M6 motorway speeds?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: bod on 30 Jun 2010 05:15 Adrian wrote: > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>>> So just who is the incompetent one Mike? > >>> The big difference here Kevin is that I admit when I'm wrong, and learn >>> from my mistakes. > > "The man who never made a mistake never made anything" > and > "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it". > >>> You just continue making them, and making excuses for your speeding. > >> But *he* hasn't been done for speeding. Where's the problem? > > Has his licence remained clean because his speed is always appropriate > for the conditions, or has it remained clean because he's careful to only > speed a little bit? > > Which is less inappropriate? 32mph through an urban area 30 limit with > many pedestrians or 50mph through a rural 30 with nobody else about and > excellent sightlines? > > The former, but that is a loaded question. I'm pretty sure that in *reality*, if the traffic flow through the urban area is averaging 32mph, then most folk would keep up with the flow, but be much more alert to pedestrians etc. Bod
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 05:18 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> But the reality is, if he drives under the speed that the police will >>> actually act, then he will never be prosecuted. You're just being >>> pedantic. >> Erm no, he's speeding. >> >> Is it ok to steal from an empty shop because there's no one there to >> catch you? > Of course not. So, for you, the problem lies in the commission of the offence - rather than in the likelihood of being caught doing it. For Kev, it appears the opposite is true. He is quite happy to break the limit, but is careful to only do so when the risk of being caught is absolutely minimal. Unless, of course, it's somehow different because speeding is victimless and sometimes speeds above the limit are perfectly safe and appropriate?
From: bod on 30 Jun 2010 05:19 Adrian wrote: > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>> It's quite hilarious being lectured and talked down to by a >>> hypocritical racist who lives in the dark ages - both of these points >>> can be verified by your attitudes to women and foreigners in other >>> threads on the legal group. >>> >>> You really are a card Mr Lunn. > >> You're changing the subject now. Ahem! it's "Motorway speeds" BTW. > > You don't see how the attitudes are related? > > Not really. One is pushing the limits of driving and the other is about foreigners and integration issues. Bod
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 05:20 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> But *he* hasn't been done for speeding. Where's the problem? >> Has his licence remained clean because his speed is always appropriate >> for the conditions, or has it remained clean because he's careful to >> only speed a little bit? >> >> Which is less inappropriate? 32mph through an urban area 30 limit with >> many pedestrians or 50mph through a rural 30 with nobody else about and >> excellent sightlines? > The former, but that is a loaded question. Only in that it's difficult to give a straight answer and conform to Kev's standpoint - that it's primarily the risk of being caught which is the upper bound of acceptable speeds above the limit.
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 05:23
bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> It's quite hilarious being lectured and talked down to by a >>>> hypocritical racist who lives in the dark ages - both of these points >>>> can be verified by your attitudes to women and foreigners in other >>>> threads on the legal group. >>>> >>>> You really are a card Mr Lunn. >>> You're changing the subject now. Ahem! it's "Motorway speeds" BTW. >> You don't see how the attitudes are related? > Not really. One is pushing the limits of driving and the other is > about foreigners and integration issues. I said attitudes. Not topics. The difference is fairly straightforward. The attitude is utterly consistent. However Kev chooses to live his life is not only acceptable, but forms the basis of the only acceptable way of life. No significant deviation from that can be acceptable to him. |