M6 motorway speeds?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ian Jackson on 30 Jun 2010 16:41 In message <88u0kjF6cvU2(a)mid.individual.net>, bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> writes >boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:14:53 +0100 >> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a driving >>>licence then? >> 20 or 21. Teenagers are in general just too immature and >>irresponsible. I know I was. I'd be happy with them still being able >>to ride a small moped up to 21 since on that they only risk killing >>themselves and in the process of riding >> it they'd become a lot more road aware. >> B2003 >> >> > >But you'd get the reaction from many, that youngsters of 18 can fight >for their country but are not old enough to drive a car, not fair etc. > 20 or 21 is fine if you can find them a job locally, and which can be reached easily using public transport. Personally, my first provisional licence started on my 17th birthday, and I passed the test (there was only a single test in those days) just after the second started, 6 months later. Mind you, I had been riding bicycles on the roads since I was around 8 years old, and had acquired an inherent road sense. -- Ian
From: Ret. on 30 Jun 2010 16:52 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. > > 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. And you think that your own attitudes are any different Adrian? You are significantly out of kilter with the majority view on immigrants - but IYO, you are right and everyone else is wrong. No deviation from that is acceptable to you... -- Kev -- Kev
From: Ret. on 30 Jun 2010 16:56 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. You hypocrite! Your view on immigration is out of step with the majority view - and yet you condemn anyone who is not welcoming all and sundry with open arms. > >> 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? I didn't 'turn on' Bod at all. I have my views on football and he has his. We have different views. The fact that Bod and I agree on some things does not mean that we must agree on *all* things. Clearly you and Mike, who are normally as thick as thieves, have different views on speed limits. -- Kev
From: Ret. on 30 Jun 2010 17:08 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? Both. > > 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? Your reasoning is faulty because I have always qualified my 'policy' by stating 'Where it is safe to do so'. When I am driving through a housing estate, for example, my speed will invariably be below 30 mph. You accuse me of hypocrisy but it is you and Mike who are condemning me when you both admit to serious speeding yourselves. -- Kev
From: Ret. on 30 Jun 2010 17:10
Adrian wrote: > 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. Wrong. I have invariably qualified my stance with the words: "Where it is safe to do so." Incidentally, I'll ask you the same question I asked Mike. Have you gained any driving qualification beyond the basic rudimentary driving test? -- Kev |