On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 19:51:40 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 02/04/2022 12:13, NY wrote:
>> "Max Demian"<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:s8GdnYnGEr-7tNX_nZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>> Apparently they were left over from the film Journey to the Far Side of
>>> the Sun (1969). That film was set in Portugal, hence the LHD cars, and the
>>> (incorrect) assumption that Britain would have changed to driving on the
>>> right by 1980.
>>
>> Was there a plan in the 1960s for the UK to change over to driving on the
>> right, using LHD cars? I didn't know that. I think in some ways we should
>> have changed over, like Sweden did, before there were as many cars which
>> would be rendered semi-obsolete by the change.
>>
>This is Britain, don't forget. The change-over would be cars at first
>to see how it went, followed by lorries a few weeks afterwards.
>

Interesting for buses. Old ones on the left and new ones on the right.
--
brightside S9

In message <jas8o9Fqc1aU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes
>On 02/04/2022 21:03, charles wrote:
>> In article <jarkliFmkqgU3@mid.individual.net>,
>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2022 18:14, MB wrote:
>>>> I can't remember the title but there is a classic book on road safety.
>>>> The author made an equation to estimate the number of accidents in a
>>>> country, using population, number of vehicles, miles of roads etc.
>>>>
>>>> It gives a remarkably accurate figure for most countries but a small
>>>> number of countries have a lower accident rate than predicted by the
>>>> equation. All drive on the left hand side of the road.
>>
>>> That's British influence.
>> Did we influence Japan?
>>
>Good point. No.
>
Even without British involvement, certain other countries also once
drove on the left.
https://tinyurl.com/5n75b2fw
In my opinion, driving on the left (with the steering wheel on the
right) is the more-natural side. My reasoning is that as well as being
right-handed, most people are (I believe) 'right eyed'. Their right eye
is their 'sighting eye', and as such, they get a better visual aim down
the crown of the road when driving on the left.
--
Ian

On 03/04/2022 08:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 19:08:48 +0100, Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> However, it's a pity that we never actually did change, because the vast
>> majority of the world drive on the right. Scroll down to map here:
>>
>> https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Drive-Smart-Blog/Drive-Left-or-Right.aspx
>
> Interesting map. It shows that we're an island, i.e. we have no land
> borders where drivers would have to change over. Most British drivers
> will never need to drive anywhere else, so how much inconvenience
> would it really save, and at what cost?
>
> When Sweden changed, most cars on their roads were already left hand
> drive. If we changed, practically all British cars on British roads
> would be the wrong way round for several decades.
>
> Would it really be worth all the inevitable carnage to try to change?
> How much of the billions it would cost would actually be spent on it
> and how much would end up in the pockets of politicians' chums?
>
> Rod.

You can blame Napoleon Bonaparte for the mixture.
Originally it was customary for anybody meeting someone coming the other
way by keeping left. That way the right arm was free to shake hands as
a friendly greeting or to fight with swords which were always a
right-handed weapon.

When Napoleon conquered most of Europe he wanted to prove that he had
been there. So the countries under his control were required to do
things differently. So people on the road were required to keep to the
right and instead of inches, feet etc based on body parts he introduced
measurements based on the circumference of the earth and fractions of
it, hence kilometres etc. This brought in other metric comparisons. He
couldn't use "a gallon of water weighs 10lb" so he had a cubic
centimetre of water weighs 1 gram.

Britain defeated Napoleon so never had to change imperial measures, but
those who had been forced to change to metric measures and passing on
the right couldn't face the upheaval of changing back.

Jim

I suspect the appeal of many of the old series *is* that they are naff to
modern eyes!

Space "ninteen and ninepence" always was like watching puppet shows with
wooden scripts. The Saint can be entertaining because it is also meant to
be amusing, not just crime. The Saint books in general are also aimed at
being amusing and entertaining. Quite distinct from the 'hard boiled' crime
stories by many US writers who take a 'blowtorch to the face' approach to
drama! (Example from a Hadley Chase novel!)

Not seen an "Avengers" recently, but again I think these are aimed at being
amusing and stylish. Light entertainment. Although some of the early
examples are 'darker' - not just in film terms.

The sound on older examples like "Sgt Cork" can be even worse. But I doubt
anyone noticed that much via 405 line TV at the time! :-) Come to think of
it,the gap in time between that series being televised and the time when it
was set is now comparable with the gap between when it was televised and
now! 8-]

Jim

In article <t290dc$fmu$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Space 1999, I do not think that anything set in a time past will work
> now really. The effects in this were pretty naff. I mean jumping lunar
> rovers would surely make you puke.

> The Champions was a bit of a laugh, that was one of those ITC things
> like the Saint (dated) The persuaders (still unbelievable as it was
> before), and Tales of the Unexpected ( some were very good, others,
> well silly)

> I obviously cannot comment about the standard of the actual pictures,
> but the sound was very variable. Some of the early ones made on film,
> like Avengers etc, seem to have not transferred audio that sounds good.
> It sounds like a very bad noise gate is in use or like a non Dolby
> tape played back with Dolby on.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In message <t2bnsf$ugc$1@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman
<jmlayman@invalid.invalid> writes
>On 03/04/2022 08:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> Would it really be worth all the inevitable carnage to try to change?
>> How much of the billions it would cost would actually be spent on it
>> and how much would end up in the pockets of politicians' chums?
>
>It's also a bit pointless when we are being told that self-driving cars
>aren't that many years away. There won't be any steering wheel once
>safety has been confirmed. Then we can change to driving on the right
>if it's considered essential.
>
>Mind you, I wonder how long it'll take other road users and pedestrians
>to adapt if we do change to DOTR. :-/
>

Even more worrying, how do you ensure that the software of all
self-driving vehicles is updated simultaneously? If even 1% don't update
in a timely fashion, it could be carnage.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 03/04/2022 08:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 19:08:48 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> However, it's a pity that we never actually did change, because the vast
>> majority of the world drive on the right. Scroll down to map here:
>>
>> https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Drive-Smart-Blog/Drive-Left-or-Right.aspx
>
> Interesting map. It shows that we're an island, i.e. we have no land
> borders where drivers would have to change over. Most British drivers
> will never need to drive anywhere else, so how much inconvenience
> would it really save, and at what cost?

At the time that it was mooted there were far fewer cars on the road,
and fewer miles of road to change. It would have saved the excessive
amount of accidents, and the resulting injuries and deaths, involving
Brits who drive abroad and foreigners who drive here. If everyone did
it, it would have meant that car manufacturers wouldn't have had the
extra cost of producing both LHD and RHD vehicles, etc, etc.

> When Sweden changed, most cars on their roads were already left hand
> drive. If we changed, practically all British cars on British roads
> would be the wrong way round for several decades.
>
> Would it really be worth all the inevitable carnage to try to change?
> How much of the billions it would cost would actually be spent on it
> and how much would end up in the pockets of politicians' chums?

Did you not bother to read the Irish Time report I linked? There's
'carnage' now, merely it's drawn out into a chronic problem instead of
happening all at once. Can you really claim that if we'd changed at the
time, the injury and death toll would have been greater than the ongoing
toll summed over the intervening years since?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 03 Apr 2022 10:42:04 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>You can blame Napoleon Bonaparte for the mixture.
>Originally it was customary for anybody meeting someone coming the other
>way by keeping left. That way the right arm was free to shake hands as
>a friendly greeting or to fight with swords which were always a
>right-handed weapon.

I've heard that one. I've also heard that Napoleon was left handed. I
wonder which story is correct?

Rod.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:12:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 03/04/2022 10:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> It's also a bit pointless when we are being told that self-driving cars
>> aren't that many years away.
>
>I think it will be many more years before we see many self-driving cars
>around. Might seem OK for Mr Musk on wide American motorways (though his
>cars do seem very prone to accidents and fires). The narrow cluttered
>road in the UK and many other countries are quite different and often
>difficult enough for human drivers.
>

We can probably make self driving cars now that would kill fewer
people than human drivers, but no politician would want to authorise
that. "Fewer deaths" wouldn't be good enough; it would have to be a
guarantee of "zero deaths", and how likely is that to happen, ever?
When has humanity ever created anything with a zero failure rate?

Rod.

On 03/04/2022 11:19, Java Jive wrote:

> If everyone did
> it, it would have meant that car manufacturers wouldn't have had the
> extra cost of producing both LHD and RHD vehicles, etc, etc.

The small flaw in that argument is that Japan has the steering wheel on
the right and drives on the left hand side of the road, as does
Australia. This makes Japanese cars an attractive proposition in
Britain and Australia because the Japanese cars were originally designed
for right hand drive and it is the left hand drive Japanese models which
are the design afterthought.

If you look at the reliability records of the cars in use in Britain,
most of the models with the fewest faults over any given period of time
are Japanese.

Jim

On 03/04/2022 at 11:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 11:19, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> If everyone did
>> it, it would have meant that car manufacturers wouldn't have had the
>> extra cost of producing both LHD and RHD vehicles, etc, etc.
>
> The small flaw in that argument is that Japan has the steering wheel on
> the right and drives on the left hand side of the road, as does
> Australia. This makes Japanese cars an attractive proposition in
> Britain and Australia because the Japanese cars were originally designed
> for right hand drive and it is the left hand drive Japanese models which
> are the design afterthought.
>

They also drive on the left in India and Pakistan, and there is a fairly
large population there.

> If you look at the reliability records of the cars in use in Britain,
> most of the models with the fewest faults over any given period of time
> are Japanese.
>
> Jim

--
Wilf

On 03/04/2022 08:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Even without British involvement, certain other countries also once
> drove on the left.
> https://tinyurl.com/5n75b2fw
> In my opinion, driving on the left (with the steering wheel on the
> right) is the more-natural side. My reasoning is that as well as being
> right-handed, most people are (I believe) 'right eyed'. Their right eye
> is their 'sighting eye', and as such, they get a better visual aim down
> the crown of the road when driving on the left.

The result of the equation in the book I mentioned does seem to confirm
their is some sort of advantage but the sample size was too low to be
statistically significant.

I can't see places like the USA or EU spending a lot a money on research
that might prove they got it wrong and too expensive or "politically
brave" to change now.

On 03/04/2022 12:03, Wilf wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2022 at 11:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 03/04/2022 11:19, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> If everyone did
>>> it, it would have meant that car manufacturers wouldn't have had the
>>> extra cost of producing both LHD and RHD vehicles, etc, etc.
>>
>> The small flaw in that argument is that Japan has the steering wheel on
>> the right and drives on the left hand side of the road, as does
>> Australia.  This makes Japanese cars an attractive proposition in
>> Britain and Australia because the Japanese cars were originally designed
>> for right hand drive and it is the left hand drive Japanese models which
>> are the design afterthought.
>
> They also drive on the left in India and Pakistan, and there is a fairly
> large population there.

And I'm not aware of any cars made there that are considered attractive
here.

>> If you look at the reliability records of the cars in use in Britain,
>> most of the models with the fewest faults over any given period of time
>> are Japanese.

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which side of the road
they were designed for. Japanese goods generally are considered very
reliable, and their cars are part of that generally high standard of
production.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:12:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/04/2022 10:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> It's also a bit pointless when we are being told that self-driving cars
>>> aren't that many years away.
>>
>> I think it will be many more years before we see many self-driving cars
>> around. Might seem OK for Mr Musk on wide American motorways (though his
>> cars do seem very prone to accidents and fires). The narrow cluttered
>> road in the UK and many other countries are quite different and often
>> difficult enough for human drivers.
>>
>
> We can probably make self driving cars now that would kill fewer
> people than human drivers, but no politician would want to authorise
> that. "Fewer deaths" wouldn't be good enough; it would have to be a
> guarantee of "zero deaths", and how likely is that to happen, ever?
> When has humanity ever created anything with a zero failure rate?
>
> Rod.
>

To the proponents of self driving cars all I can say is snow. Almost every
visual clue is changed or obscured.

On 03/04/2022 12:03, Wilf wrote:
> They also drive on the left in India and Pakistan, and there is a fairly
> large population there.

As do 73 other countries.

https://www.rhinocarhire.com/CorporateSite/media/Blog-Images/Blog-2017/Countries-Drive-Left-or-Right.jpg

On 03/04/2022 at 13:04, Tweed wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:12:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/04/2022 10:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> It's also a bit pointless when we are being told that self-driving cars
>>>> aren't that many years away.
>>>
>>> I think it will be many more years before we see many self-driving cars
>>> around. Might seem OK for Mr Musk on wide American motorways (though his
>>> cars do seem very prone to accidents and fires). The narrow cluttered
>>> road in the UK and many other countries are quite different and often
>>> difficult enough for human drivers.
>>>
>>
>> We can probably make self driving cars now that would kill fewer
>> people than human drivers, but no politician would want to authorise
>> that. "Fewer deaths" wouldn't be good enough; it would have to be a
>> guarantee of "zero deaths", and how likely is that to happen, ever?
>> When has humanity ever created anything with a zero failure rate?
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>
> To the proponents of self driving cars all I can say is snow. Almost every
> visual clue is changed or obscured.
>

I also think about how a self driving car would deal with single track
country roads with passing places.
--
Wilf

Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 at 13:04, Tweed wrote:
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:12:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/04/2022 10:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> It's also a bit pointless when we are being told that self-driving cars
>>>>> aren't that many years away.
>>>>
>>>> I think it will be many more years before we see many self-driving cars
>>>> around. Might seem OK for Mr Musk on wide American motorways (though his
>>>> cars do seem very prone to accidents and fires). The narrow cluttered
>>>> road in the UK and many other countries are quite different and often
>>>> difficult enough for human drivers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can probably make self driving cars now that would kill fewer
>>> people than human drivers, but no politician would want to authorise
>>> that. "Fewer deaths" wouldn't be good enough; it would have to be a
>>> guarantee of "zero deaths", and how likely is that to happen, ever?
>>> When has humanity ever created anything with a zero failure rate?
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>>
>>
>> To the proponents of self driving cars all I can say is snow. Almost every
>> visual clue is changed or obscured.
>>
>
> I also think about how a self driving car would deal with single track
> country roads with passing places.

There’d probably an auction between cars as they met, with the one that
paid least having to reverse.

On 03/04/2022 13:04, Tweed wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:12:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/04/2022 10:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> It's also a bit pointless when we are being told that self-driving cars
>>>> aren't that many years away.
>>>
>>> I think it will be many more years before we see many self-driving cars
>>> around. Might seem OK for Mr Musk on wide American motorways (though his
>>> cars do seem very prone to accidents and fires). The narrow cluttered
>>> road in the UK and many other countries are quite different and often
>>> difficult enough for human drivers.
>>>
>>
>> We can probably make self driving cars now that would kill fewer
>> people than human drivers, but no politician would want to authorise
>> that. "Fewer deaths" wouldn't be good enough; it would have to be a
>> guarantee of "zero deaths", and how likely is that to happen, ever?
>> When has humanity ever created anything with a zero failure rate?
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>
> To the proponents of self driving cars all I can say is snow. Almost every
> visual clue is changed or obscured.

Indeed, and perhaps dense fog could be included. But whereas many humans
pay no attention to the fact they can't see anything and continue
driving at the same speed, a car programmed correctly will slow down as
its visual clues (I'm not sure if IR "sees" better through snow or fog)
and its communications with nearby cars become less certain, and its
sensors show slipping wheels. It might not prevent crashes, but they
will be at much lower speed, and nothing like the carnage resulting from
multi-car pile-ups on a motorway.

--

Jeff

On 03/04/2022 12:10, MB wrote:
>
> In my opinion, driving on the left (with the steering wheel on the
> right) is the more-natural side. My reasoning is that as well as being
> right-handed, most people are (I believe) 'right eyed'. Their right eye
> is their 'sighting eye', and as such, they get a better visual aim down
> the crown of the road when driving on the left.

Seemingly not borne out by research, where results are conflicting. For
example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance

"Approximately 70% of the population are right-eye dominant and 29%
left-eye dominant.[1][5][6][7]"

.... but the very next sentence reads ...

"Dominance does appear to change depending upon direction of gaze[2][8]
due to image size changes on the retinas.[9]"

.... and ...

"In normal binocular vision there is an effect of parallax, and
therefore the dominant eye is the one that is primarily relied on for
precise positional information. This may be extremely important in
sports which require aim, such as archery, darts or shooting sports."

.... but the very next paragraph reads ...

"It has been asserted that cross-dominance (in which the dominant eye is
on one side and the dominant hand is on the other) is advantageous in
sports requiring side-on stances (e.g. baseball, cricket, golf);[15]
however, studies within the last 20 years have shown this not to be the
case. In a 1998 study of professional baseball players, hand–ocular
dominance patterns did not show an effect on batting average or ERA.[16]
Similarly, in 2005, a South African study found that "cricketers were
not more likely to have crossed dominance" than the normal population.[17]"

Usually, where differently constructed tests and studies show
conflicting results, it means that there is no result to be found, and I
suspect that is the case with your assertion above.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 03/04/2022 13:06, Wilf wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 at 13:04, Tweed wrote:
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:12:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/04/2022 10:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> It's also a bit pointless when we are being told that self-driving cars
>>>>> aren't that many years away.
>>>>
>>>> I think it will be many more years before we see many self-driving cars
>>>> around. Might seem OK for Mr Musk on wide American motorways (though his
>>>> cars do seem very prone to accidents and fires). The narrow cluttered
>>>> road in the UK and many other countries are quite different and often
>>>> difficult enough for human drivers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can probably make self driving cars now that would kill fewer
>>> people than human drivers, but no politician would want to authorise
>>> that. "Fewer deaths" wouldn't be good enough; it would have to be a
>>> guarantee of "zero deaths", and how likely is that to happen, ever?
>>> When has humanity ever created anything with a zero failure rate?
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>>
>>
>> To the proponents of self driving cars all I can say is snow. Almost every
>> visual clue is changed or obscured.
>>
>
> I also think about how a self driving car would deal with single track
> country roads with passing places.

The cars will be communicating with each other and using GPS and a map
database to ascertain their position. The one nearest a passing place
will pull into it to allow the other to pass. I wouldn't be surprised if
Google Maps and/or Street View has already recorded all passing places
on minor roads in the UK (from
<https://developers.google.com/maps/coverage>).

--

Jeff

On 03/04/2022 13:34, Java Jive wrote:

Sorry, somehow the quoting got garbled ...

> On 03/04/2022 12:10, MB wrote:

.... and actually Ian Jackson wrote the following:

>> In my opinion, driving on the left (with the steering wheel on the
>> right) is the more-natural side. My reasoning is that as well as being
>> right-handed, most people are (I believe) 'right eyed'. Their right eye
>> is their 'sighting eye', and as such, they get a better visual aim down
>> the crown of the road when driving on the left.
>
> Seemingly not borne out by research, where results are conflicting.  For
> example:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance
>
> "Approximately 70% of the population are right-eye dominant and 29%
> left-eye dominant.[1][5][6][7]"
>
> .... but the very next sentence reads ...
>
> "Dominance does appear to change depending upon direction of gaze[2][8]
> due to image size changes on the retinas.[9]"
>
> .... and ...
>
> "In normal binocular vision there is an effect of parallax, and
> therefore the dominant eye is the one that is primarily relied on for
> precise positional information. This may be extremely important in
> sports which require aim, such as archery, darts or shooting sports."
>
> .... but the very next paragraph reads ...
>
> "It has been asserted that cross-dominance (in which the dominant eye is
> on one side and the dominant hand is on the other) is advantageous in
> sports requiring side-on stances (e.g. baseball, cricket, golf);[15]
> however, studies within the last 20 years have shown this not to be the
> case. In a 1998 study of professional baseball players, hand–ocular
> dominance patterns did not show an effect on batting average or ERA.[16]
> Similarly, in 2005, a South African study found that "cricketers were
> not more likely to have crossed dominance" than the normal population.[17]"
>
> Usually, where differently constructed tests and studies show
> conflicting results, it means that there is no result to be found, and I
> suspect that is the case with your assertion above.
>

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

They made a video game out of that lot of rot.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:t2932b$t6u$1@dont-email.me...
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 09:10:14 +0100
> "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Its interesting that some channels are really scraping the bottom of
>> the barrel, by which I mean running perfectly good series in their
>> day, but have not weathered time too well, in my opinion.
>> The first has to be UFO which actually was bad in the first place
>> with too much over acting and naff ufo effects. Gerry Anderson must
>> have not been paid enough is all I can say, and as for the naff
>> space suits apparently made from canvas...
>>
>>
>
> That sounds as though he had Ed Wood (Plan 9 from Outer Space) as an
> advisor!
> --
> Davey.
>
>

How silly. The whole point being missed quite obviously. there were lots of
plans in the 60s like Fusion power is only 20 years away for instance, so
everything will be running on Electricity or hydrogen as energy from
seawater was assured.
Now we are trying to get driverless cars, but there is n place for them to
drive any more the place is full of cycle lanes.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:59d2ccbf80charles@candehope.me.uk...
> In article <t29b5s$1jt$1@dont-email.me>,
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:s8GdnYnGEr-7tNX_nZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> > Apparently they were left over from the film Journey to the Far Side of
>> > the Sun (1969). That film was set in Portugal, hence the LHD cars, and
>> > the
>> > (incorrect) assumption that Britain would have changed to driving on
>> > the
>> > right by 1980.
>
>> Was there a plan in the 1960s for the UK to change over to driving on the
>> right, using LHD cars? I didn't know that. I think in some ways we should
>> have changed over, like Sweden did, before there were as many cars which
>> would be rendered semi-obsolete by the change.
>
> I think there was such a plan. I remember a reader's letter in the Sunday
> Expresss saying "It would be much safer if we drove on the right hand side
> of the road, The driver would get out of the car straight on to the
> pavement."
>
> --
> from KT24 in Surrey, England
> "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Was it April 1st? Mind you planting lime trees along suburban roads seemed
to be stupid too, everyone knows how much like glue the stuff that drops of
them is. In my street they have had to dig them all up and plant something
different.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:59d2dec8f0charles@candehope.me.uk...
> In article <jar1r2Fj0msU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 02/04/2022 12:20, charles wrote:
>> > I remember a reader's letter in the Sunday Expresss saying "It would be
>> > much safer if we drove on the right hand side of the road, The driver
>> > would get out of the car straight on to the pavement."
>
>> Thick bugger.
>
>> Bill
>
> precisely - and the paper for publishing it.
>
> --
> from KT24 in Surrey, England
> "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Talking of old things. I see Monty Python is being ree-run on one of the
freeview channels as is some old DR Whose and Blakes 7.
The sci fi equivalent of Crossroads, at least for the cardboard wobbling
set as I recall. It was a pity as the actual yarns were quite good.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6V84DaCPoJSiFw1t@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
> In message <59d2dec8f0charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> writes
>>In article <jar1r2Fj0msU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
>><wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2022 12:20, charles wrote:
>>> > I remember a reader's letter in the Sunday Expresss saying "It would
>>> > be
>>> > much safer if we drove on the right hand side of the road, The driver
>>> > would get out of the car straight on to the pavement."
>>
>>> Thick bugger.
>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>precisely - and the paper for publishing it.
>>
>
> Perhaps they thought that it might give their readers a laugh.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

But not all of those who do are bad. This implies bad signage or poor driver
training.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:t2a0a2$dq4$1@dont-email.me...
> On 02/04/2022 12:20, charles wrote:
>> I think there was such a plan. I remember a reader's letter in the
>> Sunday
>> Expresss saying "It would be much safer if we drove on the right hand
>> side
>> of the road, The driver would get out of the car straight on to the
>> pavement."
>
> I can't remember the title but there is a classic book on road safety. The
> author made an equation to estimate the number of accidents in a country,
> using population, number of vehicles, miles of roads etc.
>
> It gives a remarkably accurate figure for most countries but a small
> number of countries have a lower accident rate than predicted by the
> equation. All drive on the left hand side of the road.
>