From: boltar2003 on
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:06:59 +0100
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote:
>Doesn't matter - speed cameras don't trigger over about 174 mph* and no
>police not even helicopter would catch them! however the Veyron's tyres
>would only last for 37 miles at that speed!

And thats on a smooth track. try 250mph on a typical bumpy fractured UK
motorway and it'll be a toss up whether you get a blowout or simply lose
control within seconds.


From: Matt B on
On 29/07/2010 11:37, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2010 10:00:36 GMT, Adrian wrote:
>> You seem to be arguing that speed limits are
>> needed because otherwise people will drive dangerously with no possible
>> legal comeback.
> Not at all. But if you have a 20 or 30 limit to decrease pedestrian
> injuries should there be an accident, its a safety measure. You police it
> by policing the speed limit.......

There are many roads and streets where the normal traffic speed is
significantly below the posted speed limit. Why do you think that is,
and what purpose does the speed limit serve in such places?

Matt B
From: GT on
"Squashme" <squashme(a)> wrote in message
On 29 July, 09:21, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)> wrote:
> "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.trac...(a)> wrote in
> messagenews:1r65552a9jcy5.g9ageyxtgm2z.dlg(a)> On Wed, 28 Jul
> 2010 17:32:35 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
> >> Colloquially, yes. It's also the footway and other dialect terms. But,
> >> in
> >> road construction terms highways are paved or unpaved therefore the
> >> whole
> >> of
> >> the road surface is a pavement.
> > "colloquial" is what we use in everyday speech, it's the dictionary
> > definition. If specialists use it another way, that's a specialists
> > definition for internal use by them.
> "Colloquial" is also what people use when they're uneducated or too lazy
> to
> use correct terminology.

How do you feel about "Road Tax?"

I think its quite expensive for what you get. To me it seems unfair that a
petrol car that does 5000 miles worth of damage per year should pay twice or
3 times as much road tax than a diesel car of similar size and weight that
does 20,000 miles worth of damage per year.

From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:27:51 +0100, GT wrote:
>> I'm trying to make the same point as others have made here - the speed
>> limit
>> has nothing to do with safety.
> if you drive normally and carefully through a city street (in a way that
> would not invite prosecution) and a child runs out from behind a car right
> in front of you, or an idiot cyclist jumps the lights, your speed will
> determine if he lives or dies. For that reason we have low speed limits as
> a *safety* measure in towns.

Clearly - we all understand this. Killing the child by hitting them at 45 is
'not good'. But I don't see how hitting them at 20 (breaking both of their
legs and injuring their spine) can be considered safe? I guess my point is
that I don't think its right to use the word 'safe' to blankly describe a
certain speed.

From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:36:09 +0100, GT wrote:
>> The drink drive limit is a certain number of mg per litre of blood. If
>> you
>> are over the limit, then you are booked, pointed and fined. Why is the
>> speed
>> limit considered less rigid? Is it because most people consider it to be
>> too
>> low? Is it that most people don't notice that they are speeding? If the
>> speed limit was increased from 30 to 33, then everyone booked who broke
>> it
>> by even 1mph, would there be an outcry? If the limit is 30, then why is
>> 32
>> considered OK? Why have a limit? Discuss?!! ;-)
> both limits make allowances for small trangressions, one drink, a couple
> of
> miles an hour. The speed limit could be 25, 30 or 33 1/3, but there needs
> to be a town limit around that point. Just because it could be 31 instead
> of 30 invalidates nothing.

But why do we consider it OK to go over the limit by a little bit? (Question
for society really).