Discussion
It doesn't stop what I am saying.
Blah blah from both sides and the choices are made by people "YOU" & "THEY" elected.
It's people you've chosen making the choices, if you didn't like teh choices why keep putting them back there to do it again ?
The public gets the government & policy's they deserve.
You keep getting seven shades kicked out of you......by the people you elected.
If you want to lay blame it lays squarely with the electorate, policy in this term of office surely can't be a surprise to anyone who viewed the last two terms, yet they still got voted back in, so ultimately the people get what they ask for.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th April 23:04
Blah blah from both sides and the choices are made by people "YOU" & "THEY" elected.
It's people you've chosen making the choices, if you didn't like teh choices why keep putting them back there to do it again ?
The public gets the government & policy's they deserve.
You keep getting seven shades kicked out of you......by the people you elected.
If you want to lay blame it lays squarely with the electorate, policy in this term of office surely can't be a surprise to anyone who viewed the last two terms, yet they still got voted back in, so ultimately the people get what they ask for.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th April 23:04
vonhosen said:No it just makes it look foolish, carry on by all means it's a public forum. I sometimes wonder if you actually read anything, you're apparently impervious to data and evidence and logic. Curious.
It doesn't stop what I am saying.
But do be sure my comments are not personal. Anybody posting such transparent claptrap would get the same treatment, and it's officialdom that should take the blame not you or anyone else doing their best in a crap environment...if everybody drove to your standards vh the roads would indeed be vastly safer than now.
turbobloke said:
It doesn't stop what I am saying.
But do be sure my comments are not personal. Anybody posting such transparent claptrap would get the same treatment, and it's officialdom that should take the blame not you or anyone else doing their best in a crap environment...if everybody drove to your standards vh the roads would indeed be vastly safer than now.
TB
Who makes the decisions ?
Who put them there ?
That's what it boils down to.
Your big problem after that is, is any other major party going to do much different on these issues ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th April 23:07
vonhosen said:Don't start that again I'll need to take a few of me pills.
Who makes the decisions ? Who put them there ?
Try re-reading my Suffolk post and get the message.
Which bit of REDUCEED SPEED LIMITS IN SUFFOLK INCREASED RISK AND COST LIVES don't you understand - the data is clear enough.
Which bit of THE 'CONSULTATION' process for speed limits isn't consultation it's a MOCK PROCESS, A SHAM TO ALLOW BUSYBODY MUPPETS TO IGNORE EVERYONE.
Sorry to shout, must go and lie down. Driving later.
turbobloke said:
Who makes the decisions ? Who put them there ?
Try re-reading my Suffolk post and get the message.
Which bit of REDUCEED SPEED LIMITS IN SUFFOLK INCREASED RISK AND COST LIVES don't you understand - the data is clear enough.
Which bit of THE 'CONSULTATION' process for speed limits isn't consultation it's a MOCK PROCESS, A SHAM TO ALLOW BUSYBODY MUPPETS TO IGNORE EVERYONE.
Sorry to shout, must go and lie down. Driving later.
Your post doesn't deal with that. You are talking about failed policy, not who gives the power to the people who invoke it.
But my point is why vote into power people who take no notice of the things you are saying ?
Why vote for people who don't consult ?
The public choose who to vote for & when they did they surely must have seen the writing on the wall.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Monday 24th April 23:23
HW and Turbo thanks for the advice last night, topic now put to bed, like me late last night as i may have upset 'some,body'.May make friends with you in the future....
Sometimes you have to dig to get at the truth but i think i cherish my wheels etc too much!
Shall say ttfn for now as its a trend to remain anon before you can say what you really think. Of course i may just be paranoid or something. Invader signing off zzzzz
Sometimes you have to dig to get at the truth but i think i cherish my wheels etc too much!
Shall say ttfn for now as its a trend to remain anon before you can say what you really think. Of course i may just be paranoid or something. Invader signing off zzzzz
monkeyhanger said:
There is only one reasonable NSL.
No Speed Limit
I'd love to see de-restricted motorways as per Germany, but i'd settle for 90-100 with variable limits in bad weather. I can make pretty decent progress at that speed....and do so, frequently
The trouble with raising speed limits is that it removes none of the intrinsic problems associated with arbitrary numbers on sticks.
Blanket speed limits do not achieve any of the benefits they claim, all they do is criminalise reasonable behaviour.
That's oppressive.
vonhosen said:
If the letter of the law is enforced when doing so does not achieve, nor aid, the purpose or spirit of the law, that is an offence to justice and opressive.
Write to your MP, put them on notice.
But the letter of the law isn't enforced, cameras tend to give you 10%+2mph & officers maybe more, maybe less, dpendent on circumstances that they observe at the time. Where you show complete disregard for the limit though, expect prosecution safe or not.
The supposed purpose of the law, and its only justification, is the promotion of safety on the road.
How does enforcing the law against behaviour described as "courteous and safe" serve the spirit and purpose of the law?
All that is served in this and similar cases is the oppressive letter of a bad and unjust law.
This does no good.
VH, you have always taken one of two lines in these discussions on SPL.
One, you are right in what you say, because the government says something similar and they have consulted society
You really must stop hiding behind the pinafore of nanny state. Come out, walk around. You'll see that in fact she's the modern equivalent of the Emperor with no clothes, she's butt naked and the sight is hideous.
Two, you are right because you are a highly trained advanced driving instructor and assessor and that somehow gives you stunning insights into wider aspects of road safety, allowing you to reason by assertion.
However it's clear from your posts that you don't have a wider platform of necessary background reading and research on the evidence base that decades of objective studies have generated. Several of the systemic aspects of road safety are counter-intuitive. If you were to apply the same degree of critical analysis to these issues as you doubtless apply when assessing a trainee's driving it would be impossible for you not to see that there is an overwhelming weight of evidence opposing much of what you say.
To continue to refute these politically fashionable but unsupportable views - and heaven knows it's been done enough by many people on many occasions - is repetitious and tedious. The sparring can be fun but it's not going anywhere because objective evidence has no effect on your viewpoint.
One, you are right in what you say, because the government says something similar and they have consulted society
You really must stop hiding behind the pinafore of nanny state. Come out, walk around. You'll see that in fact she's the modern equivalent of the Emperor with no clothes, she's butt naked and the sight is hideous.
Two, you are right because you are a highly trained advanced driving instructor and assessor and that somehow gives you stunning insights into wider aspects of road safety, allowing you to reason by assertion.
However it's clear from your posts that you don't have a wider platform of necessary background reading and research on the evidence base that decades of objective studies have generated. Several of the systemic aspects of road safety are counter-intuitive. If you were to apply the same degree of critical analysis to these issues as you doubtless apply when assessing a trainee's driving it would be impossible for you not to see that there is an overwhelming weight of evidence opposing much of what you say.
To continue to refute these politically fashionable but unsupportable views - and heaven knows it's been done enough by many people on many occasions - is repetitious and tedious. The sparring can be fun but it's not going anywhere because objective evidence has no effect on your viewpoint.
vonhosen said:
The public choose who to vote for & when they did they surely must have seen the writing on the wall.
The choice is very limited and the bar to entry high.
...and that's before the big money gerymandering kicks in.
Falling turn-out show just how broken our "representative democracy" is...
...and how little mobilisation is required to remove incumbant politicians.
fluffnik said:
The supposed purpose of the law, and its only justification, is the promotion of safety on the road.
How does enforcing the law against behaviour described as "courteous and safe" serve the spirit and purpose of the law?
All that is served in this and similar cases is the oppressive letter of a bad and unjust law.
This does no good.
turbobloke said:
VH, you have always taken one of two lines in these discussions on SPL.
One, you are right in what you say, because the government says something similar and they have consulted society
You really must stop hiding behind the pinafore of nanny state. Come out, walk around. You'll see that in fact she's the modern equivalent of the Emperor with no clothes, she's butt naked and the sight is hideous.
Two, you are right because you are a highly trained advanced driving instructor and assessor and that somehow gives you stunning insights into wider aspects of road safety, allowing you to reason by assertion.
However it's clear from your posts that you don't have a wider platform of necessary background reading and research on the evidence base that decades of objective studies have generated. Several of the systemic aspects of road safety are counter-intuitive. If you were to apply the same degree of critical analysis to these issues as you doubtless apply when assessing a trainee's driving it would be impossible for you not to see that there is an overwhelming weight of evidence opposing much of what you say.
To continue to refute these politically fashionable but unsupportable views - and heaven knows it's been done enough by many people on many occasions - is repetitious and tedious. The sparring can be fun but it's not going anywhere because objective evidence has no effect on your viewpoint.
Yet again you are ignoring the reality of who has put us in this position by voting into power the people who decide these things. We are ultimately the ones who are responsible for that. It's no good complaining about the people who do it, re-elect them to do more & then complain again.
Who's the daftest in that chain of events.
We asked for it (even if it is indirectly) & so we deserve it, the buck stops with us.
turbobloke said:
The supposed purpose of the law, and its only justification, is the promotion of safety on the road.
How does enforcing the law against behaviour described as "courteous and safe" serve the spirit and purpose of the law?
All that is served in this and similar cases is the oppressive letter of a bad and unjust law.
This does no good.
Does that mean you support arbitrary limits or not TB ?
vonhosen said:
We are ultimately the ones who are responsible for that. It's no good complaining about the people who do it, re-elect them to do more & then complain again.
Who's the daftest in that chain of events.
We asked for it (even if it is indirectly) & so we deserve it, the buck stops with us.
I refer vh to this section of a previous post
Earlier I said:So here we are again on Route 1.
VH, you have always taken one of two lines in these discussions on SPL.
One, you are right in what you say, because the government says something similar and they have consulted society
In England alone, this government has NO majority, the Conservatives do. In electing nu labia muppetry, people in the wider recesses of GB were voting against other parties as unelectable at the time, not for anything. That much is clear. Those who voted nu labia did not have transport on the agenda, but were focusing on public services like the NHS and education, due to mendacious scaremongering by BLiar.
Your line of reasoning is deeply flawed.
We do deserve better. We could hardly get worse.
Route 2 awaited.
I'm not saying I agree with the government, I said in an earlier post I didn't vote for them.
It's still choices we have made though, for whatever reasons. Whether it was because we couldn't agree on another party or other issues were more important to us, it's still our voting that did it.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 25th April 00:27
It's still choices we have made though, for whatever reasons. Whether it was because we couldn't agree on another party or other issues were more important to us, it's still our voting that did it.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 25th April 00:27
vonhosen said:
I'm not saying I agree with the government, I said in an earlier post I didn't vote for them.
It's still choices we have made though, for whatever reasons. Whether it was because we couldn't agree on another party or other issues were more important to us, it's still our voting that did it.
Yep. Route 2, even though there's a hint of something in there.
don't you just feel we're all just receiving one big lecture, just like my RE teacher that wouldn't contemplate any contradictory evidence like Darwins theory on evolution or fossil evidence on earth formation etc etc. etc. she just believed 'blinkerdly' about the bible and how it was gospel. (no pun) would you adam and eve it, what shite!(sorry God)
I think some on here try to make us believe that all car accidents are preventable and that if you obeyed the speed limits and drove in a defensive style, like the police, then you should not be involved in any collisions. If you are, then you should be held wholly accountable.
With all due respect,if i was a Bib, going to work in a squad car tomorrow, then by this 'dictate' i better not even start up! Unless i had run on flat bullet proof tyres, an armoured car, someone waving a flag up ahead to clear the road etc etc.
cant stay around to listen to any more , good luck ,
'& may your god go with you' as dave allen used to say
I think some on here try to make us believe that all car accidents are preventable and that if you obeyed the speed limits and drove in a defensive style, like the police, then you should not be involved in any collisions. If you are, then you should be held wholly accountable.
With all due respect,if i was a Bib, going to work in a squad car tomorrow, then by this 'dictate' i better not even start up! Unless i had run on flat bullet proof tyres, an armoured car, someone waving a flag up ahead to clear the road etc etc.
cant stay around to listen to any more , good luck ,
'& may your god go with you' as dave allen used to say
gilberninvader said:
I think some on here try to make us believe that all car accidents are preventable and that if you obeyed the speed limits and drove in a defensive style, like the police, then you should not be involved in any collisions. If you are, then you should be held wholly accountable.
With all due respect,if i was a Bib, going to work in a squad car tomorrow, then by this 'dictate' i better not even start up! Unless i had run on flat bullet proof tyres, an armoured car, someone waving a flag up ahead to clear the road etc etc.
That's just it, *most* collisions are preventable including in the majority of cases those you can see developing through the poor driving of others. You shouldn't be having any in which you are culpable & it only takes one person to be defensive to avoid the collisions that may be caused by others.
BiB know the standard expected of them when they drive & they know that if they have a collision the standard applied will be the standard they were trained to.
vonhosen said:That's just it - we know that anyway, we also know that lower speed limits, GATSOs and scamvans won't prevent them. There are continuing gains in safety from car design, road design and better medical treatment that are partly offset by this oppressive failure of a policy, which the government and scammers hide behind by claiming any credit going.
That's just it, *most* collisions are preventable
When the national road death toll increased recently, and when local death tolls continue to go up (as well as down) just as they always have - except in places like Suffolk when the buffoonery exceeds known boundaries even for officialdom's levels of muppetry - the spin machine just stays quiet, or falls back on the usual KSI spin, or republishes the last year's data they have no claim on responsibility for.
vonhosen said:
Yes there is a risk in any driving & society has set limits to the
risk it is prepared to accept where speed is concerned.
Oh no not AGAIN. Speed isn't the same as risk and it
isn't the same as danger.
Britain's fastest roads are Britain's safest roads, for example.
vonhosen said:
There is increased risk associated with greater differentials that
you create with higher speed.
Now we are getting somewhere. Of course, the extra risk
only changes into a real problem when folks
changing lanes don't check they lane they are moving into
properly.
In reality, if folks know other folks may be doing 150 mph,
then they will be checking their mirrors carefully before a lane
change.
If the limit is 70 mph, they take one look and move lanes.
More risk at lower speed ?
vonhosen said:
We don't know how well you handle that extra speed or the
performance hit that it may have on your driving processes.
All this ignorance may well suit your argument, but in practice
a nation of some 60 million [ UK ] can learn some useful
hints & tips from a nation of 80 million in the center
of Europe + at least ten million foreign visitors [ DE]
that has had speed limit free roads for seventy odd years now.
vonhosen said:
We have no tiered licencing system & as such you have not been
licenced or tested as competent to do that,
Not quite true. UK driving licence valid across EU.
I've had the BMW to 80 mph in France, 80 mph in Austria,
75 mph in Belgium and a lovely 145 mph in Germany all
completely legally.
I'll soon be trying out the 100 mph autobahns in Austria
and the 93 mph autostrade in Italy.
All those speeds are illegal in the UK, and viewed
as dangerous.
The UK test didn't cover it, I'm afraid, but I managed anyway
without my head exploding or having a flood of tears from Mummy.
vonhosen said:
It is society's wish that people don't have
free reign to choose what speed they think is safe beyond our
limits & you fell foul of society's desire to exert that control.
So why do different countries have different limits, then ?
Surely different countries just pick different numbers ?
I suspect the selected numbers are dependent on politics
more than safety. The law must be seen to be doing something,
and so speed limits are used.
vonhosen said:
You knew it existed & decided to ignore it, if your margin had
been smaller in all likelyhood the officers would have cut you
some slack, but the level of contempt you displayed for the limit
resulted in a prosecution & prosecution is always possible where you do that.
I think we are back to "the law is the law - right or wrong".
I'm afraid an argument of that strength simply won't wash here.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff