From: Ret. on
Adrian wrote:
> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>>>> Again - you fail to comprehend the whole basis of the discussion.
>>>>> I am not abusing your views - although I think you are wrong -
>>>>> but your failure to give any credence to the views of others.
>
>>>> And what credence to *you* give to my views?
>
>>> <sigh> I am perfectly happy for you to hold your views, wrong though
>>> they are, and for you to live your life in your preferred way,
>>> mind-bendingly dull though it is.
>>>
>>> Your aim is for others not to have that luxury, based solely on
>>> their place of birth.
>
>> Adrian, the one big difference between your view and Kev's, is
>> that he clearly states that he *thinks* you are wrong. You, on the
>> other hand take the view that he *is* wrong. An arrogant stance, if
>> I may say so.
>
> No, the difference between my view and Kev's is that I happen to think
> other people have a right to live in ways that differ from those I
> approve of.
>
> Kev's got every right to be a narrow-minded bigot.

I have never stated that 'these people' do not have a *right* to behave as
they are doing. What I *am* saying is that by acting in the way that they
do, they are creating separation and divisiveness, and even hatred and
suspicion.

In whose interest is that?

--
Kev

From: boltar2003 on
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:30:06 +0100
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>I will. I currently generally do not to exceed 20mph in all residential and
>urban areas with a 30mph limit. If there are no hazards, people cars etc. I
>do creep up to the mid to high 20's. If there *was* a 20mph limit I would
>drive at 15 to an absolute maximum of 20mph.

No doubt you're some self righteous old fart who drives a rover or volvo and
doesn't give a rats backside about the huge tailback behind him.

B2003

From: Ret. on
Adrian wrote:
> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> Yet you nitpick him for driving a few mph over the speed limit
>
> <sigh> Once again, a little more slowly for your benefit.
>
> No, I "nitpick" him for breaking the speed limit whilst simultaneously
> castigating others for breaking the speed limit.

I don't 'castigate' others for breaking speed limits (although where that
speeding is dangerous then I certainly do). I merely state that IMO, the
risk they are taking by seriously speeding is stupid.

>
> Either the speed limit is the law and to be obeyed regardless of
> conditions, or the speed limit is a guideline and conditions are the
> important bit.

In the view of the police, the speed limits are indeed a guideline rather
than zero tolerance offence. They allow a generous margin before
prosecution. However, where guidelines are set in relation to anything, the
variance from that guideline is normally expected to be minimal. To say
that the guideline limit is 60 but I am going to travel at 90, is a
nonsense. You are moving so far away from the guideline that you are
ignoring it in effect.
>
> Can't have it both ways.

See above.
>
>> I'd bet that you would do the same, especially if the flow of traffic
>> was also doing 32mph?....I do.
>
> I'm not the one calling others "stupid" for breaking the speed limit.

I am calling them 'stupid' because of the risk they are taking. And for
what?

--
Kev

From: bod on
mileburner wrote:
> "bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:893qf5F3dfU4(a)mid.individual.net...
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> "bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:893auoF4uuU3(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> You're still being pedantic. The law 'allows' a small amount over the
>>>> speed limit.
>>> No it does not.
>>>
>>> I recently researched this and the law is absolute and quite clear. If
>>> you exceed the limit by any amount you have committed an offence. The
>>> proving of it is the difficult bit and the police normally allow leeway
>>> so that the evidence is more secure and that the defendant has less
>>> chance of wriggling out on a technicality. Therefore, for the police to
>>> take any notice at all, you really do need to be breaking the limit by a
>>> fair margin.
>> Technically, yes, it is absolute, but in reality, a few mph over and you
>> won't get nicked. It really is as simple as that and not worth arguing
>> about.
>
> The problem is that if a few mph over is perceived as OK, perfectly safe,
> legal etc. It makes a mockery out of the posted limit and out of the law.
> Where *do* you draw the line? <rhetorical>
>
> That is why everyone should drive below the limit.
>
>

I don't agree with that. There are plenty of roads that are ok IMO to
exceed the limit, if safe to do so. A virtually empty motorway at about
2 in the morning can be perfectly safe to do so.

Years ago, I remember driving to Scotland and not seeing another car
on my side of the road for about an hour.
Would you still stubbornly stick to 70 or under in that situation?

Bod
From: Ret. on
Adrian wrote:
> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>>> Yet you nitpick him for driving a few mph over the speed limit
>
>>> <sigh> Once again, a little more slowly for your benefit.
>>>
>>> No, I "nitpick" him for breaking the speed limit whilst
>>> simultaneously castigating others for breaking the speed limit.
>>>
>>> Either the speed limit is the law and to be obeyed regardless of
>>> conditions, or the speed limit is a guideline and conditions are the
>>> important bit.
>>>
>>> Can't have it both ways.
>
>>>> I'd bet that you would do the same, especially if the flow of
>>>> traffic was also doing 32mph?....I do.
>
>>> I'm not the one calling others "stupid" for breaking the speed
>>> limit.
>
>> There you go again.
>
> There one of us goes...

I have already responded to this. The stupidity is in relation to the
serious risk of heavy penalty for exceeding the limit by a large amount.

>
>> Yes, Kev is a stickler regarding adhering to speed limits
>
> No, he isn't. He claims to be - then continually refers to breaking
> them. But not by enough to be caught.

You keep referring to 'not enough to be caught' - but I will *not* be caught
because no-one but no-one is seeking to prosectute anyone for minor breaches
of speed limits.

>
> I wonder what'll happen when he smugly bimbles past a camera that's
> set lower than he expects, or wanders into an area that's having a
> zero- tolerance crackdown?

Then I would accept my punishment - but there have been no zero tolerance
crackdowns on speeding so far.
>
>> and yes I agree with you that there are times when it is safe to
>> exceed the limit by a considerable amount, but not every driver is
>> as capable of measuring the safe times when to do it.
>
> Then - unless you believe that every limit is always an appropriate
> speed, regardless of conditions - those drivers are not competent
> enough to be on the road. Do you believe every limit is always an
> appropriate speed, regardless of conditions?

Mike clearly does. 2mph over 30 and you are a dangerous driver don't you
know...

>
>> With that in mind, you cannot really knock him for advising drivers
>> to stick to the limits.
>
> "Do as I say, not as I do".

I do *not* do that. I have never booked anyone for driving as I do, I do not
criticise anyone for driving as I do, and no driver will be booked for
driving as I do.

>
> THAT's what I'm commenting on - it's more formally known as
> "hypocrisy".

See above. If I was expecting other drivers to stick rigidly to speed limits
when I drive a few mph over, then yes, I would be a hypocrite. But I don't
do that.

Your argument appears to be that because I say I drive at 32 mph in a 30
zone then I have no right to criticise someone who drives at 60 mph in a
30.

>
>> You must also accept, that having spent so long in the 'force', his
>> mindset will have been influenced by the nasty road smashes that he
>> has had to attend to and seen the macabre results, plus that horrible
>> experience of having to knock on the door of the deceaseds parents
>> etc,to give them the tragic news.
>
> Small problem with that theory - he's already explicitly agreed that
> his opinion is nothing to do with whether the speed is appropriate
> and safe, only to do with the risk of being caught.

And because anyone who risks a ban, with all the associated nasty
consequences, simply for a bit of fun, is bonkers.

--
Kev