M6 motorway speeds?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: bod on 30 Jun 2010 06:07 Adrian wrote: > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>> 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. > > No. Because plenty of people who are set in their own ways are happy for > others to do things different ways. > > Kev expects everybody else to be set in his way, too - and condemns > anybody who may differ even slightly. > >> If that is what you mean, then, I agree, but then, we are not all the >> same. > > Kev wishes we were all just like him. Remember how quickly he turned on > you when football started to be discussed? > > Yes I remember ....and that is narrow minded. Bod
From: Mike P on 30 Jun 2010 06:11 On 30 June, 11:02, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Adrian wrote: > > bod <bodro...(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. > > > > > > > You're comparison is innapropriate. One is blatant theft and the other > is pushing the limits of the law. No, they're both illegal. End of story. Mike P
From: bod on 30 Jun 2010 06:16 Mike P wrote: > On 30 June, 11:02, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> Adrian wrote: >>> bod <bodro...(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. >> > >> > >> >> You're comparison is innapropriate. One is blatant theft and the other >> is pushing the limits of the law. > > No, they're both illegal. End of story. > > Mike P > > Only if applying the *strict* letter of the law....then yes. Bod
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 06:17 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. > I'm not forgetting that and yes it is technically breaking the law, "Technically"? > but you must agree, he is very unlikely to be prosecuted for it? Indeed. But that still doesn't mean he's obeying the limit > You're still being petty, IMO. <shrug> I'd rather be petty than a blatant hypocrite.
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 06:19
bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> 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. > You're comparison is innapropriate. One is blatant theft and the other > is pushing the limits of the law. How is even 31 in a 30 "pushing the limits"? The limit is clear. It is 30. 31 is more than 30. 31 is breaking the law. Simple as. If we look SOLELY at the laws against exceeding the speed limit, 150mph in a 30 is EXACTLY the same cut'n'dried, black'n'white offence as 31mph. Your stance now is directly opposite to the one you took a moment ago. Remember that? >>>>>> Is it ok to steal from an empty shop because there's no one there >>>>>> to catch you? >>>>> Of course not. |