RG> As a bike rider, my greatest fear isn't when I'm riding, but when
RG> I'm stopped at traffic lights and there's a car behind me. This
RG> is when I'm most vulnerable.  If the cars brakes don't work, and
RG> ploughs into me I'm totally rooted.. Either run over by the car
RG> itself, or pushed into the oncoming traffic... neither is very nice.

BG> FWIW, that is PRECISELY how my ex-wife's brother was killed in 1968.

PE> What, a dual brake system simultaneously failed did
PE> it.  The porkies are getting better by the minute.

JT> This "dual brake system" you speak of in use in the vast majority of
JT> cars today, is NOT  (read FUCKING NOT)  dual redundancy.  I know of
JT> only some Rolls that have a full blown dual redundancy brake system.

Still handles that problem that all the neurotics are
hyperventilating about, a brake hose failure, John.

AND the risk of that is MUCH lower than the risk
they take every single day, DRIVER failure.

JT> If you lose either the front or back half of your
JT> braking system, you still have _some_ braking,

Quite a bit actually, particularly when you consider that
only the boy racers tear up to what they have to stop at,
jam on the brakes, and produce clouds of blue smoke.

Sure, there is some possibility of denting the car. But then
there is just parking down the local woolys carpark too.

JT> but maybe you don't know how much this "some" actually is.

He does have a pretty good idea of the relative
risk compared with driver failure tho.

JT> This "some" is actually a lot closer to
JT> "fuck all" rather than "just made it".

Bullshit.

JT> On top of that, it depends on WHAT area of your
JT> "dual braking system" actually failed.  If it's
JT> the master cylinder, then you have NO brakes.

More bullshit. The master cylinder still has a separate
system for each brake circuit, with only a mechanical connection
between the two halves, which usually aint what fails.

Sure, complete failure is possible, but then so is complete failure
of the DRIVER too, some silly clown just freezes up and doesnt even
manage to press the brake pedal, or presses the accelerator instead.

Thats life, if you dont like that small risk, better hide under
the bed and have someone pass the food in to you under there.

And even thats not entirely risk free, you might thrash around at
night and bang your head and your life might conceivably leak away.

JT> How much do YOU trust your "non dual redundant" brake system now? 

Rather more than he trust the other drivers on the road John.
And that relative risk can be very easily substantiated with
some of those funky things called accident statistics.

JT> Still do? Read up on it, and find out how this "dual braking
system" works,

Pointless, what matters is the relative risk. No one would ever be
silly enough to claim that there is no risk of brake failure at all.
What matters is whether the risk of driver failure is MUCH higher.

JT> and then ask which areas fail according to
JT> common failures, and what happens when it does.

Yeah, fuck all personal injury is caused by brake failure in
cars which have split braking systems around Sydney John. FAR
more are due to failures between the ears of various drivers.

JT> Wow, your super-duper dual brake system suddenly
JT> becomes less effective than your "shoe heel rubbing
JT> against the ground in a billy-kart" braking system.

Usual utterly mindless bullshit. Watch out you dont go blind now John.
@EOT:

---