NIP arrived. 928Chris Bacon Yes, technically I exceeded the speed limit. I didn't deny that. However the issues here are consistency and transparency. If I did 35 in a...
Following up to MrBitsy
NIP arrived. 929Abo ллл That is the price you pay for making a serious mistake crossing a stream of very fast...
I'll try and reexplain the point i'm making as people dont seem to be grasping what I'm saying from comments such as "you think drivers cant be dangerous?"
the "nothing can be the fault of the road" mantra is based upon this statement:- "a road cannot have an accident without drivers" or similar.
this seems superficially logical, but try replacing road with one of the other elements of an accident:- 1. (the road, including off road tracks if you must, this also includes signage, weather and the rest to avoid having an unmaneagable list of elements) 2. vehicles 3 drivers.
Lets try it:- " a driver cannot have an accident without traffic" fine? Another "traffic cannot have an accident without a road" fine?
the ones you object to:- "a driver cannot have an accident without a road" or "a driver cannot have an accident without traffic"
Why do you say this one is wrong when the others are right? They are just juxtapositions of the same elements. You object to one instance of the same piece of logic, which is illogical. Taking the full set at once its clear they appear to prove accidents are impossible. Why? Because the statement "a road cannot have an accident without drivers" is meaningless, as are its variations above.
The truth is that for an accident to happen we need road, traffic and drivers. The condition of all three contribute, things like driver skill, lack of crash barriers, blind dips, mechanical faults or inadequacies of vehicles. -- Mike Reid
