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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

"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.

"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.

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

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.

"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.

(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?

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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!

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

"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.

"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.

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

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.

"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

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