SSS for Von - it's why your wrong!

[vonhosen]

mojocvh said:

apache said:
Getting back to the title of the thread, 'Former Trafpol officer says: drive faster or else' he's a retired Traffic Officer, presumably knows his onions, Are you Traffic VH?

vonhosen said:
No, but I teach them to drive.

MoJocvh said:
Really, what force or in what region do you "teach"


A simple reply to my query would have gone some way to banishing the 'hosen effect.


VH's silence speaks volumes. He is the SPTL equivelent of RAFdug (xcept RAFd had an amount of street)

MoJo

What difference does the force area I work in make ?

[mojocvh]

Best Anne Robinson mode

Answer the question (or be forever seen as nothing more than the MOST signifcant troll to darken the ph collective)

simple isnt it matey.

[vonhosen]

mojocvh said:

Best Anne Robinson mode

Answer the question (or be forever seen as nothing more than the MOST signifcant troll to darken the ph collective)

simple isnt it matey.

Whatever

[mojocvh]

vonhosen said:

mojocvh said:

Best Anne Robinson mode

Answer the question (or be forever seen as nothing more than the MOST signifcant troll to darken the ph collective)

simple isnt it matey.

Whatever

Well that's nothing unexpected then......

but don't expect this to do a "blair" matey 'cos it's gonna haunt ya

Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Sunday 18th June 06:20

Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Sunday 18th June 06:22

[vonhosen]

mojocvh said:

vonhosen said:

mojocvh said:

Best Anne Robinson mode

Answer the question (or be forever seen as nothing more than the MOST signifcant troll to darken the ph collective)

simple isnt it matey.

Whatever

Well that's nothing unexpected then......

but don't expect this to do a "blair" matey 'cos it's gonna haunt ya

What are you going on about ?
Charmed I'm sure, you'll forgive me if I decline to converse with you in future.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th June 01:09

Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Sunday 18th June 06:22

[mojocvh]

vonhosen said:

mojocvh said:

vonhosen said:

[quote=mojocvh]Best Anne Robinson mode

Answer the question (or be forever seen as nothing more than the MOST signifcant troll to darken the ph collective)

simple isnt it matey.

Whatever

Well that's nothing unexpected then......

but don't expect this to do a "blair" matey 'cos it's gonna haunt ya

What are you going on about ?[/quote

's okay just keep on talking LOL

Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Sunday 18th June 06:23

[mojocvh]

vonhosen said:

mojocvh said:

vonhosen said:

mojocvh said:

Best Anne Robinson mode

Answer the question (or be forever seen as nothing more than the MOST signifcant troll to darken the ph collective)

simple isnt it matey.

Whatever

Well that's nothing unexpected then......

but don't expect this to do a "blair" matey 'cos it's gonna haunt ya

What are you going on about ?
Charmed I'm sure, you'll forgive me if I decline to converse with you in future.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th June 01:09

just "LOVE" those Edits baby, be sure they won't go away LOL ha love it

Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Sunday 18th June 06:23

[broccers]

Keep fighting Mojo - how is that bathtub by the way ?

[Mon Ami Mate]

Debate is healthy. Insults are unnecessary and will result in spells in the sin bin.

[safespeed]

safespeed said:

Hi all and especially Vonhosen,
[...]

[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.

Hi Von,

No comment at all on the original post in this thread?

[TripleS]

hanse cronje said:

safespeed said:

apache said:

To be honest Paul I don't think he gives a rolling donut...

I think we'll break through sooner or later because he understands driving and cares about it. But we have to break through a couple of false assumptions that have been accepted for years and fitted into the framework of understanding.

Either that or he's working for the government and here to check out our arguments.

i think he does actually but the position he holds is such that he can't be seen to be agreeing with us

if he didn't why come on hear with the number of posts he puts in to be berated like he is

perhaps when he leaves and sets up a driving consultancy his true colours will shine through

Edited by hanse cronje on Saturday 17th June 22:31

I believe the work that Von does at present is primarily work, and that he is not an enthusiastic driver in the way that most of us are. When he parts company with his present employer his real interest may prove to be in a completely different sphere of activity. I certainly don't think we'll be able to go to his driving school - an appealing prospect though that might be - OK well it would be to me.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Since writing that I've become aware that some unacceptable comments have apparently been posted and that a moderator has intervened, and I'm very sorry that need arose. I do wish we could accept that while we all feel very strongly about certain issues from time to time, we do not enhance our case by being rude to each other, and certainly Von has never resorted to that style and I feel entirely sure he never would.

With regard to speed limits and their enforcement, and the official policy in that area, it is clear that Von supports the present system, though in an ideal world it is not what he would really like to see. On the other hand I am totally opposed to the present policy and I rebel against it constantly. There is thus a marked difference between us in that respect, and I don't see that changing.

When we come to the practicalities of driving I immensely enjoy the contributions he makes here. To me they convey an impression of great expertise, but the manner in which his contributions are made is indicative of calmness and solidity, which I like. I don't always quite 'see' or immediately appreciate what he is getting at, but it would seem foolish to dismiss any of it too readily.

That's just my overall view on Von's involvement here. Don't let us cause him to go away again.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Edited by TripleS on Sunday 18th June 10:44

[GreenV8S]

I disagree with some of Von's views, and I'm a bit disappointed that he seems unwilling to discuss the reason for his position other than to say that's the law, but as far as I see none of his arguments depend on where he works. We have no *right* to know, and if you're curious and he chooses not to say then that's just too bad. I must say it's to his credit that he is willing to keep making his case calmly and politely despite ovewhelming and sometimes quite rude opposition from the rest of us. Let's stick to discussing the issue and not let it get personal.

[Boosted LS1]

GreenV8S said:

I disagree with some of Von's views, and I'm a bit disappointed that he seems unwilling to discuss the reason for his position other than to say that's the law, but as far as I see none of his arguments depend on where he works. We have no *right* to know, and if you're curious and he chooses not to say then that's just too bad. I must say it's to his credit that he is willing to keep making his case calmly and politely despite ovewhelming and sometimes quite rude opposition from the rest of us. Let's stick to discussing the issue and not let it get personal.

I agree Peter, I find his arguments worthy of thought and quite informative. I don't agree with many of them but they have opened my eyes in some areas.

Boosted.

[safespeed]

GreenV8S said:

... Von ...

I must say it's to his credit that he is willing to keep making his case calmly and politely despite ovewhelming and sometimes quite rude opposition from the rest of us. Let's stick to discussing the issue and not let it get personal.

[ATG]

safespeed said:

safespeed said:

Hi all and especially Vonhosen,
[...]

[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.

Hi Von,

No comment at all on the original post in this thread?

With all due respect, why do you expect a response from anyone? There's nothing new here. Obviously those factors and many others contribute to total risk.

If you really take the assertion that Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space seriously, then you'd conclude that "partial d Risk by d Speed" is equal to the constant (Surprise / Space) i.e. risk is directly proportional to speed, which surely illustrates the fatuous nature of writing down equations like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space when they clearly don't hold.

[safespeed]

ATG said:

safespeed said:

safespeed said:

Hi all and especially Vonhosen,
[...]

[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.

Hi Von,

No comment at all on the original post in this thread?

With all due respect, why do you expect a response from anyone? There's nothing new here. Obviously those factors and many others contribute to total risk.

If you really take the assertion that Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space seriously, then you'd conclude that "partial d Risk by d Speed" is equal to the constant (Surprise / Space) i.e. risk is directly proportional to speed, which surely illustrates the fatuous nature of writing down equations like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space when they clearly don't hold.

What on earth makes you think that you can call a pair of terms constant? Surely the experience of driving proves that the three terms are continuously dynamic and managed in real time by drivers? Did you read the supporting material?

[vonhosen]

safespeed said:

safespeed said:

Hi all and especially Vonhosen,
[...]

[...]
I hope examination of the materials will prove once and for all, that you cannot hope to control risk by reference to only ONE of the three parameters in Steve's equation.

Hi Von,

No comment at all on the original post in this thread?

Paul

I'm not being rude, but is that supposed to be ground breaking ?

Higher speed = higher risk , yes
Greater surprise = greater risk , yes
More space = less risk , yes


My contention is that as people get to higher speeds (with higher risk) they mostly don't have the required skills to deal with greater surprise OR think about how their greater speed impacts on causing surprise or misjudgement by others. We already know that those same people (vast swathes of them) are ill disciplined on leaving sufficient space. If their judgement in that area is so poor what makes you think it's any better at anything else ?

Of course 31 in a 30 isn't going to make much difference, but I am not an advocater of prosecuting people for 31 in a 30 as you well know. There is always going to be a cut off point though.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th June 11:23

[ATG]

safespeed said:

... Surely the experience of driving proves that the three terms are continuously dynamic and managed in real time by drivers?

Yes of course it does. That is preceisely why bandying silly pseudo formulae like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space is stupid. All I did was to take the silly formula at face value and derive from it a result that is clearly wrong.

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

I'm not being rude, but is that supposed to be ground breaking ?

I find it ground breaking as a simple description of a complex interaction. It warns us with utter clarity that no one parameter can set or control dynamic risk. Frankly I believe that it blows your arguments out of the water. If you don't think it does, then I reckon you haven't truly grasped its 'global' significance. (Equally, I'm not being rude.)

vonhosen said:

My contention is that as people get to higher speeds (with higher risk) they mostly don't have the required skills to deal with greater surprise OR think about how their greater speed impacts on causing surprise or misjudgement by others. We already know that those same people (vast swathes of them) are ill disciplined on leaving sufficient space.

Clearly we do not have a situation where normal driving leads to the ultimate violation of Steve's equation (i.e. crashes). Crashes are rare. Yet we have situations on every single car journey where speed is varied to zero as a risk control measure.

Controlling one term in isolation in an attempt to control risk is actually pretty absurd. That's the point. Driving risk management depends on controlling all three terms in balance together continuously.

[edited to correct spelling and for clarity]

Edited by safespeed on Sunday 18th June 11:33

[safespeed]

ATG said:

safespeed said:

... Surely the experience of driving proves that the three terms are continuously dynamic and managed in real time by drivers?

Yes of course it does. That is preceisely why bandying silly pseudo formulae like Risk = Speed * Surprise / Space is stupid. All I did was to take the silly formula at face value and derive from it a result that is clearly wrong.

I think it represents a very fundamental view of the nature of driving risk management. It's a logical relationship, not a mathematical one.