M6 motorway speeds?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 05:45 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Then why am I just being pedantic? Kev is speeding, it's not ok. You've >> just said yourself it's not ok to break the law even if you know you >> won't get caught.. > You're forgetting, that the police *allow* a few mph over the limit, > before they are likely to prosecute. And you're forgetting that that's irrelevant to whether a crime has been committed or not.
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 05:47 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. > I'm sure Kev doesn't just mindlessly push the speed limit without > giving due consideration to the conditions at the time. I don't know. However I do know that he appears to mindlessly stay close to the limit where a higher speed would be perfectly safe and (otherwise) appropriate for the conditions at the time. Which suggests to me that he does indeed believe the speed limit plays an important part in defining what's a safe and otherwise appropriate speed. Which, further, suggests that he's one of the many millions of drivers who think that a legal speed is automatically appropriate.
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 05:48 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? > I'm sure that Kev would consider the road conditions etc and adjust his > speed accordingly, especially if doing 32mph was at all a risk, in just > the same way as you would speed on a rural road, if the conditions were > safe. You're still missing the point. Kevin is saying that speed limits are really, really important, and that not obeying them makes you dangerously wanton scofflaw - then freely admits to regularly breaking them himself. But only by enough not to get caught. Because it's OK so long as you don't get caught. Likewise, it's OK to only nick a twix from the newsagent so long as he's not looking.
From: bod on 30 Jun 2010 05:49 Mike P wrote: > On 30 June, 10:39, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> Adrian wrote: >>> bod <bodro...(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. >> > >> > >> >> I'm sure Kev doesn't just mindlessly push the speed limit without >> giving due consideration to the conditions at the time. > > > Neither do I. > > The difference here is that I have a mind. Kevin doesn't appear to. > He doesn't appear to think about anything, just blindly follows rules > written by the ACPO, or believes whatever he sees in the Wail/ > Telegraph etc. > > I expect he's one of those idiots you see charging through a 50 zone > at 58 in heavy traffic in pissing rain, because it's the speed limit > and he knows he won't get done because the ACPO says so. > > Mike P > > I see what you are trying to say, but I'm sure he's got more sense than to do that....... I certainly hope so. Bod
From: Mike P on 30 Jun 2010 05:50
On 30 June, 10:42, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Adrian wrote: > > bod <bodro...(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. > > > > > > > Set in his ways is what you are trying to portray, I think. Yes, and not in the slightest open-minded. > If that is what you mean, then, I agree, but then, we are not all the > same. We're not, but we can all make the place better by being more tolerant and learning more about it. Kev doesn't, he just believes what he reads. Example: When I was a teenager, if you'd said "Colombia" to me, one thing would have popped into my mind. Cocaine. I'd never imagined I'd be married to a Colombian woman now, who is one of the sweetest people I ever met, and have discovered so many wonderful things about Colombia and it's traditions through her and her family. Colombian people, in generally are very nice indeed, and they despise the reputation the country has for being a Cocaine producer - and I don't know a single Colombian who's ever used it. You see, the reality is often somewhat different to the perception... I was however deeply saddened to learn the Dutch are not all dope- smoking pornographers.. Mike P |