In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
news:xuGdnQwZu5wskujSnZ2dnUVZ8qidnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk...

It fits with his inability to actually apply common sense to any
situation. Like all that guff about sticking 9kW on a socket. He
likes nice black and white rules that don't require any application
of thought or interpretation. So speed limit = dangerous, without
recognising its an arbitrary number chosen as a resonable
compromise for the situation.

Its you that doesn't know why that limit was chosen that is the problem.
As I have stated before safety is not the only reason speed limits
are set.
If you exceed that limit because you think its safe then you choose
to ignore all the other reasons.
The thinking of someone that doesn't care about anyone else or what
effect that has on them.

You are inconsistent. You repeatedly claim that travelling at speeds
even slightly higher than the indicated limit is automatically
extremely dangerous, yet you now say that safety is not the only
reason for setting a particular limit.

Which is correct? Is it always dangerous to exceed a speed limit
which has been set to, say, reduce traffic noise? Note:- We all know
that it is unlawful to do so, but is it automatically dangerous?

Try asking whomever said "its automatically extremely dangerous".

Its "whoever" bull**** boi - you have the case wrong

You really do represent the mentality that killed off Marconi - the
barely competent middle management that turned it in on itself, squashed
the sense of adventure, free thought and flying a bit close to the wind


--
geoff