|
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:58:59 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: There is no such thing as child poverty in this country. Yet. You need to go to India or S. America to see real child poverty. Beggin' your pardon an' all that, and speaking as someone who spends a lot of time in South America, has seen the poverty you mention and works from time to time for a charity in Paraguay, I have seen terrible things in this country too. People - usually with mental health issues who haven't the expertise nor the support to gain the attention of overworked agencies - who have dropped right through the holes in the so-called safety-net of our so-called civilised society. Nick |
Metal theft. The biters bit
harry wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:22 am, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Tony Bryer writesOn Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:38:06 -0800 (PST) Harry wrote : The speed limit is not a matter of choice. It has been decided by highway engineers and prominently posted. You might be too stupid to see the reason for it's level. But then you are not a highway engineer. But given that UK speed limits are graduated in 10mph intervals, a highway engineer might consider 37mph to be perfectly safe, so the road has to be given a 30mph limit, and people then get camera tickets for doing 35 - illegal but not necessarily unsafe. For a long time I have said that our 20/30/40/50/60/70mph speed limits are not 'natural'. For example, in (say) a 30 limit, 30 is often unnecessarily slow, and in practice you find many people slightly bending the law by driving at the more 'natural' speed of 35mph. Similarly, there are many locations where 30 is really too fast, and maybe 25 would be more appropriate. The same goes for the other limits. They generally seem a bit too fast or a bit too slow. It therefore seems logical that we should consider speed limits of 15/25/35/45/55/65/75mph (some of which are common in the USA). It gets insanely prescriptive if you start specifying speed limits to the nearest 5mph as they do in the US. Most drivers can work out when they need to slow down for a bend without being told, and the ones that most often come unstuck will ignore the signs anyway. Define natural. km/hr would be a start. Incidentally there seem to be a new pseudo speed limit sign sprouting up around schools which remains undefined on the Highway Code website. It consists of a green circle with a "20" inside. Somewhat like the one labelled Beesworth on the Highway Code site but with a green circle. http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_070642.pdf Anyone know if this novelty has a meaning that is defined somewhere? It is fundamentally undefined on p9 of "Know your signs" http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_191955.pdf (warning 9MB file) So what does a black number inside a green circle mean? Clearly an order of some sort, but it can't be a minimum speed as that would be white numbers on a blue circular ground. Regards, Martin Brown |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 26, 12:06*am, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:26:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Faced with a definitely deprived individual waving a loaded gun, are you going to have a social philosophical discussion, or just fire first... If he's really deprived offer him breakfast then shoot him. No shoot first ask questions later, isn;t that the way... And then you don;t have to provide breakfast. :-) |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 26, 10:42*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , * *harry wrote: How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of work yet still being paid? They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere. Work that needs doing but doesn't get done. There are canals to clear out. *Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove. Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements. So they won't actually be in prison, then, while working? Would they go to McDonalds for lunch? is that part of the punshiment too ? , ;-) How about the loo etc while working in the streets? No public toilets are there, or very few. -- *Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have * * * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW * * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
harry wrote:
The answer to tailgating is... ....on country lanes is to repeatedly use the footbrake just enough to bring the brake lights on without slowing down. Then when he's desensitised to the brake lights genuinely jam the brakes on, and then accelerate away rapidly. And have a big hefty tow ball and step on the back of the truck so he he gets it in the radiator. Bill |
Metal theft. The biters bit
®i©ardo wrote:
Thank you harry, he is yet another confirmation of the fact that you can't educate pork. My friend Johnny is a pig farmer and he says you can educate pork. Bill |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 27/01/2012 14:35, Bill Wright wrote:
®i©ardo wrote: Thank you harry, he is yet another confirmation of the fact that you can't educate pork. My friend Johnny is a pig farmer and he says you can educate pork. Bill You can probably educate pigs... -- Moving things in still pictures |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:51:27 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote: As I've said elsewhere, I have lived in the same area for forty-odd years and the only failures of more than 15 minutes (other than the incidents mentioned above) have been planned maintenence or strikes, where people are warned in advance. Thefts can knock power out for lengthy periods and without warning. Yes - but so can storms, accidents and terrorist activities. You would be extremely stupid to make *anyone's* life dependent on mains power not being off for longer than an hour. It is rare, but it happens. I have experienced five power failures lasting more than an hour (in one case several days) in the past 20 years. None of them were due to criminal activity. Yes, they are infrequent, but I would still not want to bet my life on mains power. The NHS's position was, it's got a short battery life to allow you to switch the bottle on if the alarm goes off. That's your backup. Never mind whether she had to go out, the alarm could not be heard from the kitchen if he was in bed! Maybe things have improved now, I don't know, but that was all that they could get then. It was obviously designed to be an *attended* system. It is therefore up to the individual to ensure that it *is* attended 24/7. As far as the alarm not being heard is concerned - what a pathetic excuse to use when someone's life is at stake! If it were myself whose partner was on such a system, I'd fit a loud siren at the very least. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:03:40 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote: People on home life-support will always have a carer, and the carer will need to take account of any time limitations. The simple fact is - no carer can be there 24/7 without having to do other things (possibly even working to maintain the roof over their heads), but social services, etc. will frequently not provide the cover necessary. It will be necessary for the carer to work out solutions to that problem. Just as a parent must work out an arrangement to ensure that their baby is not left unattended. No, it is not a particularly enviable position to be in, but it is *far* from being insurmountable. If the backup system that was provided is indequate for the environment it is to be used in, then either the environment will need to change, or additional backups fitted. You are surely not saying that the setup would be significantly better if only there were no thieves? -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:32:57 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: Not to mention the fact that if someone were to catch you in the act of taking vigilante action, then by the same principles they would also be justified in taking action against you - and so on and so on. The problem is with our rat-arsed legal and political system. What changes do you imagine would make it any better? -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:14:54 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote: My uncle didn't misintepret the actions of a teenager who stole the tools of his trade out of his van while he was up on a roof unable to get down in time and then ran off with them, laughing at him and giving him some verbal abuse. Maybe he did not misinterpret the actions in that particular case - though he only knows that with hindsight. Not to mention the fact that if someone were to catch you in the act of taking vigilante action, then by the same principles they would also be justified in taking action against you - and so on and so on. No. OTT vigilante action or action on rumour is morally as well as legally wrong. Reasonable punishment of the genuinely guilty when the authorities won't or can't act is only legally, not morally wrong. Apart from the fact that you won't get much agreement about what is and what is not "reasonable punishment". Here's a scenario: You lament to your teenage son that some ******* nicked all your tools from your shed and drove off with them in a van. Your son tells a few of his mates. The group of teenagers come across a parked van containing tools that your son mistakes for the ones stolen from you. He and his mates decide to grab them back. While they are doing so, the bloke your son assumes is the thief starts shouting at them from a rooftop. He and his mates shout back abuse at the supposed thief. Is taking back the supposedly stolen tools acceptable vigilante behaviour or not? -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:09:12 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: It was me (harry) on to cynic, but good story all the same. I hope your uncle beat the little *******s lights out. Let's assume that he did. What then should a person do upon seeing a grown man grabbing a child in the street and inflicting GBH on the child? The observer would surely be quite justified in assuming that he was witnessing a serious case of child abuse. What sort of action would you advocate taking if you were to witness a case of serious child abuse? -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
|
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:59:43 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: Heck, I could come up with a situation in which opening a window caused the death of 100 people. The designers of the Comet certainly did. Rubbish, it was nothing to do with the "opening of a window", it was caused by in-flight metal fatigue as a result of the flexing of the airframe. The origin of the crack started in the corner of a navigation window on top of the fuselage which was square in shape. It was the shape of the window(s) which caused the problem, rather than the opening or closing of it. Oh, do **** off, you tedious ****. He is exactly correct. I think everyone is well aware of that. Do you always respond to obvious jokes by pointing out their factual inaccuracies? -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:13:29 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote: Well, you can post your fantasies to your heart's content, but it doesn't make them facts. It was not *meant* to be factual. It was meant to be a joke. Do you similarly believe that "Fawlty Towers" is supposed to be a factual representation of the hotel industy? -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:52:15 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: Why should a workforce take risks when they don't get a share of the profits they generate? Or are you one who thinks all profits are made by some suit sitting in an office? Employees enjoy the security of a fixed salary regardless of company profits. Employees are protected from the financial risks that the directors are exposed to. Whilst the "suits in offices" might not carry out the physical work, what they do is the thing that has resulted in that work being available and profitable in the first place. If you would prefer that the employees get a percentage of the profits instead of a fixed salary, will you also agree that they must pay their share of the losses if the business doesn't go so well? -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:35:42 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: Sense is something beyond the comprehension of our legal system. For the most part it is the failure to comprehend our legal system that results in a person having that view. Together with a belief that the tabloids accurately report the whole truth when they run a story that appears to show the law making a particularly stupid decision. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:08:26 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote: A person's behaviour is influenced =A0by their own *perception* of risk rather than the actual statistical risk that exists. =A0Which is why many safety devices actualy result in an increase in risk-taking and consequtial accidents. There was an article about cyclists wearing helmets and they find cars drive closer to them because they are safer wearing helmets. ;-0 Accidents increased after seat belts were made mandatory. A seat belt does nothing to reduce the risk of an accident, but makes the driver feel safer, and so he takes more risks. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:38:06 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: The speed limit is not a matter of choice. It has been decided by highway engineers and prominently posted. You might be too stupid to see the reason for it's level. But then you are not a highway engineer. Are you under the delusion that speed limits are carefully determined to be the fastest safe speed for a road? In many cases the limits are not for the purpose of safety at all, but are to improve traffic flow or to decrease traffic noise. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 27/01/2012 15:23, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:13:29 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?= wrote: Well, you can post your fantasies to your heart's content, but it doesn't make them facts. It was not *meant* to be factual. It was meant to be a joke. Do you similarly believe that "Fawlty Towers" is supposed to be a factual representation of the hotel industy? No, it was a plain simple case of talking absolute ******** in the worst possible taste! -- Moving things in still pictures |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:40:06 -0000, "Bill Grey"
wrote: Tailgating a driver who is observing the applicable speed limit is deplorable Maybe. But it is also deplorable to sit at the speed limit in the righthand lane when you know that there are people behind you that desire to drive faster and you could easily pull into the lefthand lane and let them pass. Not that such people usually *do* drive at the speed limit - they usually drive at an *indicated* speed that is at the speed limit, oblivious to the fact that their actual speed is at least 5MPH slower. -- cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:29:42 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote: And you should not expect to see results until the methods have been in operation for at least 5 years, and probably twice that long. And your first hand 'hands on' experience is ....................................... ? This is a topic where knowlege of a broad spectrum of research is of far more value than "hands on" involvement in one aspect of a particular implementation. I once spent 3 hours fishing and did not catch a single fish. That does not mean that I should conclude that fishing does not work, or that I should dismiss the opinion of a person who has never held a fishing rod, but has read about the amount of fish caught elsewhere by people using somewhat different techniques to the one I had adopted. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:25:15 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere. Work that needs doing but doesn't get done. There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove. Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements. The vast majority of prisoners would jump at the chance to do such work. Unfortunately it is far too expensive to be able to put into practice. Outside work must generally be restricted to criminals given "community payback" sentences where risk of absconding is not a factor that needs to be considered. Even in that case there is insufficient money to give worthwhile tasks to every convict. Forced labour is simply not very cost-effective. It requires a great deal of supervision and produces mediocre results at best. As I stated, it is *far* cheaper to lock a person in a cell and give them TV or drugs to prevent them causing expensive problems. In fact, TV and video games are probably responsible for more crime-reduction than our entire police force. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:28:53 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: From the taxpayer, of course. Public money being used to pay prisoners to work. You know it makes sense... More sense than buying TVs for them. No, far less sensible than sitting them in front of TV sets, from an economic POV. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 26 Jan 2012 19:14:26 GMT, "joe"
wrote: The labour is only one component of the cost of those jobs. Where do the materials, the management, and the supporting services come from? The money saved not pampering them. You have a very distorted idea of the economic realities. 100 prisoners sitting in cells watching TV can be overseen by a pair of prison officers. The TV sets cost pennies per hour. How many officers do you suppose it would need to oversee 100 prisoners working outside the prison in a public place? The difference in cost of the two regimes are magnitudes apart. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
Tim Streater wrote:
In article 4f22c62a.1130090750@localhost, (Cynic) wrote: Accidents increased after seat belts were made mandatory. A seat belt does nothing to reduce the risk of an accident, but makes the driver feel safer, and so he takes more risks. Can you prove a causation? Not the study I remembered, but:- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...?dopt=Abstract Drivers who started wearing seat belts during the study drove faster and took more risks as time went on. Drivers who didn't change their habits, whether wearing belts, or not didn't speed up and take more risks. They help you survive the accident. Unfortunately, they also increase the danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Another study on a test track by a Scandinavian? team showed that drivers drive faster and take more risks when wearing a belt. Two sets of drivers, one set drove round the track without the belt first, the other set with the belt on first. In both cases, drivers drove more slowly while not wearing a seatbelt, having been told to drive round the track as fast as they felt it safe to do. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 26 Jan 2012 18:20:13 GMT, "joe"
wrote: They could do the work that we need to import massive amounts of immigrants in for. You know, "the work no British wants" There is a huge difference in both the cost and the quality of work done by people who choose to do the work and are there of their own free will, and people who are being forced to do the work and must be prevented from having any oppotunity of absconding. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:54:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , harry wrote: My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep. Doing what, exactly? To earn their keep would mean a job worth some 50 grand a year, if I've got the figures right. The cost of providing the work would of itself increase that figure. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:06:45 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote: My understanding of your position is that you would lock people up for a long time *before* making any effort to rehabilitate them or remove the root causes of their crimes. you would also want to make their lives a misery whilst they are in prison - though it is difficult to see why that is at all necessary or what it would achieve if your sole purpose is to prevent them offending by removing them from society - incarceration does that of itself. My position is easy, if they keep offending you stop them. If that means locking them up then so be it. "Locking them up" is one of the most expensive ways of achieving it, and also carries the most collateral damage. What's really needed is to make prison more of a deterrent, one way would to be to make it more likely that offenders would be caught e.g. by having a national DNA database. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and repeat offenders will already be on the DNA database, so including every innocent man, woman and child will not increase the detection rate significantly. DNA forensics is of no use in the majority of crimes anyway, because criminals carrying out the sort of crimes that could be detected via DNA have become adept at avoiding such detection - often by doing far more damage than they would otherwise have done. In the past for example, gloves were good enough protection for a "joyrider" car thief against (fingerprint) detection. Nowadays the thief will routinely set fire to the car after use to destroy DNA. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 27, 12:54*pm, Nick Odell
wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:58:59 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: There is no such thing as child poverty in this country. Yet. You need to go to India or S. America to see real child poverty. Beggin' your pardon an' all that, and speaking as someone who spends a lot of time in South America, has seen the poverty you mention and works from time to time for a charity in Paraguay, I have seen terrible things in this country too. People - usually with mental health issues who haven't the expertise nor the support to gain the attention of overworked agencies - who have dropped right through the holes in the so-called safety-net of our so-called civilised society. Nick Yes I have travelled extensively in S America too. Stayed in mud huts etc and in the forest with the poorest of people. I though we were talking about child poverty not the brain damaged? Many of them shoot themselves in the foot by overuse of canabis. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealt...talhealth.aspx |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:36:25 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote: They fequently say that prison doesn't work and doesn't deter re-offending. I've always wondered that even if prison doesn't work for many of those incarcerated, do long sentences deter those that have never been in trouble from getting into a life of crime in the first place? Not significantly, no. In the first place, the average person who has never been in trouble with the law is unlikely to have any idea what the sentence is likely to be should he break a particular law. In the second place, for anyone who is willing in principle to break a particular (non-trivial) law, the decision whether or not to do so will almost completely depend on how likely that person believes it is that they will be caught. Or punished? No. Punishment is an insignificant factor unless it is either ridiculously lenient or ridiculously OTT. There has been so much research carried out on that subject that I am amazed anyone believes that increased punishments have any chance of improving crime rates. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 27, 2:35*pm, Bill Wright wrote:
®i©ardo wrote: Thank you harry, he is yet another confirmation of the fact that you can't educate pork. My friend Johnny is a pig farmer and he says you can educate pork. Bill Pork is dead meat. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:43:01 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: Can you honestly say that you have *never* in your life done anything that was extremely stupid to the point of being dangerous? Between the ages of roughly 12 and 20, the greatest influence on behaviour is the peer-group. =A0The type of peer-pressure a child experiences correlates very closely to the type of neighbourhood the child lives in. =A0Many parents do not have a great deal of choice over the area they live. It must be really nice living in your black-and-white World. Not dangerous to other people. I am virtually perfect. Imn that case you are under 12, years old, Jesus Christ, a liar, or in denial. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 27, 3:04*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:32:57 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: Not to mention the fact that if someone were to catch you in the act of taking vigilante action, then by the same principles they would also be justified in taking action against you - and so on and so on. The problem is with our rat-arsed legal and political system. What changes do you imagine would make it any better? -- Cynic All lawyers and memebers of the judiciary should spent two years living on a sink estate for a start. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:13:17 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote: Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline. Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog owner Perhaps you would like to speculate on the effect it would have on a dog if, just after the beginning of the dog's training, the owner was obliged to leave the dog in a kennel for 6 hours a day, where it mixed with 100 other dogs, most of which were aggressive and untrained. Are you suggesting that the prison system targets innocent youngsters by putting them in an environment with habitual criminals? No, I was in fact referring to our school system. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 27, 3:18*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:09:12 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: It was me (harry) on to cynic, but good story all the same. I hope your uncle beat the little *******s lights out. Let's assume that he did. *What then should a person do upon seeing a grown man grabbing a child in the street and inflicting GBH on the child? *The observer would surely be quite justified in assuming that he was witnessing a serious case of child abuse. What sort of action would you advocate taking if you were to witness a case of serious child abuse? -- Cynic I might enquire the reason. When I found out, in this case, would leave him get on with it. It would be the making of the "child". He would learn consequences. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
In article 4f22c1dd.1128989890@localhost,
Cynic wrote: Why should a workforce take risks when they don't get a share of the profits they generate? Or are you one who thinks all profits are made by some suit sitting in an office? Employees enjoy the security of a fixed salary regardless of company profits. And if taking industrial action, usually means that fixed sum has been eroded by inflation, etc. Employees are protected from the financial risks that the directors are exposed to. Some directors may be exposed to financial risk. But then any employee isn't exempt from losing their job if the firm isn't doing well. Whilst the "suits in offices" might not carry out the physical work, what they do is the thing that has resulted in that work being available and profitable in the first place. That depends. If you would prefer that the employees get a percentage of the profits instead of a fixed salary, will you also agree that they must pay their share of the losses if the business doesn't go so well? That depends too. Why did the firm do badly? Was it in their control? If the 'worker' and the director were paid the same, then there would be some justification for them to share profits and losses equally. But they aren't. -- *It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 27, 3:21*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:59:43 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: Heck, I could come up with a situation in which opening a window caused the death of 100 people. The designers of the Comet certainly did. Rubbish, it was nothing to do with the "opening of a window", it was caused by in-flight metal fatigue as a result of the flexing of the airframe. The origin of the crack started in the corner of a navigation window on top of the fuselage which was square in shape. It was the shape of the window(s) which caused the problem, rather than the opening or closing of it. Oh, do **** off, you tedious ****. He is exactly correct. I think everyone is well aware of that. Do you always respond to obvious jokes by pointing out their factual inaccuracies? -- Cynic What joke? |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 27, 3:23*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:13:29 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?= wrote: Well, you can post your fantasies to your heart's content, but it doesn't make them facts. It was not *meant* to be factual. *It was meant to be a joke. Do you similarly believe that "Fawlty Towers" is supposed to be a factual representation of the hotel industy? -- Cynic There is an element of truth there. As in all the best spoofs and lies. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 27, 3:48*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:38:06 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: The speed limit is not a matter of choice. It has been decided by highway engineers and prominently posted. You might be too stupid to see the reason for it's level. But then you are not a highway engineer. Are you under the delusion that speed limits are carefully determined to be the fastest safe speed for a road? In many cases the limits are not for the purpose of safety at all, but are to improve traffic flow or to decrease traffic noise. -- Cynic You are the delusional one. It is the same people determines the speed limit whatever it's reason. Whatever the reason it's not an excuse to ignore it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter