AUDI SQ5 Dash cam footage Dangerous overtake Somerset
Discussion
cmaguire said:
The problem I have is with hypocrisy.
As I have said I don't drive like Audi-man, as I make it a point not to drive/ride in a manner that forces others to brake or swerve unnecessarily to accomodate me. However the speed that I drive at (not in urban areas, where I observe restraint) without a doubt upsets/irritates quite a few people. As with life in general, on a personal level I couldn't care a less if they are irritated as that is their problem and not mine. But there is no doubt in my mind that the dashcam brigade could cause me some grief.
On a personal level I'm very much laissez-faire as regards my attitude. Using an emotive subject as an example, I'm not overly bothered if somebody drinks 7 pints and drives home if their driving is of an acceptable standard. If it isn't, incident or otherwise, then come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I appreciate this is not likely, but my preference would be to punish people for what they have done rather than what they might have done. 'Might haves' are irrelevant.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (I'm not religious by the way). But the point is well made.
It would be somewhat ironic to be grassed up for speeding by someone who then goes home and slaps their missus about or feels up their daughter.
The 'ills' of the road are excessively over-represented at this time.
you choose to speed and so are upset by the dashcam brigade, since its not as if you are a wife beater or incestiuous paedo?As I have said I don't drive like Audi-man, as I make it a point not to drive/ride in a manner that forces others to brake or swerve unnecessarily to accomodate me. However the speed that I drive at (not in urban areas, where I observe restraint) without a doubt upsets/irritates quite a few people. As with life in general, on a personal level I couldn't care a less if they are irritated as that is their problem and not mine. But there is no doubt in my mind that the dashcam brigade could cause me some grief.
On a personal level I'm very much laissez-faire as regards my attitude. Using an emotive subject as an example, I'm not overly bothered if somebody drinks 7 pints and drives home if their driving is of an acceptable standard. If it isn't, incident or otherwise, then come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I appreciate this is not likely, but my preference would be to punish people for what they have done rather than what they might have done. 'Might haves' are irrelevant.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (I'm not religious by the way). But the point is well made.
It would be somewhat ironic to be grassed up for speeding by someone who then goes home and slaps their missus about or feels up their daughter.
The 'ills' of the road are excessively over-represented at this time.
wow
cmaguire said:
On a personal level I'm very much laissez-faire as regards my attitude. Using an emotive subject as an example, I'm not overly bothered if somebody drinks 7 pints and drives home if their driving is of an acceptable standard. If it isn't, incident or otherwise, then come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I appreciate this is not likely, but my preference would be to punish people for what they have done rather than what they might have done. 'Might haves' are irrelevant.
Wow.I appreciate this is not likely, but my preference would be to punish people for what they have done rather than what they might have done. 'Might haves' are irrelevant.
cmaguire said:
The problem I have is with hypocrisy.
As I have said I don't drive like Audi-man, as I make it a point not to drive/ride in a manner that forces others to brake or swerve unnecessarily to accomodate me. However the speed that I drive at (not in urban areas, where I observe restraint) without a doubt upsets/irritates quite a few people. As with life in general, on a personal level I couldn't care a less if they are irritated as that is their problem and not mine. But there is no doubt in my mind that the dashcam brigade could cause me some grief.
On a personal level I'm very much laissez-faire as regards my attitude. Using an emotive subject as an example, I'm not overly bothered if somebody drinks 7 pints and drives home if their driving is of an acceptable standard. If it isn't, incident or otherwise, then come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I appreciate this is not likely, but my preference would be to punish people for what they have done rather than what they might have done. 'Might haves' are irrelevant.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (I'm not religious by the way). But the point is well made.
It would be somewhat ironic to be grassed up for speeding by someone who then goes home and slaps their missus about or feels up their daughter.
The 'ills' of the road are excessively over-represented at this time.
Like I said its not just speed if you pass me at 90mph on a dual track I am not going home to grass.As I have said I don't drive like Audi-man, as I make it a point not to drive/ride in a manner that forces others to brake or swerve unnecessarily to accomodate me. However the speed that I drive at (not in urban areas, where I observe restraint) without a doubt upsets/irritates quite a few people. As with life in general, on a personal level I couldn't care a less if they are irritated as that is their problem and not mine. But there is no doubt in my mind that the dashcam brigade could cause me some grief.
On a personal level I'm very much laissez-faire as regards my attitude. Using an emotive subject as an example, I'm not overly bothered if somebody drinks 7 pints and drives home if their driving is of an acceptable standard. If it isn't, incident or otherwise, then come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I appreciate this is not likely, but my preference would be to punish people for what they have done rather than what they might have done. 'Might haves' are irrelevant.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (I'm not religious by the way). But the point is well made.
It would be somewhat ironic to be grassed up for speeding by someone who then goes home and slaps their missus about or feels up their daughter.
The 'ills' of the road are excessively over-represented at this time.
We arent dealing just with excess speed its the dangerous road positioning/overtaking.
I am not a sex offender or violent sociopath and I have been working on MOD SC projects and wouldn't get that clearance if I was.
As for your comments on drink driving its not 1964 and you can't have 7 pints and be safe to drive as long as no one is killed, plus are limit is higher than many countries.
wow... about some's up most of what you said Alf Garnnet is dead encase no one has told you.
Edited by jbsportstech on Wednesday 14th October 17:14
cmaguire said:
The problem I have is with hypocrisy.
I fail to see it here. The OP's driving wasn't good in a driving-test / advanced driving sense, but it wasn't criminal like the Audi driver's. cmaguire said:
On a personal level I'm very much laissez-faire as regards my attitude. Using an emotive subject as an example, I'm not overly bothered if somebody drinks 7 pints and drives home if their driving is of an acceptable standard. If it isn't, incident or otherwise, then come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I appreciate this is not likely, but my preference would be to punish people for what they have done rather than what they might have done. 'Might haves' are irrelevant.
That's not 'laissez-faire', that's a lack of understanding of risk. What you're saying is it's OK to put people at risk until the outcome that is more likely to occur, occurs. I appreciate this is not likely, but my preference would be to punish people for what they have done rather than what they might have done. 'Might haves' are irrelevant.
A simplistic comparison is like saying it's OK to throw bricks off a tall building unless one hits someone.
jbsportstech said:
Like I said its not just speed if you pass me at 90mph on a dual track I am not going home to grass.
We arent dealing just with excess speed its the dangerous road positioning/overtaking.
I am not a sex offender or violent sociopath and I have been working on MOD SC projects and wouldn't get that clearance if I was.
As for your comments on drink driving its not 1964 and you can't have 7 pints and be safe to drive as long as no one is killed, plus are limit is higher than many countries.
wow... about some's up most of what you said Alf Garnnet is dead encase no one has told you.
Do you work for the MOD of Uganda, with that spelling of yours?We arent dealing just with excess speed its the dangerous road positioning/overtaking.
I am not a sex offender or violent sociopath and I have been working on MOD SC projects and wouldn't get that clearance if I was.
As for your comments on drink driving its not 1964 and you can't have 7 pints and be safe to drive as long as no one is killed, plus are limit is higher than many countries.
wow... about some's up most of what you said Alf Garnnet is dead encase no one has told you.
Edited by jbsportstech on Wednesday 14th October 17:14
Centurion07 said:
Wow.
I guess you have a few more 'wows' stored up.But go back 30 years and based on my experience, near enough half the population were drink-driving.
And contrary to all the guff, there wasn't carnage on a grand scale.
I am not promoting a free-for-all (although it would have some entertainment value) but the point I am making is that the propoganda is driving the machine.
cmaguire said:
But go back 30 years and based on my experience, near enough half the population were drink-driving.
And contrary to all the guff, there wasn't carnage on a grand scale.
'Near-enough half the population' i.e. totally made-up 'fact'. 30 years ago we had over 100% more drink-drive deaths with half as many cars on the roads, travelling much smaller distances. And contrary to all the guff, there wasn't carnage on a grand scale.
jbsportstech said:
Like I said its not just speed if you pass me at 90mph on a dual track I am not going home to grass.
We arent dealing just with excess speed its the dangerous road positioning/overtaking.
I am not a sex offender or violent sociopath and I have been working on MOD SC projects and wouldn't get that clearance if I was.
As for your comments on drink driving its not 1964 and you can't have 7 pints and be safe to drive as long as no one is killed, plus are limit is higher than many countries.
wow... about some's up most of what you said Alf Garnnet is dead encase no one has told you.
My comments have been general rather than a dig at you. As far as I am concerned the only driving of note in your vid was Audi-man, I just wouldn't have acted on it.We arent dealing just with excess speed its the dangerous road positioning/overtaking.
I am not a sex offender or violent sociopath and I have been working on MOD SC projects and wouldn't get that clearance if I was.
As for your comments on drink driving its not 1964 and you can't have 7 pints and be safe to drive as long as no one is killed, plus are limit is higher than many countries.
wow... about some's up most of what you said Alf Garnnet is dead encase no one has told you.
Edited by jbsportstech on Wednesday 14th October 17:14
It is quite possible to have 7 pints and be safe to drive, whether it's 1964 or not. It depends entirely on your make up and tolerance.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Better road design is another, and a higher standard of driving test. There are lots of factors which have created safer roads. Fewer people drink-driving and better enforcement, punishment and less re-offending has helped when it comes to death and injuries involving drink-driving. La Liga said:
Near-enough half the population' i.e. totally made-up 'fact'. 30 years ago we had over 100% more drink-drive deaths with half as many cars on the roads, travelling much smaller distances.
You're merely twisting my words to suit your agenda, although that is your profession is it not?At no point did I state anything as fact, but experience/opinion.
In any event we had hardly any drink-drive deaths 30 years ago and now we have even less. More people die from falling down the stairs (perhaps they were unfit to drive, who knows).
In any event, the way speed is so frequently listed as a contributary factor in RTA's and then subsequently used as a standalone factor in another statistical analysis to suit the propoganda machine shows how we are being 'managed'.
cmaguire said:
You're merely twisting my words to suit your agenda, although that is your profession is it not?
No agenda. I just think making things up, like that there were millions of drink drivers at X point in time, for example, is worthless. cmaguire said:
In any event we had hardly any drink-drive deaths 30 years ago and now we have even less. More people die from falling down the stairs (perhaps they were unfit to drive, who knows).
What relevance is the stairs comparison? We can all re-frame data to maximise or minimise it. For example, nearly 1 in 6 road deaths are alcohol related. cmaguire said:
In any event, the way speed is so frequently listed as a contributary factor in RTA's
Speed isn't frequently listed as a contributory factor (STATS19). Just so I don't mistake you for presenting that as a fact, is that statement your "experience / opinion", too? La Liga said:
peed isn't frequently listed as a contributory factor (STATS19). Just so I don't mistake you for presenting that as a fact, is that statement your "experience / opinion", too?
By the time your STATS19 has morphed into RAS50001 (2014) stats from gov.uk exceeding the speed limit has become a contributory factor in 16% of fatal road accidents.By the time this information arrives in The Guardian how do you think it reads?
Besides which, if speed really isn't being cited frequently as a conributory factor in RTA's in any way, as you imply, then how do we find ourselves in a position where the public believe it is such a major factor in road traffic accidents?
You don't think we are being misled, do you?
You don't think we are being misled, do you?
cmaguire said:
Besides which, if speed really isn't being cited frequently as a conributory factor in RTA's in any way, as you imply, then how do we find ourselves in a position where the public believe it is such a major factor in road traffic accidents?
You don't think we are being misled, do you?
there may be a valid debate to be had on all of that but your inordinate interested in your 'right' or whatever to do it regardless is far more interesting - authority issues from childhood, the only thing that any longer gives you half a terrible on etc?You don't think we are being misled, do you?
cmaguire said:
By the time your STATS19 has morphed into RAS50001 (2014) stats from gov.uk exceeding the speed limit has become a contributory factor in 16% of fatal road accidents.
By the time this information arrives in The Guardian how do you think it reads?
Email them if you don't understand the methodology: roadacc.stats@dft.gsi.gov.uk By the time this information arrives in The Guardian how do you think it reads?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff