Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 10:23 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1ia92uc4wo3i$.1ibrbfwrtp2kb.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On 29 Jul 2010 12:51:04 GMT, Adrian wrote: > >> It is a damn sight easier to unwittingly exceed the speed limit than it >> is to exceed the drink-drive limit, and strict obedience of the speed >> limit distracts attention from other - more important - aspects of safe >> driving. > > not really, you can fail morning after. All cars have speedos, no cars > have > breathalysers. As an aside - there are now cars with breathalysers - you have to blow in a little tube before it lets you start the engine. It was a high spec BMW or Merc I think. I have no links or evidence to support this claim - think I saw it on a tv programme a years or two back.
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 10:25 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8bdevqFrouU17(a)mid.individual.net... > Matt B <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>>> It's not safe to drive past a busy school at chucking-out time at 30 >>>> mph (or even at 20 mph), yet it happens and is perfectly legal. > >>> Umm, no, it isn't legal. > >> As far as the speed limits are concerned it is. > > "As far as the speed limits are concerned", driving a stolen car whilst > pissed and banned from driving is legal. Not normally - stolen cars always seems to go over the limit on 'Street Wars'.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 10:51 "Phil W Lee" <phil(a)lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message news:otr256dvbg7do3v1aufichek75fgep8n33(a)4ax.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> considered Thu, 29 Jul 2010 > 09:45:28 +0100 the perfect time to write: > >> >>"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:p7q7a51u9wnb.1doz1057u0lqs.dlg(a)40tude.net... >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:21:49 +0100, Brimstone wrote: >>> >>>>> "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. >>> >>> Nonsense. Colloquial language is the everyday language of all people, >>> educated or not. "Pavement" in everyday english means footway. In legal >>> or >>> technical conversations it means otherwise. If you use that technical >>> usage >>> in everyday speech, it is *you* who are wrong. >>> >>Nevertheless, to get back to the original point that started this >>pointless >>exchange, the footway (pavement as you choose to call it) is a part of the >>road and cyclists kill more vulnerable users of it. >> > Are you seriously trying to claim that there is any type of road user > who kills less users of the footway than cyclists do? > > I'm fairly sure that even pedestrians kill more vulnerable users of > the footway than cyclists do, although that pales into insignificance > compared to anything with an internal combustion engine. > > I suppose if you get pedantic you could claim that cyclists kill more > vulnerable users of the footway than hovercraft do, or jetski riders. Hovercraft and jetskis are not authorised for use on the public highway.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 10:56 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:oauw2d8fb3ep.12iaqmd4ph2ay.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On 29 Jul 2010 12:52:16 GMT, Adrian wrote: > >>> May at 250 wasnt driving carelessly or dangerously, if he did it on a >>> motorway it would be the *speed* that was the danger >> >> So you'd expect him to be on the receiving end of an SP50 if tugged, >> would you? > > no, the speed alone would be judged dangerous driving > There have been cases where someone driving in excess of the speed limit has been charged with "dangerous driving" and has been acquitted.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 11:00
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1vinpqih8nxv0$.15e09jonjahtd.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:43:43 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>> the idea is to drive at the limit if safe to do so, >> >> What leads you to believe that? > > why would you do otherwise? > Because what is, or is not, safe varies from person to person. Hence we get people pootling along at 35 mph in a 60 limit when the road is good for 70+ and other people doing vastly greater speeds on the same section of road. |