10/10 for effort...

  • Thread starter Austin Shackles
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
GbH wrote:
> Srtgray wrote:
>
>>Austin Shackles wrote:
>>
>>>On or around 7 Jul 2006 02:53:18 -0700, "Teeafit"
>>><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><<Birk Brown>> Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk
>>>>Brow'. But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!
>>>>
>>>>Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who
>>>>agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive)
>>>>speed limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits
>>>>can sometimes INCREASE the danger?
>>>
>>>
>>>yes, but only in a few cases. Speed TRAPS can do so more often, but
>>>only because people are daft, and panic, rather than assessing the
>>>speed they're going at accurately so as to slow down just enough
>>>(which generally isn't much - any half-way decent driver in most
>>>cases is not much above the limit), they stamp on the anchors.
>>>
>>>Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that
>>>it would be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and
>>>the road's limits.
>>
>>The problem is that most people have no idea of all these. Every
>>time I see a survey asking for limits to be increased, I shudder when
>>I see "people are better drivers nowadays" as a reason. I've misread
>>corners, not spotted a diesel patch, been listening to fast music too
>>loud, been chatting to a passenger etc. etc. But most of the time I
>>can scan the road ahead, my mirrors (all three) and the speedo and
>>keep within the limits. This simple procedure seems to be beyond
>>most drivers (and it's just the UK, you should see them in France!)
>>
>>Stuart
>
>
> Can't even drive on the right side of the road over there!
>
Actually, most of them do - on the left, no the right, oops there in the
middle. Particularly on a Sunday afternoon. :)

Stuart
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around 7 Jul 2006 02:53:18 -0700, "Teeafit"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>
>> <<Birk Brown>> Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk
>> Brow'. But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!
>>
>> Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who
>> agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive)
>> speed limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits
>> can sometimes INCREASE the danger?
>
> yes, but only in a few cases. Speed TRAPS can do so more often, but
> only because people are daft, and panic, rather than assessing the
> speed they're going at accurately so as to slow down just enough
> (which generally isn't much - any half-way decent driver in most
> cases is not much above the limit), they stamp on the anchors.
>
> Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that
> it would be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and
> the road's limits.

a few years ago I saw an inteview with a guy from somewhere in Europe that
used to drive around at 120 mph or so most of the time (road permitting obviously)
the drivers said at 120 you are focussed on the road and what is happening around you
whereas he'd passed people doing 60 or 70 reading newspapers, maps etc and generally
not paying attention
I think here lies the problem most people overestimate their ability I would say only a
very small percentage of people are as good as they think and possibly a smaller
percentage have cars that are as good as they think
One thing that I think proves this is how many times do you see a car in a ditch or into
a tree on a straight road I mean what's to misjudge on a straight road?

--
Andy

SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green


 
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:31:05 +0100, Andy.Smalley
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Austin Shackles wrote:
>> On or around 7 Jul 2006 02:53:18 -0700, "Teeafit"
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>>
>>> <<Birk Brown>> Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk
>>> Brow'. But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!
>>>
>>> Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who
>>> agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive)
>>> speed limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits
>>> can sometimes INCREASE the danger?
>>
>> yes, but only in a few cases. Speed TRAPS can do so more often, but
>> only because people are daft, and panic, rather than assessing the
>> speed they're going at accurately so as to slow down just enough
>> (which generally isn't much - any half-way decent driver in most
>> cases is not much above the limit), they stamp on the anchors.
>>
>> Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that
>> it would be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and
>> the road's limits.
>
> a few years ago I saw an inteview with a guy from somewhere in Europe
> that
> used to drive around at 120 mph or so most of the time (road permitting
> obviously)
> the drivers said at 120 you are focussed on the road and what is
> happening around you

adrenilin does that.

> whereas he'd passed people doing 60 or 70 reading newspapers, maps etc
> and generally
> not paying attention
> I think here lies the problem most people overestimate their ability I
> would say only a
> very small percentage of people are as good as they think and possibly
> a smaller
> percentage have cars that are as good as they think

well - although definately not in favour of legislation and nanny state
interference I concede there are strong arguments for vehicle type
endorsements. It seems obvious to me that a few hours training in a
micro-hatch will not give anyone the skills required to master ...
o Aston Martin
o Land Rover
o Iveco

> One thing that I think proves this is how many times do you see a car in
> a ditch or into
> a tree on a straight road I mean what's to misjudge on a straight road?

The voices can be distracting.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 
William Tasso wrote:
<snip>
> well - although definately not in favour of legislation and nanny state
> interference I concede there are strong arguments for vehicle type
> endorsements. It seems obvious to me that a few hours training in a
> micro-hatch will not give anyone the skills required to master ...
> o Aston Martin
> o Land Rover
> o Iveco
>
Two years compulsory on a motorbike, followed by two years in something
with less than 1000cc engine (or equivalent power restriction)*, then a
HARD test before you can drive owt else. Then compulsory re-testing
every five years. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the sooner
the (insert favourite bad driving cliche here#) buggers realised that,
the better.

Stuart

*Could be bypassed if you take the EVEN HARDER test first, and can prove
the need for a larger vehicle, e.g. big family or work

# pipe-smoking, flat cap wearing, Volvo driving, council estate etc. etc.
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
<<Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that
it would
be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and the road's
limits.>>

I WANTED to say that myself, but thought it would be a step too far,
and I'd be flamed. Yes, I'd like to see a situation where we abolish
ALL speed limits (except perhaps one or two localised ones in very
special circumstances), but put the onus on everyone involved in an
accident to prove that excessive speed wasn't a factor. If it was,
then the penalties to be VERY severe indeed. As virtually every
accident involves inappropriate speed in one way or another, it would
certainly encourage people to engage the Mark 1 Human Brain a little
more.

But it would also allow us to go past a school at 0300 on Christmas
Morning at a little more than the 20mph limit without fearing an
instant camera-instituted 'ker-chingg' on the old governmental cash
register.

GRAEME ALDOUS
Yorkshire

 
On or around 9 Jul 2006 02:12:21 -0700, "Teeafit" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
><<Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that
>it would
>be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and the road's
>limits.>>
>
>I WANTED to say that myself, but thought it would be a step too far,
>and I'd be flamed. Yes, I'd like to see a situation where we abolish
>ALL speed limits (except perhaps one or two localised ones in very
>special circumstances), but put the onus on everyone involved in an
>accident to prove that excessive speed wasn't a factor. If it was,
>then the penalties to be VERY severe indeed. As virtually every
>accident involves inappropriate speed in one way or another, it would
>certainly encourage people to engage the Mark 1 Human Brain a little
>more.
>
>But it would also allow us to go past a school at 0300 on Christmas
>Morning at a little more than the 20mph limit without fearing an
>instant camera-instituted 'ker-chingg' on the old governmental cash
>register.

I've no problem with 20 mph and rigid enforcement and harsh penalties
outside schools - provided it only applies at times when there are people
there, like during term time in the morning at arrival time, at lunchtime
probably, and at hometime. At all other times, the limit doesn't apply and
the camera is turned off.

fixed limits are in any case more or less pointless and only give you a
correct safe maximum speed some of the time. At other times the limit may
be unnecessarily slow or dangerously fast.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16
 
Austin Shackles wrote:

> At all other times, the limit doesn't apply and the camera is turned off.

Gawd man, that's too sensible and think about the loss of income!
 
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:19:12 +0200, Srtgray wrote:

> Two years compulsory on a motorbike, followed by two years in something
> with less than 1000cc engine (or equivalent power restriction)*, then a
> HARD test before you can drive owt else.

That's a little harsh, many people wouldn't survive two years on a
motorbike, by which I assume you mean a moped type thing not a 1500cc
sports bike...

> Then compulsory re-testing every five years.

Agreed. It strikes me as ludicrus that I passed my test, on the first
attempt, at the tender age of 17 1/2 nearly 30 years ago. My licence has
24 years left to run (to my 70th birthday). There have been massive
changes in the Law and driving practice since then. Something to bring
people up to date with the changes can only be a good thing IMHO.

I haven't the faintest idea what the current driving test is like other
than there is a multiple guess theory part now as well as the "drive
around the block".

> Driving is a privilege, not a right, ...

Aye.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:19:12 +0200, Srtgray wrote:
>
>> Two years compulsory on a motorbike, followed by two years in something
>> with less than 1000cc engine (or equivalent power restriction)*, then a
>> HARD test before you can drive owt else.
>
> That's a little harsh, many people wouldn't survive two years on a
> motorbike,

And the problem with that is...? :) Might do something to address
the unbalance in Darwinian theory in the human population!

I do think our test is pathetically easy to pass. For a start I
don't think anyone should be allowed on a motorway until they have
driven on one under instruction/test conditions. Anyone who
drives regularly on the continent will realise how appallingly
badly UK drivers are at driving on the motorway compared to their
European counterparts.

Matt
 

Matthew Maddock wrote:

> I don't think anyone should be allowed on a motorway until they have
> driven on one under instruction/test conditions. >

The flaw in that excellent idea is that there are considerable areas of
the UK where motorways don't exist, so how do you train/test someone
who lives in (f'rinstance) West Wales, East Anglia or the Scottish
Highlands? Even here on the North York Moors it's a 70 mile round trip
to the A1(M).

GRAEME ALDOUS
Yorkshire

 
>> I don't think anyone should be allowed on a motorway until they have
>> driven on one under instruction/test conditions. >
>
> The flaw in that excellent idea is that there are considerable areas of
> the UK where motorways don't exist, so how do you train/test someone
> who lives in (f'rinstance) West Wales, East Anglia or the Scottish
> Highlands? Even here on the North York Moors it's a 70 mile round trip
> to the A1(M).

We seem to manage it for other things that require teaching. People
travel all over the country to attend teaching/training sessions.
I can't see distance as being an overwhelming problem.

Matt
 
On 2006-07-10, Teeafit <[email protected]> wrote:

> The flaw in that excellent idea is that there are considerable areas of
> the UK where motorways don't exist, so how do you train/test someone
> who lives in (f'rinstance) West Wales, East Anglia or the Scottish
> Highlands? Even here on the North York Moors it's a 70 mile round trip
> to the A1(M).

Hmm, hard one to answer that. If someone is being taught how to drive
a car, how can they possibly get from one place to another! A real
head scratcher ;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around 9 Jul 2006 02:12:21 -0700, "Teeafit"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Austin Shackles wrote:
>> <<Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that
>> it would
>> be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and the
>> road's limits.>>
>>
>> I WANTED to say that myself, but thought it would be a step too far,
>> and I'd be flamed. Yes, I'd like to see a situation where we abolish
>> ALL speed limits (except perhaps one or two localised ones in very
>> special circumstances), but put the onus on everyone involved in an
>> accident to prove that excessive speed wasn't a factor. If it was,
>> then the penalties to be VERY severe indeed. As virtually every
>> accident involves inappropriate speed in one way or another, it would
>> certainly encourage people to engage the Mark 1 Human Brain a little
>> more.
>>
>> But it would also allow us to go past a school at 0300 on Christmas
>> Morning at a little more than the 20mph limit without fearing an
>> instant camera-instituted 'ker-chingg' on the old governmental cash
>> register.
>
> I've no problem with 20 mph and rigid enforcement and harsh penalties
> outside schools - provided it only applies at times when there are
> people there, like during term time in the morning at arrival time,
> at lunchtime probably, and at hometime. At all other times, the
> limit doesn't apply and the camera is turned off.
>
> fixed limits are in any case more or less pointless and only give you
> a correct safe maximum speed some of the time. At other times the
> limit may be unnecessarily slow or dangerously fast.

Don't have a problem with that, my trouble is the doting parents who seem to think
the parking restrictions @ or near schools are so they can stop and collect their
misbegotten offspring.

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!


 
On or around Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:26:22 GMT, "GbH"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>Don't have a problem with that, my trouble is the doting parents who seem to think
>the parking restrictions @ or near schools are so they can stop and collect their
>misbegotten offspring.

yeah, that and the speed limits etc. apply to everyone else. 's like ruddy
Le Mans in the old days at times.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!
 
On or around Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:11:51 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:19:12 +0200, Srtgray wrote:
>
>> Two years compulsory on a motorbike, followed by two years in something
>> with less than 1000cc engine (or equivalent power restriction)*, then a
>> HARD test before you can drive owt else.
>
>That's a little harsh, many people wouldn't survive two years on a
>motorbike, by which I assume you mean a moped type thing not a 1500cc
>sports bike...

yeah, but the ones that survive would raise the level of driving and general
courtesy and so forth...

>Agreed. It strikes me as ludicrus that I passed my test, on the first
>attempt, at the tender age of 17 1/2 nearly 30 years ago. My licence has
>24 years left to run (to my 70th birthday). There have been massive
>changes in the Law and driving practice since then. Something to bring
>people up to date with the changes can only be a good thing IMHO.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:26:22 GMT, "GbH"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Austin Shackles wrote:
>>
>> Don't have a problem with that, my trouble is the doting parents who
>> seem to think the parking restrictions @ or near schools are so they
>> can stop and collect their misbegotten offspring.
>
> yeah, that and the speed limits etc. apply to everyone else. 's like
> ruddy Le Mans in the old days at times.

As for the Chelsea tractors? Best not get us started!

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
FFS...
Replies
13
Views
913
Tom Woods
T
A
2.5 petrol vs 2¼ petrol
Replies
13
Views
1K
Austin Shackles
A
A
Designa chassis
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Rich
R
A
OT: VAT on imports
Replies
11
Views
1K
Richard Brookman
R
?
No Subject
Replies
0
Views
554
Back
Top