|
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On 08/07/2010 23:56, geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home" writes "Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Isn't a drivers priority to expect other drivers to obey the rules? Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. That's odd, mine was too and he said the same. Wasn't Bob H, in Bakewell, was it? Not that I recall, it was a long time ago. Every other person on the road IS an incompetent lunatic and they ARE trying to kill you. Of course once you start driving you soon realise he was telling the truth. Breaking you in gently, if anything. He also said that passing your test doesn't mean you can drive, just that you can go and learn by yourself. Its a shame so many don't learn anything later. I think compulsory re-tests every 5 years would be a good idea to sort out the drivers that don't improve. And how are you going to achieve that braniac ? they can't even cope with the first timers and if you hadn't noticed, money is short in the public sector, cutbacks and redundancies are being made across the public sector **** me you're a retard Mind you, if it got you off the road it would be worth it I would say retests every 10 years. We don't give out gun licenses for life. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On 09/07/2010 00:16, geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher writes geoff wrote: In message , "dennis@home" There is no humour in these posts, the fact that you think there is just shows that you are warped. In my years in uk.d-i-y I have never come across anyone so determined to prove what an idiot they are as you seem to be obsessed with doing Good grief! most groups have at least one resident idiot. This group has two. Who, me or dennis ? (I assume drivel is the other one) I would say 2.7 because you do say some sensible things from time to time. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On 09/07/2010 08:38, Adrian wrote:
Grimly gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Futher down that page, relating to another incident... "Cynthia Barlow, chairwoman of safety charity RoadPeace, thinks it is drivers who need to alter their habits to protect the growing band of cyclists across Britain. Her daughter Alex McVitty, 26, was killed in 2000 when a turning lorry struck her bike in the City of London. "The biggest problem involving the interaction between cyclists and heavy goods vehicles is when the cyclist is going straight on and the lorry is turning left," Mrs Barlow said." She's still banging on about it, apparently oblivious to the fact her daughter was somewhere she shouldn't have been and lacked the basic observational skills to survive in city traffic. She's so far up De Nile she's in ficking Khartoum. She's right, though - it's the drivers who need to alter their habits. More specifically, truck drivers need to stop turning left, the reckless *******s. It achieves nothing that three right turns won't achieve, much more safely. I dealt with quite a number of claims where cyclists slipped up the inside of trucks indicating left. At least the extra mirrors to cover that area have been in use for quite a few years now. Still see idiot car drivers trying to get past artics on roundabouts where the gap is quite clearly going to close. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On 9 Jul 2010 07:37:07 GMT, Adrian wrote:
Well I expect it will get you off the road. That's why I want lots of average speed cameras, just to get you off the road. phew I can stop agreeing with you now. AOL Assuming you are agreeing about the 5 year driving retest. Considering you need to submit a building control notice to add a bit of wool to your loft space it's ridiculous that you can pass you test at 17 ish and not have the state take any further interest in your ability to safely control a tonne or more of high speed metal until you are 70. Not to mention checking that drivers are up to date on the ever changing legislation. -- Cheers Dave. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian saying something like: Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed up to the posted speed limit. Its the idiots that think they must exceed it that are a problem, usually because they can't even work out why there is a posted limit and, hence, think that it doesn't apply to them. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On Jul 9, 10:33*am, "dennis@home"
wrote: Its the idiots that think they must exceed it that are a problem, usually because they can't even work out why there is a posted limit No, it's the idiots who pressure their local authority for speed limits totally without merit that cause the problem. MBQ |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On Jul 8, 11:56*pm, geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home" writes "Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Isn't a drivers priority to expect other drivers to obey the rules? Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. That's odd, mine was too and he said the same. Wasn't Bob H, in Bakewell, was it? Not that I recall, it was a long time ago. Every other person on the road IS an incompetent lunatic and they ARE trying to kill you. Of course once you start driving you soon realise he was telling the truth. Breaking you in gently, if anything. He also said that passing your test doesn't mean you can drive, just that you can go and learn by yourself. Its a shame so many don't learn anything later. I think compulsory re-tests every 5 years would be a good idea to sort out the drivers that don't improve. And how are you going to achieve that braniac ? they can't even cope with the first timers They do round here. My eldest had no problem booking theory or practical tests at a time and venue date to suit him. and if you hadn't noticed, money is short in the public sector, cutbacks and redundancies are being made across the public sector You make drivers pay, and you employ enought staff to deal with them. **** me you're a retard You don't seem to be operating on a much higher level of sentience yourself. MBQ |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed Yep up to the posted speed limit. Nope. The maximum LEGAL speed is the limit. The maximum SAFE speed may well be higher. Why does this variability suddenly stop at an arbitrary number decided many decades ago? Its the idiots that think they must exceed it that are a problem, usually because they can't even work out why there is a posted limit and, hence, think that it doesn't apply to them. That sounds like it's more applicable to those who regard the limit as something more safety-related than an arbitrary legal line. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed Yep up to the posted speed limit. Nope. The maximum LEGAL speed is the limit. The maximum SAFE speed may well be higher. Why does this variability suddenly stop at an arbitrary number decided many decades ago? This argument is a fools argument. Once you accept that speed limits are determined by other factors than safety your argument loses its value. Speed limits can be imposed for other reasons so you can forget the safety argument. Its the idiots that think they must exceed it that are a problem, usually because they can't even work out why there is a posted limit and, hence, think that it doesn't apply to them. That sounds like it's more applicable to those who regard the limit as something more safety-related than an arbitrary legal line. Its probably better than your argument that *all* drivers can chose to drive at whatever speed *they* think is safe. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On Jul 9, 2:06*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote: "Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed Yep up to the posted speed limit. Nope. The maximum LEGAL speed is the limit. The maximum SAFE speed may well be higher. Why does this variability suddenly stop at an arbitrary number decided many decades ago? This argument is a fools argument. Once you accept that speed limits are determined by other factors than safety your argument loses its value. Speed limits can be imposed for other reasons so you can forget the safety argument. If posted speed limits have nothing to do with safety, what are they for? MBQ |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jul 9, 2:06 pm, "dennis@home" wrote: "Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed Yep up to the posted speed limit. Nope. The maximum LEGAL speed is the limit. The maximum SAFE speed may well be higher. Why does this variability suddenly stop at an arbitrary number decided many decades ago? This argument is a fools argument. Once you accept that speed limits are determined by other factors than safety your argument loses its value. Speed limits can be imposed for other reasons so you can forget the safety argument. If posted speed limits have nothing to do with safety, what are they for? MBQ Generation of tax revenue, apparently. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed Yep up to the posted speed limit. Nope. The maximum LEGAL speed is the limit. The maximum SAFE speed may well be higher. Why does this variability suddenly stop at an arbitrary number decided many decades ago? This argument is a fools argument. Once you accept that speed limits are determined by other factors than safety your argument loses its value. Speed limits can be imposed for other reasons so you can forget the safety argument. Hold on a moment - you were the one who first mentioned the "maximum safe speed", with a heavy implication of "lower than the speed limit". I merely pointed out that it could be higher than the speed limit as well as lower. Its the idiots that think they must exceed it that are a problem, usually because they can't even work out why there is a posted limit and, hence, think that it doesn't apply to them. That sounds like it's more applicable to those who regard the limit as something more safety-related than an arbitrary legal line. Its probably better than your argument that *all* drivers can chose to drive at whatever speed *they* think is safe. Well, if the suggestion that the maximum safe speed for a stretch of road may be below the limit is true (and it is), then we automatically have to accept that all drivers must be able to accurately judge whether a given speed is safe or not - since the limit cannot be a guide to that. At which point, we get back to "Why does this ability stop at a certain arbitrary number?" B'sides, you seem to be forgetting to draw a distinction between the offences of exceeding the speed limit and driving dangerously. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
|
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
In message , "dennis@home"
writes "geoff" wrote in message ... And how are you going to achieve that braniac ? You pay, like you do now, braniac. they can't even cope with the first timers and if you hadn't noticed, money is short in the public sector, cutbacks and redundancies are being made across the public sector **** me you're a retard Mind you, if it got you off the road it would be worth it Well I expect it will get you off the road. That's why I want lots of average speed cameras, just to get you off the road. Its not going to work dennis a 5 year test just MIGHT get a doddery old fart like you off the road though you're a menace to road users and a social misfit what are you doing posting here? Nobody else willing to talk to you ? -- geoff |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
In message , Invisible Man
writes On 08/07/2010 23:56, geoff wrote: In message , "dennis@home" writes "Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Isn't a drivers priority to expect other drivers to obey the rules? Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. That's odd, mine was too and he said the same. Wasn't Bob H, in Bakewell, was it? Not that I recall, it was a long time ago. Every other person on the road IS an incompetent lunatic and they ARE trying to kill you. Of course once you start driving you soon realise he was telling the truth. Breaking you in gently, if anything. He also said that passing your test doesn't mean you can drive, just that you can go and learn by yourself. Its a shame so many don't learn anything later. I think compulsory re-tests every 5 years would be a good idea to sort out the drivers that don't improve. And how are you going to achieve that braniac ? they can't even cope with the first timers and if you hadn't noticed, money is short in the public sector, cutbacks and redundancies are being made across the public sector **** me you're a retard Mind you, if it got you off the road it would be worth it I would say retests every 10 years. We don't give out gun licenses for life. How many people apply for gun licences? -- geoff |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On 09/07/2010 19:53, geoff wrote:
In message , Invisible Man writes On 08/07/2010 23:56, geoff wrote: In message , "dennis@home" writes "Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Isn't a drivers priority to expect other drivers to obey the rules? Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. That's odd, mine was too and he said the same. Wasn't Bob H, in Bakewell, was it? Not that I recall, it was a long time ago. Every other person on the road IS an incompetent lunatic and they ARE trying to kill you. Of course once you start driving you soon realise he was telling the truth. Breaking you in gently, if anything. He also said that passing your test doesn't mean you can drive, just that you can go and learn by yourself. Its a shame so many don't learn anything later. I think compulsory re-tests every 5 years would be a good idea to sort out the drivers that don't improve. And how are you going to achieve that braniac ? they can't even cope with the first timers and if you hadn't noticed, money is short in the public sector, cutbacks and redundancies are being made across the public sector **** me you're a retard Mind you, if it got you off the road it would be worth it I would say retests every 10 years. We don't give out gun licenses for life. How many people apply for gun licences? Quite a few. There are a lot more motorists but also a lot more people killed by cars often as a result of driver ignorance or stupidity. I dealt with a lot of fatal and injury claims but I can only recall two that were not partially or wholly a driver's fault. 1)Rope not on a vehicle apparently got thrown up and wrapped around the prop shaft and air brake pipe of an HGV. Air brakes failed safe in on position and truck skidded across road and hit minibus head. 2)Brake lining contaminated by leaking slave cylinder. Car went across road under heavy braking head on into lorry loaded with gas cylinders. Some others were contributed to by completely unexpected diesel spills on road etc. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
Invisible Man gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: Quite a few. There are a lot more motorists but also a lot more people killed by cars often as a result of driver ignorance or stupidity. I dealt with a lot of fatal and injury claims but I can only recall two that were not partially or wholly a driver's fault. 1)Rope not on a vehicle apparently got thrown up and wrapped around the prop shaft and air brake pipe of an HGV. Air brakes failed safe in on position and truck skidded across road and hit minibus head. The driver drove directly over this rope with one front tyre, presumably? 2)Brake lining contaminated by leaking slave cylinder. Car went across road under heavy braking head on into lorry loaded with gas cylinders. I wonder how long the car had been pulling slightly under lighter braking? |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
In message , Invisible Man
writes I would say retests every 10 years. We don't give out gun licenses for life. How many people apply for gun licences? Quite a few. There are a lot more motorists Yeah - and as I said, with sweeping cuts and redundancies across government departments who is going to do all the testing ? They were hard pressed to keep up with demand before -- geoff |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
Adrian wrote:
(Sn!pe) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: If posted speed limits have nothing to do with safety, what are they for? Energy saving and pollution reduction, to name but two. Cool. So if I drive a small, lightweight, well maintained car; does that mean I can have a higher speed limit than somebody driving a badly maintained big fat heavy bloaty thing? Occasionally it's noise. There's a B road along the edge of town near me where the limit was set for noise. Of course you still get people red-lining along it at 1am with extra loud exhausts. Besides which, the limit on that road is the same for HGVs and cars. Which is blatantly wrong for any of the reasons. Andy |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... So since you accept that the posted limit may have little to do with safety, you would appear to be in agreement with the aforementioned "fools argument" I didn't say I don't agree with the speed limits so you are incorrect. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message ... If posted speed limits have nothing to do with safety, what are they for? I didn't say that. I said speed limits are used for other reasons than safety. Some are to reduce noise, a car doing 40 mph is a lot noisier than a car doing 30 mph. The 50 mph national speed limit was intended to save fuel. So if you speed on what you think is a safe road you may be annoying people and they may well want you fined to stop you interfering with their lives. But i don't suppose you care what happens to others as long as you can speed. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed Yep up to the posted speed limit. Nope. The maximum LEGAL speed is the limit. The maximum SAFE speed may well be higher. Why does this variability suddenly stop at an arbitrary number decided many decades ago? This argument is a fools argument. Once you accept that speed limits are determined by other factors than safety your argument loses its value. Speed limits can be imposed for other reasons so you can forget the safety argument. Hold on a moment - you were the one who first mentioned the "maximum safe speed", with a heavy implication of "lower than the speed limit". I merely pointed out that it could be higher than the speed limit as well as lower. No I said up to the posted speed limit. Its the idiots that think they must exceed it that are a problem, usually because they can't even work out why there is a posted limit and, hence, think that it doesn't apply to them. That sounds like it's more applicable to those who regard the limit as something more safety-related than an arbitrary legal line. Its probably better than your argument that *all* drivers can chose to drive at whatever speed *they* think is safe. Well, if the suggestion that the maximum safe speed for a stretch of road may be below the limit is true (and it is), then we automatically have to accept that all drivers must be able to accurately judge whether a given speed is safe or not - since the limit cannot be a guide to that. At which point, we get back to "Why does this ability stop at a certain arbitrary number?" B'sides, you seem to be forgetting to draw a distinction between the offences of exceeding the speed limit and driving dangerously. Why do I need to draw a distinction, we aren't discussing dangerous driving or driving without due care. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"geoff" wrote in message ... In message , "dennis@home" writes "geoff" wrote in message ... And how are you going to achieve that braniac ? You pay, like you do now, braniac. they can't even cope with the first timers and if you hadn't noticed, money is short in the public sector, cutbacks and redundancies are being made across the public sector **** me you're a retard Mind you, if it got you off the road it would be worth it Well I expect it will get you off the road. That's why I want lots of average speed cameras, just to get you off the road. Its not going to work dennis a 5 year test just MIGHT get a doddery old fart like you off the road though you're a menace to road users and a social misfit what are you doing posting here? Nobody else willing to talk to you ? I like making fun of you. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
dennis@home wrote:
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian saying something like: Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed up to the posted speed limit. "the maximum safe speed up to the posted limit." I quoted. Just circa 12 months ago, you posited that there were other reasons for limits such as noise in urban areas. I acknowledged that you were right. Now, you are saying that the limits are maximum "safe" limits. You cannot have it both ways. Its the idiots that think they must exceed it that are a problem, usually because they can't even work out why there is a posted limit and, hence, think that it doesn't apply to them. Hey, dennis, there's a cat in your garden! |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
dennis@home wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed Yep up to the posted speed limit. Nope. The maximum LEGAL speed is the limit. The maximum SAFE speed may well be higher. Why does this variability suddenly stop at an arbitrary number decided many decades ago? This argument is a fools argument. Once you accept that speed limits are determined by other factors than safety your argument loses its value. Speed limits can be imposed for other reasons so you can forget the safety argument. Its the idiots that think they must exceed it that are a problem, usually because they can't even work out why there is a posted limit and, hence, think that it doesn't apply to them. That sounds like it's more applicable to those who regard the limit as something more safety-related than an arbitrary legal line. Its probably better than your argument that *all* drivers can chose to drive at whatever speed *they* think is safe. Do I see an inconsistency in your view? |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
dave wrote:
On 08/07/2010 01:24, Clot wrote: Please find your humour gene. I recall that once you were helpful to me regarding glasses but most times you knock folk and have shown that you are completely virtuous! Killing cats! ARW found a highly suitable way to try to resolve a situation. I'm sure that even the police would have found the approach amusing. Were you perchance a civil servant that had "out of the box" attitudes drummed out of you? It sounds like it. I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed anywhere! Was that last sentence written as bait? Cyclists can't be prosecuted for speeding. Moi? |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
In message , "dennis@home"
writes Its not going to work dennis a 5 year test just MIGHT get a doddery old fart like you off the road though you're a menace to road users and a social misfit what are you doing posting here? Nobody else willing to talk to you ? I like making fun of you. Ha ha dennis, you're such a wag you're a humourless **** - you don't do "making fun" -- geoff |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message ... In message , "dennis@home" writes "geoff" wrote in message ... And how are you going to achieve that braniac ? You pay, like you do now, braniac. they can't even cope with the first timers and if you hadn't noticed, money is short in the public sector, cutbacks and redundancies are being made across the public sector **** me you're a retard Mind you, if it got you off the road it would be worth it Well I expect it will get you off the road. That's why I want lots of average speed cameras, just to get you off the road. Its not going to work dennis a 5 year test just MIGHT get a doddery old fart like you off the road though you're a menace to road users and a social misfit what are you doing posting here? Nobody else willing to talk to you ? I like making fun of you. Sorry, that does not compute. Still waiting to confirm from the lab. that you have a humour gene. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message o.uk... So since you accept that the posted limit may have little to do with safety, you would appear to be in agreement with the aforementioned "fools argument" I didn't say I don't agree with the speed limits so you are incorrect. Next door's cat is crapping in your potato patch right now. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"Clot" wrote in message news:K%LZn.4$hw4.0@hurricane... dennis@home wrote: "Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian saying something like: Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed up to the posted speed limit. "the maximum safe speed up to the posted limit." I quoted. Just circa 12 months ago, you posited that there were other reasons for limits such as noise in urban areas. I acknowledged that you were right. Now, you are saying that the limits are maximum "safe" limits. You cannot have it both ways. I have not said that. Read it again and ask someone to explain it if you still think I said that the speed limit was the maximum safe speed. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
In message , "dennis@home"
writes "Clot" wrote in message news:K%LZn.4$hw4.0@hurricane... dennis@home wrote: "Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian saying something like: Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed up to the posted speed limit. "the maximum safe speed up to the posted limit." I quoted. Just circa 12 months ago, you posited that there were other reasons for limits such as noise in urban areas. I acknowledged that you were right. Now, you are saying that the limits are maximum "safe" limits. You cannot have it both ways. I have not said that. Read it again and ask someone to explain it if you still think I said that the speed limit was the maximum safe speed. Ah - that was a joke then ... -- geoff |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message news:K%LZn.4$hw4.0@hurricane... dennis@home wrote: "Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian saying something like: Your driving instructor clearly failed to pass on one of the more important pieces of advice that mine (ex-Class 1 Police instructor) made sure I took in. Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed up to the posted speed limit. "the maximum safe speed up to the posted limit." I quoted. Just circa 12 months ago, you posited that there were other reasons for limits such as noise in urban areas. I acknowledged that you were right. Now, you are saying that the limits are maximum "safe" limits. You cannot have it both ways. I have not said that. Read it again and ask someone to explain it if you still think I said that the speed limit was the maximum safe speed. Here's the warm milk, do tuck in cosily. Read again, tomorrow when you are not tired. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On 09/07/2010 20:37, Adrian wrote:
Invisible gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Quite a few. There are a lot more motorists but also a lot more people killed by cars often as a result of driver ignorance or stupidity. I dealt with a lot of fatal and injury claims but I can only recall two that were not partially or wholly a driver's fault. 1)Rope not on a vehicle apparently got thrown up and wrapped around the prop shaft and air brake pipe of an HGV. Air brakes failed safe in on position and truck skidded across road and hit minibus head. The driver drove directly over this rope with one front tyre, presumably? or it could have been sucked up by airflow. I was at the inquest and it remains a mystery how it got there. Chances of it getting round an air brake pipe and then wound in by the prop shaft must be extraordinarily low. 2)Brake lining contaminated by leaking slave cylinder. Car went across road under heavy braking head on into lorry loaded with gas cylinders. I wonder how long the car had been pulling slightly under lighter braking? Specialist examination suggested the leak had been there for some time but unclear how obvious it would have been under normal breaking. The car involved was fairly new and had been serviced by a dealer quite recently. Service only required inspection of the depth of brake material remaining on the shoe. No requirement to remove the drum. It was an employer's car being used for business and the employer was liable under the terms of the Employers Liability Defective Equipment Act for claims arising from the death of the employee. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
In message , geoff
writes Snippppp. Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed up to the posted speed limit. "the maximum safe speed up to the posted limit." I quoted. Just circa 12 months ago, you posited that there were other reasons for limits such as noise in urban areas. I acknowledged that you were right. Now, you are saying that the limits are maximum "safe" limits. You cannot have it both ways. I have not said that. Read it again and ask someone to explain it if you still think I said that the speed limit was the maximum safe speed. Ah - that was a joke then ... I hate to join a losing side but.... speed limits can only be a compromise. Vehicle age/performance varies hugely as does that of their drivers. To support Dennis, yes that's me in the middle lane at 75mph, relying on the *good sense* of drivers is a recipe to bring out the worst in us all. Why is that one high speed vehicle in the outside lane is invariably followed by several copy cats? Why is it on an F1 weekend roads will be loaded with black BMWs rushing about noisily. Why is it that the home going V12 something always finds it necessary to pass on the one 60mph stretch of by-pass with reasonable visibility, the next 5 miles are 30/40mph so it can't possibly save time. Something they should have got over aged 17. Motoring is not meant to be fun. The days when rally groups rushed about on *treasure* hunts or the run up to Watford Gap services and back when the M1 was new are long gone. Currently, we are fortunate that governments allow us the privilege of personal mechanised transport:-) regards -- Tim Lamb |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , geoff writes Snippppp. Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed up to the posted speed limit. "the maximum safe speed up to the posted limit." I quoted. Just circa 12 months ago, you posited that there were other reasons for limits such as noise in urban areas. I acknowledged that you were right. Now, you are saying that the limits are maximum "safe" limits. You cannot have it both ways. I have not said that. Read it again and ask someone to explain it if you still think I said that the speed limit was the maximum safe speed. Ah - that was a joke then ... I hate to join a losing side but.... speed limits can only be a compromise. Vehicle age/performance varies hugely as does that of their drivers. To support Dennis, yes that's me in the middle lane at 75mph, relying on the *good sense* of drivers is a recipe to bring out the worst in us all. Why is that one high speed vehicle in the outside lane is invariably followed by several copy cats? Why is it on an F1 weekend roads will be loaded with black BMWs rushing about noisily. Why is it that the home going V12 something always finds it necessary to pass on the one 60mph stretch of by-pass with reasonable visibility, the next 5 miles are 30/40mph so it can't possibly save time. Something they should have got over aged 17. Motoring is not meant to be fun. The days when rally groups rushed about on *treasure* hunts or the run up to Watford Gap services and back when the M1 was new are long gone. Rallies still rush about on roads, however they lose points for exceeding the speed limits between stages even if they aren't caught by the police. Its amazing how many idiots will speed but won't enter a legitimate race because they know they are pathetic drivers and can't even control their vehicle properly let alone understand the hazards. Anyway just to pee off the others, that's another ~30,000 miles last year and still no speeding tickets or parking fines or any other incidents where I couldn't avoid the other idiots. The other thing I have noticed recently is how many Sikhs are stopping to let me out of junctions these days, far more than the none Sikhs, being courteous when driving does work with some. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"Huge" wrote in message ... On 2010-07-10, Tim Lamb wrote: To support Dennis, yes that's me in the middle lane at 75mph In the middle lane? Get out of the damn way. He is entitled to be in the middle lane if he overtaking a slower vehicle. I would probably be overtaking him in the 3rd lane if his speedo was as bad as mine as 75 on the speedo is only 67 really. However I have a calibrated speedo that is accurate to 1 mph and virtually nothing actually overtakes when I am doing a real 70 mph. I really can drive for miles on the M6 at 70 and only be overtaken by a handful of cars. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
On 10 July, 13:18, "dennis@home"
wrote: "Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , geoff writes Snippppp. Beware of smug old gits sticking rigidly to the limits? Anyone that thinks there are fixed limits doesn't know how to drive. They are and always have been variable limits in the UK.. the maximum safe speed up to the posted speed limit. "the maximum safe speed up to the posted limit." I quoted. Just circa 12 months ago, you posited that there were other reasons for limits such as noise in urban areas. I acknowledged that you were right. Now, you are saying that the limits are maximum "safe" limits. You cannot have it both ways. I have not said that. Read it again and ask someone to explain it if you still think I said that the speed limit was the maximum safe speed. Ah - that was a joke then ... I hate to join a losing side but.... speed limits can only be a compromise. Vehicle age/performance varies hugely as does that of their drivers. To support Dennis, yes that's me in the middle lane at 75mph, relying on the *good sense* of drivers is a recipe to bring out the worst in us all. Why is that one high speed vehicle in the outside lane is invariably followed by several copy cats? Why is it on an F1 weekend roads will be loaded with black BMWs rushing about noisily. Why is it that the home going V12 something always finds it necessary to pass on the one 60mph stretch of by-pass with reasonable visibility, the next 5 miles are 30/40mph so it can't possibly save time. Something they should have got over aged 17. Motoring is not meant to be fun. The days when rally groups rushed about on *treasure* hunts or the run up to Watford Gap services and back when the M1 was new are long gone. Rallies still rush about on roads, however they lose points for exceeding the speed limits between stages even if they aren't caught by the police. Its amazing how many idiots will speed but won't enter a legitimate race because they know they are pathetic drivers and can't even control their vehicle properly let alone understand the hazards. Anyway just to pee off the others, that's another ~30,000 miles last year and still no speeding tickets or parking fines or any other incidents where I couldn't avoid the other idiots. The other thing I have noticed recently is how many Sikhs are stopping to let me out of junctions these days, far more than the none Sikhs, being courteous when driving does work with some. how do you know they are sikhs? Jim K |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
Sn!pe wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote: [...] Speed limits can be imposed for other reasons so you can forget the safety argument. If posted speed limits have nothing to do with safety, what are they for? Energy saving and pollution reduction, to name but two. tax fuel more and build better roads would solve those two. |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
"dennis@home" wrote in message ... "Huge" wrote in message ... On 2010-07-10, Tim Lamb wrote: To support Dennis, yes that's me in the middle lane at 75mph In the middle lane? Get out of the damn way. He is entitled to be in the middle lane if he overtaking a slower vehicle. I would probably be overtaking him in the 3rd lane if his speedo was as bad as mine as 75 on the speedo is only 67 really. However I have a calibrated speedo that is accurate to 1 mph and virtually nothing actually overtakes when I am doing a real 70 mph. I really can drive for miles on the M6 at 70 and only be overtaken by a handful of cars. Of course no cars CAN overtake you whist you are hogging lane three. Adam |
OT Cheeky Bastard Pt2 - Latest News
In message , "dennis@home"
writes Motoring is not meant to be fun. The days when rally groups rushed about on *treasure* hunts or the run up to Watford Gap services and back when the M1 was new are long gone. Rallies still rush about on roads, however they lose points for exceeding the speed limits between stages even if they aren't caught by the police. So what ? Its amazing how many idiots will speed Can't speak for idiots, but some do, some (like you) don't but won't enter a legitimate race Why ever should they - it's a bit like those people who say "if you don't like the candidates start your own political party" because they know they are pathetic drivers and can't even control their vehicle properly let alone understand the hazards. I would have thought that that sort of driver really doesn't understand how bad they are - prolly with a green sticker across the top of the windscreen with the words writ large "DENNIS" and "NO MATES" Anyway just to pee off the others, that's another ~30,000 miles last year and still no speeding tickets or parking fines or any other incidents where I couldn't avoid the other idiots. And ? just like the vast majority of drivers on the road me included bet you see loads in the rear view mirror though The other thing I have noticed recently is how many Sikhs are stopping to let me out of junctions these days, far more than the none [1] Sikhs, being courteous when driving does work with some. That's because they are watching, waiting and biding their time One day, with luck, a turbaned ruffian [2] will slit you groin to neck with a kirpan [1] - I presume you meant "non" not "none" [2] - statutory Bonzo reference -- geoff |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter