they were made mandatory and even then there are a lot of extraneous variables that you kind of just have to ignore and hope nobody notices. The legislation must be backed up by evidence. Which you can't get until there is legislation. Catch-22.
So what you do is you go with an assumption or with some lab tests that don't really replicate real world situations and that's your 'evidence' and you overstate the usefulness of that evidence in the literature, hoping that people go along with it and that maybe five or ten years down the line the actual hard data will show you were right. This has happened quite a few times before in different items of legislation and, as often as not, it's turned out to be losing bet and we've ended up saddled with regulation that helps nobody and makes everyone's lives a little more complicated. Which is something I'm opposed to on principle. It's also the kind of thing Ben Goldacre makes a living off.


They are that but given their usefulness is in their obviousness, they probably have to be. If they pleasingly blend in with the rest of the car they can't serve their function as you've explained it to be, which is to be significantly more noticeable than the car they are attached to. But there's as good a reason as any given my stated position not to have them - they make the cars we buy more ugly. I'm an aesthete, to some degree. I want the objects I buy and use to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible as well as being functional. When I see an object which not only makes what I buy less beautiful but also, in my belief, adds nothing to it's functionality then I'm not really likely to be in favour of it am I?

Jon

http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness- ... the-radio/


So stop fricking doing it producers.

Your belief that they make no difference appears primarily to be based on one example which I believe to be irrelevant - a situation in which visibility was not an issue. You're persistently ignoring the examples myself and other people have given were visibility was the issue.

As to motivations, what possible conspiracy could there be?

An independent review of evidence: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/ ... ights.aspx

Since running lights have already been fitted to some models of cars, useful statistical analysis is already possible. It generally shows between 3% and 7% reduction in daytime multi-vehicle collisions when DLRs are fitted.

Despite all the complaints from others, I have only one complaint about Ryanair. That happens when I check-in and have to enter passenger details. Ryanair please take note that when you request nationality, United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia etc. are not valid choices.

This times a million. It's the one reason I'm seriously considering getting a record deck and going into vinyl; simply because the mastering process is done properly without all of the aforementioned [LIFTED].

Thankfully people at least realise it's the producer who is being the tool rather than the mastering engineer (he's just carrying out orders). It does need a lot more publicity though.

Stinking spammers.

Mark

Ah, I just PM'd Lev a couple of links for the PC section...

Good job you posted that. I hadn't noticed I had a message in my inbox

Those spam posts are now brown bread.

Photobucket trying to set cookies from different domains all the time.
Someone here is hosting their avatar on photobucket because when I go to certain threads it tries to set a cookie for no reason.

That should not be possible if the image is correctly linked. Sounds like someone may have tried to embed a page instead of an image.
Any example pages? A bit of detective work should find the problem.