Do you Speed (or mums net has taken over the asylum )
Discussion
VonSenger said:
Having been a member of PH for sometime, I can assure you Im not alone in being fed up of him spouting his righteous b*lls
t. I try to ignore it, but at times it just gets too much.
Life isn't as cut and dry as this moron likes to depict. People are different, circumstances are different. That's life. Unlike the view he takes, which is black and white, indicative of his chosen career. Robot.
Wow...... Will there be a comeback to this..... I think not.t. I try to ignore it, but at times it just gets too much.Life isn't as cut and dry as this moron likes to depict. People are different, circumstances are different. That's life. Unlike the view he takes, which is black and white, indicative of his chosen career. Robot.
This looks like Ali V Liston in '65
kiethton said:
I drive at whatever speed I deem appropriate.
I cruised to and from Swansea from Kent over the weekend with the CC set to 96 (no major difference to economy vs 80 in the 540i) and regularly sit at 70+ in the recently reclassified old NSL roads - Orpington bypass especially as its dead straight.
I commute to work before 6am every day on a 125cc bike and as such drive to the conditions, yesterday and today 30ish and in the dry it may be 50 odd
I don't get people's fascination with a number on a stick, just got to rely on spitting the police before they spot you and knowing where cameras are (and like to be).
In all my time I've only got one speeding ticket - 78mph on the M25...
Serves you right for holding up the traffic !!!!!!!!!!!I cruised to and from Swansea from Kent over the weekend with the CC set to 96 (no major difference to economy vs 80 in the 540i) and regularly sit at 70+ in the recently reclassified old NSL roads - Orpington bypass especially as its dead straight.
I commute to work before 6am every day on a 125cc bike and as such drive to the conditions, yesterday and today 30ish and in the dry it may be 50 odd
I don't get people's fascination with a number on a stick, just got to rely on spitting the police before they spot you and knowing where cameras are (and like to be).
In all my time I've only got one speeding ticket - 78mph on the M25...
VonSenger said:
La Liga said:
The risk is that even if you're not at fault, if you're doing excess speed and a collision then you may have culpability.
"Driving to the conditions" with the correct braking distance is all well and good, but when a cyclist (who is totally at fault) doesn't look correctly and cycles out in front of you, you don't want to be found by the collision investigators to be going too much over the speed limit. Think of that what you will, but that is the risk.
The public roads are there to facilitate mass-transport for the majority who see driving as getting from A to B. They're not there for the minority who wish to arrive at their destination a minute or so earlier through travelling faster.
Does travelling 70 on the motorway feel slow? Absolutely. Nearly all speed limits feel slow to me because I'm used to regularly going through them and negotiating traffic, junctions and other hazards much more quickly. It's sometimes hard work not going faster. Is that all the same for most road users? Probably not.
It's easy to forget those of us with interests in cars are a statistical minority on the roads.
You don't have an interest in cars. You have an interest in spouting your rubbish to encourage a reaction whenever possible. You remind me of that awful bigoted family in the US that stand by the side of the road telling non-believers they are going to hell. Insufferable bell end."Driving to the conditions" with the correct braking distance is all well and good, but when a cyclist (who is totally at fault) doesn't look correctly and cycles out in front of you, you don't want to be found by the collision investigators to be going too much over the speed limit. Think of that what you will, but that is the risk.
The public roads are there to facilitate mass-transport for the majority who see driving as getting from A to B. They're not there for the minority who wish to arrive at their destination a minute or so earlier through travelling faster.
Does travelling 70 on the motorway feel slow? Absolutely. Nearly all speed limits feel slow to me because I'm used to regularly going through them and negotiating traffic, junctions and other hazards much more quickly. It's sometimes hard work not going faster. Is that all the same for most road users? Probably not.
It's easy to forget those of us with interests in cars are a statistical minority on the roads.
VonSenger said:
La Liga said:
The risk is that even if you're not at fault, if you're doing excess speed and a collision then you may have culpability.
"Driving to the conditions" with the correct braking distance is all well and good, but when a cyclist (who is totally at fault) doesn't look correctly and cycles out in front of you, you don't want to be found by the collision investigators to be going too much over the speed limit. Think of that what you will, but that is the risk.
The public roads are there to facilitate mass-transport for the majority who see driving as getting from A to B. They're not there for the minority who wish to arrive at their destination a minute or so earlier through travelling faster.
Does travelling 70 on the motorway feel slow? Absolutely. Nearly all speed limits feel slow to me because I'm used to regularly going through them and negotiating traffic, junctions and other hazards much more quickly. It's sometimes hard work not going faster. Is that all the same for most road users? Probably not.
It's easy to forget those of us with interests in cars are a statistical minority on the roads.
You don't have an interest in cars. You have an interest in spouting your rubbish to encourage a reaction whenever possible. You remind me of that awful bigoted family in the US that stand by the side of the road telling non-believers they are going to hell. Insufferable bell end."Driving to the conditions" with the correct braking distance is all well and good, but when a cyclist (who is totally at fault) doesn't look correctly and cycles out in front of you, you don't want to be found by the collision investigators to be going too much over the speed limit. Think of that what you will, but that is the risk.
The public roads are there to facilitate mass-transport for the majority who see driving as getting from A to B. They're not there for the minority who wish to arrive at their destination a minute or so earlier through travelling faster.
Does travelling 70 on the motorway feel slow? Absolutely. Nearly all speed limits feel slow to me because I'm used to regularly going through them and negotiating traffic, junctions and other hazards much more quickly. It's sometimes hard work not going faster. Is that all the same for most road users? Probably not.
It's easy to forget those of us with interests in cars are a statistical minority on the roads.
A quick look back at some of VonSenger's posts reveals he is a little anti-police and has previously taken issue with La Liga's posts on other threads.
All police were bullied at school and have a chip on their shoulder according to him ...
I'd say VonSenger's chip on the shoulder is so big he must walk with a limp
Another armchair warrior derails the thread ...
All police were bullied at school and have a chip on their shoulder according to him ...
I'd say VonSenger's chip on the shoulder is so big he must walk with a limp
Another armchair warrior derails the thread ...
La Liga said:
The risk is that even if you're not at fault, if you're doing excess speed and a collision then you may have culpability.
And that is the root of many miscarriages of justice.The tendency is to nail you for whatever technicality they can find.
There was a case in London a few years ago, where a pedestrian stepped out directly in front of a car and was killed.
Although the chap's driving couldn't be faulted, and there was nothing he could have done to prevent or mitigate the collision, he was found to have - I can't remember if it was an invalid licence or lapsed insurance.
Because of this the prosecution successfully argued that he should not have been driving, and if not for this the collision would not have happened, and he was jailed as a result.
Of course, they completely ignored the fact that if his car hadn't been on that bit of road at the time then someone else's vehicle almost certainly would have been - especially considering London traffic.
Phatboy317 said:
And that is the root of many miscarriages of justice.
The tendency is to nail you for whatever technicality they can find.
There was a case in London a few years ago, where a pedestrian stepped out directly in front of a car and was killed.
Although the chap's driving couldn't be faulted, and there was nothing he could have done to prevent or mitigate the collision, he was found to have - I can't remember if it was an invalid licence or lapsed insurance.
Because of this the prosecution successfully argued that he should not have been driving, and if not for this the collision would not have happened, and he was jailed as a result.
Of course, they completely ignored the fact that if his car hadn't been on that bit of road at the time then someone else's vehicle almost certainly would have been - especially considering London traffic.
You'll have to find the case (because that sounds like complete bThe tendency is to nail you for whatever technicality they can find.
There was a case in London a few years ago, where a pedestrian stepped out directly in front of a car and was killed.
Although the chap's driving couldn't be faulted, and there was nothing he could have done to prevent or mitigate the collision, he was found to have - I can't remember if it was an invalid licence or lapsed insurance.
Because of this the prosecution successfully argued that he should not have been driving, and if not for this the collision would not have happened, and he was jailed as a result.
Of course, they completely ignored the fact that if his car hadn't been on that bit of road at the time then someone else's vehicle almost certainly would have been - especially considering London traffic.
ks).What was he convicted of ?
i dont speed, im usually plodding along with the HGV's at 56mph in the inside lane.
however driving a tasty S8, i thoroughly enjoy hoofing it off roundabouts and stoplights
4.2 litres of highrevving v8 greatness
(my other car is racecar, where i get my big kicks)
however driving a tasty S8, i thoroughly enjoy hoofing it off roundabouts and stoplights
4.2 litres of highrevving v8 greatness
(my other car is racecar, where i get my big kicks)
Edited by andycaca on Tuesday 14th October 18:03
Toltec said:
If I fail to spot the cyclist/pedestrian/car/moped or fail to allow that it is possible for something to move into my path without being able to avoid or at least mitigate a collision then I am at least partially at fault. This includes when travelling below the speed limit, but clearly too fast for the conditions.
Not true. There are many circumstances in which a cyclist can enter into your path without you being able to reasonably foresee it. Yes, it'd be their fault, but hitting them at a lower speed is preferable. Hitting them at a speed higher than the limit brings risk upon the driver. Toltec said:
It isn't about arriving early, it is performing a task at a sustainable level within your abilities allowing for other factors like fuel consumption, fatigue and not annoying other people. When I used to cycle a lot I rode at a speed consistent with reaching my goal as efficiently as possible, sometimes that meant getting to work without having a sweaty crotch and sometimes it meant getting through my front door with muscles like wet spaghetti.
It's about having a range in which to operate within that the majority of road users are able to. You and I may be perfectly capable and happy to make progress on a motorway at much greater speeds than 70 MPH. Many other drivers may not be happy or capable or doing so, or happy or capable of managing the speed differentials. VonSenger said:
You don't have an interest in cars. You have an interest in spouting your rubbish to encourage a reaction whenever possible. You remind me of that awful bigoted family in the US that stand by the side of the road telling non-believers they are going to hell. Insufferable bell end.
I've never been compared to the Phelps' family before. I'm also not so sure that pointing out legal risk from dealing with road deaths is "rubbish", when it's the reality of collision investigation. Let's be blunt, you resort to name-calling because you're not in the same league as me when it comes to debating.
La Liga said:
Toltec said:
If I fail to spot the cyclist/pedestrian/car/moped or fail to allow that it is possible for something to move into my path without being able to avoid or at least mitigate a collision then I am at least partially at fault. This includes when travelling below the speed limit, but clearly too fast for the conditions.
Not true. There are many circumstances in which a cyclist can enter into your path without you being able to reasonably foresee it. Yes, it'd be their fault, but hitting them at a lower speed is preferable. Hitting them at a speed higher than the limit brings risk upon the driver. Zod said:
If a cyclist flies out into my path on an NSL road where it would be impossible for me to foresee it, then he will be just as dead whether I am driving at 50, 60 or 100 mph.
Quite possibly so. The 100 may see you in court, though. I'm not saying this to be adversarial, I'm just making a point. Dammit said:
At the risk of interrupting the circle jerk before it becomes a tornado of self congratulatory jizm, what other laws do people ignore on a daily basis?
None on a daily basis. I've ignored the smoking ban, alcohol free zones including the tube. I've ignored the computer misuse act by viewing PH on a works pc too.The law is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. You have your way of doing things, and I have mine. They're bound to differ in places.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff