150 mph M25 8-10
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
LoonR1 said:
Now what do they call that thing where someone ridicules someone else's argument to try to strengthen their own 
I don't know. I'm really struggling to get a response to a simple question. If an increase in speed limits is bad, why not go the other direction?My argument is that 150mph on UK roads by a member of the public, no matter how well trained they think they are, is pretty stupid and dangerous based on what other roadusers are expecting. Yes, I do mean dangerous, as per the definition of dangerous in the offemce of dangerous driving.
AND
having a discussion about having derestricted roads in the uK is hypothetical at best and will never happen.
Clear enough?
Kawasicki said:
vonhosen said:
Deaths have been in decline.
In Germany too. 1/4 as many die as in the 70's, yet speeds are way, way higher.Now getting back to the UK, what have you against a 60mph motorway limit? Wouldn't it save many lives, the speed differential would drop to near nothing and there would be less bunching.
LoonR1 said:
Because you seem to have completely lost my argument in your obsession with raising the limit.
My argument is that 150mph on UK roads by a member of the public, no matter how well trained they think they are, is pretty stupid and dangerous based on what other roadusers are expecting. Yes, I do mean dangerous, as per the definition of dangerous in the offemce of dangerous driving.
AND
having a discussion about having derestricted roads in the uK is hypothetical at best and will never happen.
Clear enough?
Well your position on a speed of 150mph on UK roads is clear. What's your thoughts on further 60mph limits?My argument is that 150mph on UK roads by a member of the public, no matter how well trained they think they are, is pretty stupid and dangerous based on what other roadusers are expecting. Yes, I do mean dangerous, as per the definition of dangerous in the offemce of dangerous driving.
AND
having a discussion about having derestricted roads in the uK is hypothetical at best and will never happen.
Clear enough?
Devil2575 said:
The idea that an elite of drivers would be given special treatment purely for their own benefit and at an increase in risk to others is frankly absurd.
Why do you think that they would present an increased risk to others?Surely the objective would be to entitle those drivers who know how to drive so as to not increase the risk to others?
Devil2575 said:
If someone invented the car today it's highly likely that it would be banned because of the risk it poses.
Perhaps it's because cars replaced a mode of transport which was even more problematicEdited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 25th March 21:52
LoonR1 said:
flemke said:
You give good examples. Guns are incredibly dangerous when misused, we have gun laws to guard against that, and yet thousands of people go out and get special training and qualifications, demonstrate that they are responsible, obtain a special gun licence, and then buy guns for themselves.
Guns have no appeal whatsoever to me personally, and if anything the fact that there are many thousands of guns floating around this country makes it more dangerous for me, but I would oppose the banning of long guns for them who are qualified and deemed by the authorities to be responsible and of good character..
That doesn't make your argument. Guns have no appeal whatsoever to me personally, and if anything the fact that there are many thousands of guns floating around this country makes it more dangerous for me, but I would oppose the banning of long guns for them who are qualified and deemed by the authorities to be responsible and of good character..
Firearms permit holders are not allowed to carry or use them in public. A race licence does not permit you to drive on the roads
Use is limited to certain events on private land. Race licences are limited to use on private tracks
The use of the gun is heavily regulated and no modifications are permitted. Like scrutineering and rules & regs on a race car and the annual renewal of a race permit
The storage of the gun and ammunition is highly regulated.
You spoke earlier as if holding a firearms permit gave you free reign to wander the streets fully tooled up. It doesn't. Nobody has that right, other than specially trained police officers. Oh wow, look at that. Just like Class 1 trained drivers.
In terms of the liberty that one may be allowed with regard to guns, all I said was that, with the proper training and qualifications, and the opinion by authorities that the applicant is of good character, etc, a licensee is permitted to "buy a gun for themselves." Simply buying something is a very far cry from "wandering the streets fully tooled up", as you put it hyperbolically.
The general point is not a complicated one. There are numerous instances of the authorities systematically granting permission to individuals and groups to do things or have access to things which, if abused, could have terrible consequences for innocent bystanders. Although some of those sanctions are for pragmatic things, such as the use of explosives or the handling of poisons, other sanctions permit activities that can be purely personal and selfish: flying a private plane or helicopter, shooting a gun, keeping a wild animal. No-one on a personal level needs to do any of those selfish things, all of which entail some degree of additional risk to the rest of us, but with some safeguards in place we allow them.
Although it could be said that the majority of us derive no benefit from there being someone else who flies his own helicopter for fun, shoots pheasants because he enjoys the social scene, or looks after a pet chimpanzee, we all benefit from living in a society where people are free to make their own priorities and pursue their own passions. The driving fatality rate per million inhabitants of North Korea is probably pretty low, but I'd rather take my chances here in the riskier UK.
I have no doubt that there are at least a few drivers in this country who are less risky to the rest of us when they're driving at 80, indeed at 100+, mph than the average driver is risky to the rest of us at 70 mph. There might be plenty of jealousy, and even more ignorance, about the prospect of the extremely capable driver being allowed more discretion than is given to the average or mediocre driver, but jealousy and ignorance are not the basis of sound laws or an appealing society.
flemke said:
I have no doubt that there are at least a few drivers in this country who are less risky to the rest of us when they're driving at 80, indeed at 100+, mph than the average driver is risky to the rest of us at 70 mph. There might be plenty of jealousy, and even more ignorance, about the prospect of the extremely capable driver being allowed more discretion than is given to the average or mediocre driver, but jealousy and ignorance are not the basis of sound laws or an appealing society.
The problem is - the "extremely capable driver" is surrounded by many, many people who are barely capable.The golden rule of advanced driving is give yourself time to react. The higher the speed, the less time you have to react vs. distance covered.
Bad driving on our roads is the norm - higher speeds (no matter who is driving) just increases the risks.
Sorry to come across as a bit of a kill-joy but that's how it is.
flemke said:
You may have inferred that, but I did not say it.
In terms of the liberty that one may be allowed with regard to guns, all I said was that, with the proper training and qualifications, and the opinion by authorities that the applicant is of good character, etc, a licensee is permitted to "buy a gun for themselves." Simply buying something is a very far cry from "wandering the streets fully tooled up", as you put it hyperbolically.
The general point is not a complicated one. There are numerous instances of the authorities systematically granting permission to individuals and groups to do things or have access to things which, if abused, could have terrible consequences for innocent bystanders. Although some of those sanctions are for pragmatic things, such as the use of explosives or the handling of poisons, other sanctions permit activities that can be purely personal and selfish: flying a private plane or helicopter, shooting a gun, keeping a wild animal. No-one on a personal level needs to do any of those selfish things, all of which entail some degree of additional risk to the rest of us, but with some safeguards in place we allow them.
Although it could be said that the majority of us derive no benefit from there being someone else who flies his own helicopter for fun, shoots pheasants because he enjoys the social scene, or looks after a pet chimpanzee, we all benefit from living in a society where people are free to make their own priorities and pursue their own passions. The driving fatality rate per million inhabitants of North Korea is probably pretty low, but I'd rather take my chances here in the riskier UK.
I have no doubt that there are at least a few drivers in this country who are less risky to the rest of us when they're driving at 80, indeed at 100+, mph than the average driver is risky to the rest of us at 70 mph. There might be plenty of jealousy, and even more ignorance, about the prospect of the extremely capable driver being allowed more discretion than is given to the average or mediocre driver, but jealousy and ignorance are not the basis of sound laws or an appealing society.
So what was your point then?In terms of the liberty that one may be allowed with regard to guns, all I said was that, with the proper training and qualifications, and the opinion by authorities that the applicant is of good character, etc, a licensee is permitted to "buy a gun for themselves." Simply buying something is a very far cry from "wandering the streets fully tooled up", as you put it hyperbolically.
The general point is not a complicated one. There are numerous instances of the authorities systematically granting permission to individuals and groups to do things or have access to things which, if abused, could have terrible consequences for innocent bystanders. Although some of those sanctions are for pragmatic things, such as the use of explosives or the handling of poisons, other sanctions permit activities that can be purely personal and selfish: flying a private plane or helicopter, shooting a gun, keeping a wild animal. No-one on a personal level needs to do any of those selfish things, all of which entail some degree of additional risk to the rest of us, but with some safeguards in place we allow them.
Although it could be said that the majority of us derive no benefit from there being someone else who flies his own helicopter for fun, shoots pheasants because he enjoys the social scene, or looks after a pet chimpanzee, we all benefit from living in a society where people are free to make their own priorities and pursue their own passions. The driving fatality rate per million inhabitants of North Korea is probably pretty low, but I'd rather take my chances here in the riskier UK.
I have no doubt that there are at least a few drivers in this country who are less risky to the rest of us when they're driving at 80, indeed at 100+, mph than the average driver is risky to the rest of us at 70 mph. There might be plenty of jealousy, and even more ignorance, about the prospect of the extremely capable driver being allowed more discretion than is given to the average or mediocre driver, but jealousy and ignorance are not the basis of sound laws or an appealing society.
My "hyperbole" was that you're asking for permission to do exactly that. You wamt with the proper training etc, to be able drive around setting your own speed limits and driving to your agenda and nobody else's. The remaining paragraphs are merely "filling"make serve no purpose, nor do they make or support any point that I can see.
What's your agenda? You seem to spend forever coming up with a lengthy response, as if quantity counts more than quality.
Red 4 said:
flemke said:
I have no doubt that there are at least a few drivers in this country who are less risky to the rest of us when they're driving at 80, indeed at 100+, mph than the average driver is risky to the rest of us at 70 mph. There might be plenty of jealousy, and even more ignorance, about the prospect of the extremely capable driver being allowed more discretion than is given to the average or mediocre driver, but jealousy and ignorance are not the basis of sound laws or an appealing society.
The problem is - the "extremely capable driver" is surrounded by many, many people who are barely capable.The golden rule of advanced driving is give yourself time to react. The higher the speed, the less time you have to react vs. distance covered.
Bad driving on our roads is the norm - higher speeds (no matter who is driving) just increases the risks.
Sorry to come across as a bit of a kill-joy but that's how it is.
part of the higher (mental) skill of advanced driving is to anticipate potential dangers and to adjust for them. If you're approaching any sort of hazard, you ease off the throttle or cover the brake or change your position, or whatever. On the other hand, if you're on a wide-open motorway with no other vehicle in sight, you cannot be endangering anybody by driving at 100 mph, although that could get you banned.
flemke said:
What you say is right, but...
part of the higher (mental) skill of advanced driving is to anticipate potential dangers and to adjust for them. If you're approaching any sort of hazard, you ease off the throttle or cover the brake or change your position, or whatever. On the other hand, if you're on a wide-open motorway with no other vehicle in sight, you cannot be endangering anybody by driving at 100 mph, although that could get you banned.
Nope.part of the higher (mental) skill of advanced driving is to anticipate potential dangers and to adjust for them. If you're approaching any sort of hazard, you ease off the throttle or cover the brake or change your position, or whatever. On the other hand, if you're on a wide-open motorway with no other vehicle in sight, you cannot be endangering anybody by driving at 100 mph, although that could get you banned.
Advanced driving does not teach you to ease off the throttle or cover the brake "when approaching any kind of hazard".
You're right about anticipating and positioning - kind of.
Information - taking, using and giving.
Positioning and SPEED are other factors.
LoonR1 said:
flemke said:
You may have inferred that, but I did not say it.
In terms of the liberty that one may be allowed with regard to guns, all I said was that, with the proper training and qualifications, and the opinion by authorities that the applicant is of good character, etc, a licensee is permitted to "buy a gun for themselves." Simply buying something is a very far cry from "wandering the streets fully tooled up", as you put it hyperbolically.
The general point is not a complicated one. There are numerous instances of the authorities systematically granting permission to individuals and groups to do things or have access to things which, if abused, could have terrible consequences for innocent bystanders. Although some of those sanctions are for pragmatic things, such as the use of explosives or the handling of poisons, other sanctions permit activities that can be purely personal and selfish: flying a private plane or helicopter, shooting a gun, keeping a wild animal. No-one on a personal level needs to do any of those selfish things, all of which entail some degree of additional risk to the rest of us, but with some safeguards in place we allow them.
Although it could be said that the majority of us derive no benefit from there being someone else who flies his own helicopter for fun, shoots pheasants because he enjoys the social scene, or looks after a pet chimpanzee, we all benefit from living in a society where people are free to make their own priorities and pursue their own passions. The driving fatality rate per million inhabitants of North Korea is probably pretty low, but I'd rather take my chances here in the riskier UK.
I have no doubt that there are at least a few drivers in this country who are less risky to the rest of us when they're driving at 80, indeed at 100+, mph than the average driver is risky to the rest of us at 70 mph. There might be plenty of jealousy, and even more ignorance, about the prospect of the extremely capable driver being allowed more discretion than is given to the average or mediocre driver, but jealousy and ignorance are not the basis of sound laws or an appealing society.
So what was your point then?In terms of the liberty that one may be allowed with regard to guns, all I said was that, with the proper training and qualifications, and the opinion by authorities that the applicant is of good character, etc, a licensee is permitted to "buy a gun for themselves." Simply buying something is a very far cry from "wandering the streets fully tooled up", as you put it hyperbolically.
The general point is not a complicated one. There are numerous instances of the authorities systematically granting permission to individuals and groups to do things or have access to things which, if abused, could have terrible consequences for innocent bystanders. Although some of those sanctions are for pragmatic things, such as the use of explosives or the handling of poisons, other sanctions permit activities that can be purely personal and selfish: flying a private plane or helicopter, shooting a gun, keeping a wild animal. No-one on a personal level needs to do any of those selfish things, all of which entail some degree of additional risk to the rest of us, but with some safeguards in place we allow them.
Although it could be said that the majority of us derive no benefit from there being someone else who flies his own helicopter for fun, shoots pheasants because he enjoys the social scene, or looks after a pet chimpanzee, we all benefit from living in a society where people are free to make their own priorities and pursue their own passions. The driving fatality rate per million inhabitants of North Korea is probably pretty low, but I'd rather take my chances here in the riskier UK.
I have no doubt that there are at least a few drivers in this country who are less risky to the rest of us when they're driving at 80, indeed at 100+, mph than the average driver is risky to the rest of us at 70 mph. There might be plenty of jealousy, and even more ignorance, about the prospect of the extremely capable driver being allowed more discretion than is given to the average or mediocre driver, but jealousy and ignorance are not the basis of sound laws or an appealing society.
My "hyperbole" was that you're asking for permission to do exactly that. You wamt with the proper training etc, to be able drive around setting your own speed limits and driving to your agenda and nobody else's. The remaining paragraphs are merely "filling"make serve no purpose, nor do they make or support any point that I can see.
What's your agenda? You seem to spend forever coming up with a lengthy response, as if quantity counts more than quality.
This is illustrated in your either willful or uncomprehending misconstructions in your reply immediately above.
flemke said:
Perhaps my replies to you are so lengthy because it seems that you need something explained to you more deliberately and painstakingly than do most other people.
This is illustrated in your either willful or uncomprehending misconstructions in your reply immediately above.
What's interesting is that you seem to hold a very high opinion of yourself. This is compounded by your choice of words, which does nothing more than suggest you've swallowed a thesaurus. This is illustrated in your either willful or uncomprehending misconstructions in your reply immediately above.
The other thing that is clear is the hypocrisy in your posts. You pulled me up a few posts back about the way I chose to address someone, you choosing to do the same, but masking it in longer words, doesn't make it any less insulting.
Don't think I'm one of the sycophants on here.
Red 4 said:
flemke said:
What you say is right, but...
part of the higher (mental) skill of advanced driving is to anticipate potential dangers and to adjust for them. If you're approaching any sort of hazard, you ease off the throttle or cover the brake or change your position, or whatever. On the other hand, if you're on a wide-open motorway with no other vehicle in sight, you cannot be endangering anybody by driving at 100 mph, although that could get you banned.
Nope.part of the higher (mental) skill of advanced driving is to anticipate potential dangers and to adjust for them. If you're approaching any sort of hazard, you ease off the throttle or cover the brake or change your position, or whatever. On the other hand, if you're on a wide-open motorway with no other vehicle in sight, you cannot be endangering anybody by driving at 100 mph, although that could get you banned.
Advanced driving does not teach you to ease off the throttle or cover the brake "when approaching any kind of hazard".
You're right about anticipating and positioning - kind of.
Information - taking, using and giving.
Positioning and SPEED are other factors.
I didn't write that one should do all those things (ease off throttle, cover brake, etc) when approaching any kind of hazard!
Rather, I said that
"If you're approaching any sort of hazard, you ease off the throttle or cover the brake or change your position, or whatever."
Are you saying that that statement is incorrect?
LoonR1 said:
flemke said:
Perhaps my replies to you are so lengthy because it seems that you need something explained to you more deliberately and painstakingly than do most other people.
This is illustrated in your either willful or uncomprehending misconstructions in your reply immediately above.
What's interesting is that you seem to hold a very high opinion of yourself. This is compounded by your choice of words, which does nothing more than suggest you've swallowed a thesaurus. This is illustrated in your either willful or uncomprehending misconstructions in your reply immediately above.
The other thing that is clear is the hypocrisy in your posts. You pulled me up a few posts back about the way I chose to address someone, you choosing to do the same, but masking it in longer words, doesn't make it any less insulting.
Don't think I'm one of the sycophants on here.
Red 4 said:
Advanced driving covers a multitude of things - speed (and giving yourself time to react) is a very important factor.
You seem to be arguing that speed (assuming you are a driving God) is irrelevant.
You're wrong.
I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't read the rest of this thread (in fact, that might be a sign of your good sense), but I have never argued that, as it would patently be wrong. Increased speed has many implications, some bad and some good. You seem to be arguing that speed (assuming you are a driving God) is irrelevant.
You're wrong.
flemke said:
I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't read the rest of this thread (in fact, that might be a sign of your good sense), but I have never argued that, as it would patently be wrong. Increased speed has many implications, some bad and some good.
Just the last couple of pages !I stopped reading (most) of the very long threads on this forum a long time ago - it always turns into an argument and it gets so boring and predictable.
If I missed some of your posts I apologise.
Just out of interest though, when could increased speed, in your opinion, be a good thing ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff