From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> 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
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)> wrote in message
> Matt B <matt.bourke(a)> 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

From: Brimstone on

"Phil W Lee" <phil(a)> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> considered Thu, 29 Jul 2010
> 09:45:28 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
>>> 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
>>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

"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> 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

"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> 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.