Somewhat peeved - done for 82 on motorway????

[anonymous-user]

On the flip-side, Belgium has lots more road deaths than we do.

[Corpulent Tosser]

jm doc said:

Keep going, keep going, it's what they really hate, that some of us actually think for ourselves and won't conform to their obsessive urge to control us all!

Who is this "they" that really hate people thinking for themselves ?

[The Mad Monk]

Pete317 said:

You do know what a forum is for, don't you?
It's for people to discuss various topics of interest.
It's not for people to be constantly bombarded by those who take delight in stating the bleeding obvious.

Edited by Pete317 on Monday 18th May 18:01

Discussing it is precisely what he was doing.

Perhaps you would like to hold your post up to the mirror?

[The Mad Monk]

Blackpuddin said:

Couple of years ago I was prosecuted for doing 79 on the inside lane of a near deserted M6 in Cumbria at 10am on a sunny Sunday morning.
I too know that the limit is 70. That doesn't stop me wondering about the fact that even as I'm typing this hundreds if not thousands of people are driving faster than that in complete safety, or that thousands more are breaking the limit (or being on the roads at all, at any speed) with bald tyres, defective brakes etc, and possibly in shocking weather conditions.
For me the worst thing about the 'automatic' fine is the one-size-fits-all nature of it, without any consideration of other factors.

'complete safety'

I think you are misunderstanding, or misusing the words 'safe' and 'safety'.

Because an activity was completed without incident doesn't mean that it was 'safe'.

Very few, if any, activities are 'completely safe'. By definition, there must be an element of risk, however small.

[Devil2575]

The Mad Monk said:

'complete safety'

I think you are misunderstanding, or misusing the words 'safe' and 'safety'.

Because an activity was completed without incident doesn't mean that it was 'safe'.

Very few, if any, activities are 'completely safe'. By definition, there must be an element of risk, however small.

True.

[Pete317]

The Mad Monk said:

Pete317 said:

You do know what a forum is for, don't you?
It's for people to discuss various topics of interest.
It's not for people to be constantly bombarded by those who take delight in stating the bleeding obvious.

Edited by Pete317 on Monday 18th May 18:01

Discussing it is precisely what he was doing.

Perhaps you would like to hold your post up to the mirror?

Pontification is the antithesis of discussion.

When your stock answer to everything is "it's the law", it tends to dampen discussion.

[Pete317]

The Mad Monk said:

'complete safety'

I think you are misunderstanding, or misusing the words 'safe' and 'safety'.

Because an activity was completed without incident doesn't mean that it was 'safe'.

Very few, if any, activities are 'completely safe'. By definition, there must be an element of risk, however small.

Semantics.

Now define the word 'danger'

[The Mad Monk]

Pete317 said:

The Mad Monk said:

'complete safety'

I think you are misunderstanding, or misusing the words 'safe' and 'safety'.

Because an activity was completed without incident doesn't mean that it was 'safe'.

Very few, if any, activities are 'completely safe'. By definition, there must be an element of risk, however small.

Semantics.

Now define the word 'danger'

Neither black puddin, the op, nor I used the word 'danger', so I am awfully sorry, but your post is irrelevant.

[Corpulent Tosser]

Pete317 said:

Semantics.

Now define the word 'danger'

Danger could be defined as a possibility, or risk, of something unpleasant happening.

Risk can be quantified as the probability of something happening against the consequence of that thing happening.

Driving on a motorway it is not likely that anything bad will happen, but there are dangers, a blowout for example, probability fairly low, potential consequence fairly high.

Increasing speed may not change the probability very much but it could raise the consequence to a higher level.

[Pete317]

The Mad Monk said:

Pete317 said:

The Mad Monk said:

'complete safety'

I think you are misunderstanding, or misusing the words 'safe' and 'safety'.

Because an activity was completed without incident doesn't mean that it was 'safe'.

Very few, if any, activities are 'completely safe'. By definition, there must be an element of risk, however small.

Semantics.

Now define the word 'danger'

Neither black puddin, the op, nor I used the word 'danger', so I am awfully sorry, but your post is irrelevant.

You appeared to be implying danger.
Just because something isn't 100% safe doesn't mean it's dangerous.

[Pete317]

Corpulent Tosser said:

Pete317 said:

Semantics.

Now define the word 'danger'

Danger could be defined as a possibility, or risk, of something unpleasant happening.

Risk can be quantified as the probability of something happening against the consequence of that thing happening.

Driving on a motorway it is not likely that anything bad will happen, but there are dangers, a blowout for example, probability fairly low, potential consequence fairly high.

Increasing speed may not change the probability very much but it could raise the consequence to a higher level.

Realistically, what's the probability of something like a blowout?
And if and when it does happen, you could be doing any speed between 0mph and whatever your maximum speed is, and in any case, whatever the speed, it may or may not have serious consequences - depending on myriad other circumstances at the time.

[uk_vette]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Belgium's roads are truly awefull.

Having driven almost every country in Europe, no where have I found main roads, eg, motorways in such unkempt state.

vette