Just witnessed the most bizarre argument in a Petrol Station

[Fastdruid]

Cliftonite said:

Buffy d said:

I use this road every single day and this happens every single day, without fail, despite the large NSL signs around the area with the camera.

Do not overlook the fact that an NSL sign indicates the speed limit only to those people who actually KNOW what the NSL for their vehicle and that road actually is.

Many will just NOT know!

On a few occasions in the past ) have even seen people slow down when going from a 50 or 60 limit to NSL. I'd suggest a *large* proportion of people do not know the speed limits where NSL is concerned.

[EUbrainwashing]

If this story was about a man ranting and raving at some random bloke it would not be a big surprise, to him, if he got a good hard smack as a result. True? Fair enough? But when a woman carries-on like this and then, as a result, gets a hard smack in the kisser everyone is falling about at the brutality of the fellow for doing it. Right? Even my touching on this topic is, err, risky - yes? Am I advocating violence against women? Make your own mind up. I will say one thing: if you hit a woman anything like hard 99 times out of 100 it is going to be greatly more harmful to her than if you hit a bloke the same - that is just the way we are built so hitting women and hitting blokes is chalk and cheese. So what am I saying? I am saying there are many women who play on this, who bully and provoke men, who know the chances they will get a hard smack are either very remote or, for perhaps some bizarre reasons; of twisted psychology, manipulation or control, are after drawing such a violent reaction.

The circle of abuse turns one generation into the next in families such as that which I suspect the 'petrol station ranter lady' emanates from (and is no doubt in the process of recreating). Her son is suffering and if there is any one victim in this sad saga it is that boy. What a tragedy. I wonder how likely it is he will fall into relationships with horrible, bullying, abusive women - just like his mother - and only know to deal with his woman just like his father already deals with his mother (crushed or violent, take your pick). And young women, daughters of their similar mothers, are out hunting for such young men upon who to feed, control and poison, will be looking out especially for any sons of such mother's too. Yuck.

Edited by EUbrainwashing on Monday 6th March 14:06

[julian64]

Dr Jekyll said:

cologne2792 said:

I always worry about this one.

It's a Should Not rather than a Must Not so it's legal but not advisable.

I saw a Traffic Officer nick a chap for doing just this on one of the many TV Police Reality shows - on the grounds that he felt it was dangerous.

I like Yes or No answers not Maybe.

It's a should not unless necessary and safe to do so. So it's legal either way and if you can't overtake without crossing the lines then it's necessary.

As said before you can't make the argument the overtake was necessary, and if you push the point he could just say you were dangerous at which point he has you either way.

[Pothole]

cologne2792 said:

julian64 said:

Well I live in ask which is just down the road there and got stopped by a police car after an overtake on that road only a month ago.

The conversation went something like.

Hi officer what did I do wrong?

You overtook a car while crossing the central reservation

But I'm allowed to do that as the box is surrounded with a broken white line

No your not

Yes I am

.
.
.
.
repeat
.
.
.
.
Okay I won't overtake there again.

I always worry about this one.

It's a Should Not rather than a Must Not so it's legal but not advisable.

I saw a Traffic Officer nick a chap for doing just this on one of the many TV Police Reality shows - on the grounds that he felt it was dangerous.

I like Yes or No answers not Maybe.

I once had a similar conversation with a young PC in Leicester. After we'd been round a few times and debated the meaning of the word "necessary" as per the Highway Code I left, saying that I had to go to work.

[FiF]

Equally people spout off in public saying "x is illegal" when it all depends on the detail. For example a chap from IAM, ex traffic police iirc, was in the papers and giving one example of a car sat in the advance cycle box, but behind the stop line as having done something categorically illegal. Yet if the vehicle had already crossed the first stop line when the lights changed and had managed to stop behind the advance stop line, they've done nothing illegal. In reality if they had continued across the advance stop line, despite being able to stop behind it, THAT would be illegal.

[karma mechanic]

Fastdruid said:

On a few occasions in the past ) have even seen people slow down when going from a 50 or 60 limit to NSL. I'd suggest a *large* proportion of people do not know the speed limits where NSL is concerned.

Yep. From Hursley to Winchester it is 30 in the village, then NSL for a while, then eventually a 50 and 40 approaching Winchester. I've caught up with cars in the NSL and find them still doing about 35. Then, upon reaching the 50 sign after the NSL section they increase speed to about 50 at exactly that point.

It seems that numbers get their attention, a black and white round sign has no meaning to them or it is too complicated to understand so they play safe and use the last number they saw.

[ChevronB19]

MiggyA said:

Nobody needs to prove that your abilities in particular are sub-par, just that the 65+ population are statistically more likely to be that way, and what's more getting worse with every year. I'm fairly sure there is strong evidence of that both scientific and anecdotal. I mean does it honestly surprise you that research would show that driving standards start to drop after a certain age (again, this doesn't mean YOU in particular, just the average standard of the age group)? If you have a segment of the population that you know has a too-high proportion of subpar drivers it makes sense to want to weed those ones out.

Statistically 17-20 year olds are the most likely to be involved in collisions (hence higher insurance premiums), so should they be retested every year?

[ChevronB19]

Byker28i said:

Can we nominate 89 year old Father-in-laws. Not had an accident but seen hundreds. Scrape marks all over his car, drives at 20-30mph without too much anticipation.

He won't give up though, he's not ready, it'll take away his independence of me having to charge his car battery every weekend because of the 1 mile journey to the local shops

While amusing, as well as a bit scary, he is an individual, not a population. And no, I'm not of that age. There are crap drivers in every age group, insurance loading based on driving record deals with that, hence heavy loading for young drivers who are prone to accidents, decreasing for those who don't have accidents, and increasing in age groups over a certain age unless a proven good driving record