A question of good progress
Discussion
Philbes said:
I think you had better leave the country. You obviously don't think Govt'/public services are of any use and also believe that you have no power to change them. Perhaps enough people aren't trying.
I didn't come close to saying that public services aren't of any use. What is so objectionable is how some people in those services have contrived to make themselves unaccountable and untouchable. Trade unions protect their members regardless of how the members behave, and bureaucrats protect themselves regardless of what their policies bring about. Because these public services are natural monopolies, those who operate them know that they've got us by the balls, and they abuse that position notwithstanding that their supposed reason for being is to serve their customer-citizens.
This pattern of course does not apply to every worker or every function, but it does apply much too often.
For much of its recorded history, Europe has been run by a menagerie of monarchs, princes, warlords and assorted scum. They asserted their own laws. Did the mere fact that one of these clowns was the guv'nor at a particular moment mean that his or her whim-declared-into-law was in any sense defensible? Enforceable, to be sure, but not defensible.
All this was context for the discussion on "making progress".
It is unlikely that any of us can effect even a marginal change in roads policies. If we cannot, must we fall to our knees and obey every detail of every law or regulation, even if we believe that that diktat is unfair, indiscriminate and misconceived? I say that in the end it must be up to the individual how he or she lives his or her life. The State, or the Mob, can intercede, and indeed often does do so.
That's the practical reality, but that is different from whether something is "wrong".
flemke said:
Big Fat F'er said:
flemke said:
Big Fat F'er said:
2) You shouldn't break the limit when overtaking. There isn't a "ha ha, what about..." exception. You shouldn't do it. So if you are at 50mph, in the NSL, and there isn't sufficient space to safely overtake without going above 60mph, then you shouldn't overtake. Same on the motorway, at 70mph limit. Etc., etc., etc. All the Advanced Systems are very clear on this. You dont break the limit to overtake. You may decide to do so. Then you are in the wrong.
If you were to break the NSL whilst, unknown to you, your driving were being observed by an unmarked trafpol, and the trafpol thought that what you'd just done was reasonable and safe and therefore he took no action, are you still "in the wrong"?Yes. On two counts.
1) Legally you shouldn't break the limit. So that is black and white.
I wonder if we're getting tangled up by differing definitions.
When in this context you say "wrong", do you mean "morally wrong and unacceptable in a civilised society", or do you mean simply "contrary to the law"?
It is legally wrong to break the speed limit i.e. contrary to the law. I happen to think it is morally wrong as well. Particularly for drivers that are "Advanced" (either with or without a capital "A"
. My point has always been that we set the rules, and accept that it's wrong to break them. If you wish to break them, then fine. Stand up and be counted. Take it on the chin. Just don't try and rationalise it by questioning whether it's right or wrong. flemke said:
Big Fat F'er said:
2) Advanced drivers are supposed to set an example to other road users. They are expected to follow and obey the highway Code and the Traffic Regulations. So that is also black and white.
Interesting point, this one.
As have no doubt many other PHers, I have been a passenger on numerous occasions with PC1 drivers and Police Advanced Driving Instructors who have exceeded the limit by a very substantial margin. So far as I am aware, none of these people has ever had a single RTA.
Their driving was and is superb. Its safety is an historical fact. What's the problem?.
The problem is simple, and I happen to think you know it. However, for the sake of completeness, the answer is that you cannot justify breaking the limit by saying that PC1s do and they dont have an accident. PC1 drivers are usually so far above 'mere mortal' drivers it can be scary just how good they are. Also, speeding is part of the job. It's not part of yours (unless you are a serving Officer, in which case I take it all back Sir). If you claim to be an Advanced driver of the non BiB type, then drive within the law and set an example.
flemke said:
Big Fat F'er said:
I'm presuming these TrafPol are not those that get knocked for being cretins, or always picking on innocent drivers, or are part of the Police State (oh ya gotta laugh).
One occasionally hears such hyperbole, but generally it seems to have been said to make a point, not because anyone would take it literally.
There are mediocre doctors, mediocre solicitors, mediocre racing drivers, even mediocre politicians (is that a job requirement?). It would be astonishing if in all of Britain there weren't a single mediocre copper.
Come off it Flemke. You are being either disengenious, or you are so naive you need to get out more. In the real world, there are many folk who genuinely believe that all the Old Bill are simpletons, that they pick on innocent drivers, and that we live in a Police State.
Obviously that is offensive to those who are trying to do something about genuine corruption, and who are fighting, literally and figeratively, against genuine Police States. But it ain't stopping the numpty's from claiming it's happening in the good old UK. If you are not one of those, my comment wasn't directed to you, and you know it.
One final point made on here and worth repeating. It's not as easy to drive within the law as people think. A lot of drivers claim it takes skill to drive at the speed they do. Well it takes skill to drive within the law. Challenge yourself for the next week or so to drive absolutely within the law at all times. See for yourself what it's like to overtake in a Civilian advanced fashion. Try to use acceleration sense to hit the limit prior to the sign, and not go above it till after (from 30 to NSL). Try not to creep above the limit, at all, ever. It can be done. It's damn hard. Thats why some break it. Not because they choose to do so on principle, but because they can't do any better.
Go on, give it a go. You may surprise yourself (and if not, it keeps the debate going).
First, thanks for the interesting replies.
A few thoughts (So as not to generalise and imply that this is universal, I'll speak for myself, but I believe that I speak for the majority of active PHers too.):
Speeding is not the same as theft. When you thieve from someone, you know (I presume - no personal experience here!) before, during and after the deed that what you're doing is wrong; it's not the law that prohibits theft that is wrong.
I daresay that you'd have to look far and wide to find a thief who defends the principle of theft. He might start to defend it, but try stealing the thief's property and see how long the thief continues his defence.
On the other hand, when one is driving above the speed limit, on a wide open road in good visibility, etc., one typically believes that what he or she is doing is safe and reasonable. After all, the driver him/herself usually has the most to lose by driving unsafely. Therefore in the event the driver believes that his behaviour is right, and it is the law that is wrong or inappropriate.
It's not a question of attempting rhetorically to rationalise one's behaviour by questioning whether the law is right or wrong. Rather, the reason that the driver drove at X speed was because he believed as he did so that it was right.
Btw, when you say that "we set the rules", to what "we" are you referring?
The problem is simple, and I happen to think you know it. However, for the sake of completeness, the answer is that you cannot justify breaking the limit by saying that PC1s do and they dont have an accident. PC1 drivers are usually so far above 'mere mortal' drivers it can be scary just how good they are. Also, speeding is part of the job. It's not part of yours (unless you are a serving Officer, in which case I take it all back Sir). If you claim to be an Advanced driver of the non BiB type, then drive within the law and set an example.My point was not that because PC1s do it but don't have accidents, then it must be okay for everyone to do it, and they won't have accidents either.
My point was that:
- it is possible for some PC1 drivers to speed - that is more broadly to say, to rely upon their own driving judgment rather than upon bureaucratic impositions - without accidents, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do so (off the job)?
- as their experience proves that it is physically possible to drive over the limit without accidents, why should not other citizens be allowed - potentially - to demonstrate that they have similar competence and therefore deserve similar freedom, and
- does not the above PC1 history prove that the decisive statutory criterion should be the reality of the driving, rather than the lowest-common-denominator standard that is pitched at the poorest drivers but for the sake of bureaucratic efficiency is applied indiscriminately to all?
Come off it Flemke. You are being either disengenious, or you are so naive you need to get out more. In the real world, there are many folk who genuinely believe that all the Old Bill are simpletons, that they pick on innocent drivers, and that we live in a Police State.
Obviously that is offensive to those who are trying to do something about genuine corruption, and who are fighting, literally and figeratively, against genuine Police States. But it ain't stopping the numpty's from claiming it's happening in the good old UK. If you are not one of those, my comment wasn't directed to you, and you know it.I probably do need to get out more, but that's another story.
I was talking about the population of PH. There may be the occasional moan or over-reaction about the TrafPol, as well as some anecdotes about the odd officer who has gone OTT (over a driver's having a drink of water whilst stationary at a red light, etc.) They would be the exceptions.
Perhaps I'm wrong, BFF, but I'd bet you a lot that the overwhelming majority of PHers appreciate what a tough job the typical serving police officer has.
What most of us deplore is the politicians and bureaucrats who try to run our lives. In the case of those senior officers, perhaps including some from North Wales, who appear to be intensely political and to have a dictatorial, nanny-state mentality, we deplore them because of their arrogance and presumptuousness, not because they are in the Police.
Agreed that it is very tough to overtake always within the limit, or to slow to a lower limit or into a bend without touching the brake pedal. The feasibility (and temptation) is quite influenced by what car you're driving.
I always try to get down to a lower limit without any braking - and why not?
Whether one slows for a bend with or without braking is very specific, not only to the car and the bend but also to the sort of driving one is doing on the day.
Overtaking without ever exceeding the limit means never exceeding the limit, regardless of circumstances. Hmmmm...
A few thoughts (So as not to generalise and imply that this is universal, I'll speak for myself, but I believe that I speak for the majority of active PHers too.):
Big Fat F'er said:
It is legally wrong to break the speed limit i.e. contrary to the law. I happen to think it is morally wrong as well. Particularly for drivers that are "Advanced" (either with or without a capital "A". My point has always been that we set the rules, and accept that it's wrong to break them. If you wish to break them, then fine. Stand up and be counted. Take it on the chin. Just don't try and rationalise it by questioning whether it's right or wrong.
I'd say that you've put it backwards. . My point has always been that we set the rules, and accept that it's wrong to break them. If you wish to break them, then fine. Stand up and be counted. Take it on the chin. Just don't try and rationalise it by questioning whether it's right or wrong.Speeding is not the same as theft. When you thieve from someone, you know (I presume - no personal experience here!) before, during and after the deed that what you're doing is wrong; it's not the law that prohibits theft that is wrong.
I daresay that you'd have to look far and wide to find a thief who defends the principle of theft. He might start to defend it, but try stealing the thief's property and see how long the thief continues his defence.
On the other hand, when one is driving above the speed limit, on a wide open road in good visibility, etc., one typically believes that what he or she is doing is safe and reasonable. After all, the driver him/herself usually has the most to lose by driving unsafely. Therefore in the event the driver believes that his behaviour is right, and it is the law that is wrong or inappropriate.
It's not a question of attempting rhetorically to rationalise one's behaviour by questioning whether the law is right or wrong. Rather, the reason that the driver drove at X speed was because he believed as he did so that it was right.
Btw, when you say that "we set the rules", to what "we" are you referring?
Big Fat F'er said:
The problem is simple, and I happen to think you know it. However, for the sake of completeness, the answer is that you cannot justify breaking the limit by saying that PC1s do and they dont have an accident. PC1 drivers are usually so far above 'mere mortal' drivers it can be scary just how good they are. Also, speeding is part of the job. It's not part of yours (unless you are a serving Officer, in which case I take it all back Sir). If you claim to be an Advanced driver of the non BiB type, then drive within the law and set an example.
My point was that:
- it is possible for some PC1 drivers to speed - that is more broadly to say, to rely upon their own driving judgment rather than upon bureaucratic impositions - without accidents, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do so (off the job)?
- as their experience proves that it is physically possible to drive over the limit without accidents, why should not other citizens be allowed - potentially - to demonstrate that they have similar competence and therefore deserve similar freedom, and
- does not the above PC1 history prove that the decisive statutory criterion should be the reality of the driving, rather than the lowest-common-denominator standard that is pitched at the poorest drivers but for the sake of bureaucratic efficiency is applied indiscriminately to all?
Big Fat F'er said:
Come off it Flemke. You are being either disengenious, or you are so naive you need to get out more. In the real world, there are many folk who genuinely believe that all the Old Bill are simpletons, that they pick on innocent drivers, and that we live in a Police State.
Obviously that is offensive to those who are trying to do something about genuine corruption, and who are fighting, literally and figeratively, against genuine Police States. But it ain't stopping the numpty's from claiming it's happening in the good old UK. If you are not one of those, my comment wasn't directed to you, and you know it.
I was talking about the population of PH. There may be the occasional moan or over-reaction about the TrafPol, as well as some anecdotes about the odd officer who has gone OTT (over a driver's having a drink of water whilst stationary at a red light, etc.) They would be the exceptions.
Perhaps I'm wrong, BFF, but I'd bet you a lot that the overwhelming majority of PHers appreciate what a tough job the typical serving police officer has.
What most of us deplore is the politicians and bureaucrats who try to run our lives. In the case of those senior officers, perhaps including some from North Wales, who appear to be intensely political and to have a dictatorial, nanny-state mentality, we deplore them because of their arrogance and presumptuousness, not because they are in the Police.
Big Fat F'er said:
One final point made on here and worth repeating. It's not as easy to drive within the law as people think. A lot of drivers claim it takes skill to drive at the speed they do. Well it takes skill to drive within the law. Challenge yourself for the next week or so to drive absolutely within the law at all times. See for yourself what it's like to overtake in a Civilian advanced fashion. Try to use acceleration sense to hit the limit prior to the sign, and not go above it till after (from 30 to NSL). Try not to creep above the limit, at all, ever. It can be done. It's damn hard. Thats why some break it. Not because they choose to do so on principle, but because they can't do any better.
Go on, give it a go. You may surprise yourself (and if not, it keeps the debate going).
Go on, give it a go. You may surprise yourself (and if not, it keeps the debate going).
Agreed that it is very tough to overtake always within the limit, or to slow to a lower limit or into a bend without touching the brake pedal. The feasibility (and temptation) is quite influenced by what car you're driving.
I always try to get down to a lower limit without any braking - and why not?
Whether one slows for a bend with or without braking is very specific, not only to the car and the bend but also to the sort of driving one is doing on the day.
Overtaking without ever exceeding the limit means never exceeding the limit, regardless of circumstances. Hmmmm...
Edited by flemke on Thursday 8th June 19:48
Big Fat F'er said:
It is legally wrong to break the speed limit i.e. contrary to the law. I happen to think it is morally wrong as well. Particularly for drivers that are "Advanced" (either with or without a capital "A". My point has always been that we set the rules, and accept that it's wrong to break them.
. My point has always been that we set the rules, and accept that it's wrong to break them.I do not accept that it is "wrong" (as that is a moral issue IMHO) to break all laws - e.g. speeding is not always "wrong".
I also do not accept that "we set the rules".
Edited by Joe911 on Thursday 8th June 19:59
Exceedingthe speed limit doesn't always make you less safe. In circumstances where faster would be safer, slavish adherence to an arbitrary speed limit is the opposite of advanced driving in my book.
That's quite apart from the common sense issue that there is always a compromise between safety, legality and convenience and none of these ever take absolute priority over all the others. The idea that an arbitrary law *deserves* to be obeyed absolutely just because it is law is daft. Yes some people can't be seen to condone breaking the law, but that doesn't mean anyone needs to get puritanical about it.
That's quite apart from the common sense issue that there is always a compromise between safety, legality and convenience and none of these ever take absolute priority over all the others. The idea that an arbitrary law *deserves* to be obeyed absolutely just because it is law is daft. Yes some people can't be seen to condone breaking the law, but that doesn't mean anyone needs to get puritanical about it.
Joe911 said:
Big Fat F'er said:
It is legally wrong to break the speed limit i.e. contrary to the law. I happen to think it is morally wrong as well. Particularly for drivers that are "Advanced" (either with or without a capital "A". My point has always been that we set the rules, and accept that it's wrong to break them.
. My point has always been that we set the rules, and accept that it's wrong to break them.I do not accept that it is "wrong" (as that is a moral issue IMHO) to break all laws - e.g. speeding is not always "wrong".
I also do not accept that "we set the rules".
Joe - It's the semantics and self justification thats get me (in general, not specifically your comments).
As far as the Law stands, is it 'wrong' to speed? Yes. Using 'wrong' as a simple to understand way of saying you shouldn't do it if it's against the law, then it's wrong to speed.
As far as Advanced driving goes, is it "wrong" to speed? Yes again. Review the IAM or Rospa or any other creed. Look at advanced driving uk, where it states (their bold) "NOTE: Advanced Driving UK does not condone speeding on Britains roads by anyone, let alone Advanced Drivers. Advanced Drivers have a responsibility to know "better" and lead by example due to the effort and training recieved. This website is about improving driver education through Advanced Driver Courses using the principles based on Roadcraft - The Police Driver's Manual, used by the Police since 1955. Service organisations such as The IAM, RoADA, HPC and of course DSA ADI's all use Roadcraft as a "basis" for the training given".
The law says don't speed, as do Advanced groups. So surely it's fair to say it's wrong.
You may wish to speed. Fine. Go do it. Just don't try and justify it. Will speeding definitely cause an accident. No, of course not. But if you get caught by the Old Bill, look 'em in the eye and ask 'em to do their worst.
By the way, the "we" in "we set the rules" is referring to advanced groups (IAM, HPC, etc). You help to set those rules. So stick to 'em.
Edited by Big Fat F'er on Thursday 8th June 21:21
GreenV8S said:
Exceedingthe speed limit doesn't always make you less safe.
I didn't say it did (I don't think anyone else did either). It's a matter of principle. Should you, as an advanced driver, obey the law. Yes you should.
GreenV8S said:
That's quite apart from the common sense issue that there is always a compromise between safety, legality and convenience and none of these ever take absolute priority over all the others.
Hmmmm. Really?
GreenV8S said:
The idea that an arbitrary law *deserves* to be obeyed absolutely just because it is law is daft.
You follow many laws just because they are laws. I remember when they brought in the law that said you had to wear seat belts. Overnight thousands of drivers followed the law. Friday they drove without belts. Monday they put the belt on. Only because the law told them to.
Television Licence - you pay it because its the Law.
MOT - you do it when told to by the Law.
There are many many examples. You follow these laws (I assume). But strangely enough, the one that really gets up your goat, is the one thats sets a speed limit for you that you want to exceed. Suddenly all arbitrary laws are bad.
By the by, you may argue that you only follow the above laws because you would get done if you didn't. That weakens the 'principled' argument, so don't go there.
GreenV8S said:
Yes some people can't be seen to condone breaking the law, but that doesn't mean anyone needs to get puritanical about it.
There are many out there that think laws should be followed in principle. It doesn't make them puritanical. It makes them law abiding.
Big Fat F'er said:
The law says don't speed, as do Advanced groups. So surely it's fair to say it's wrong.
In some cultures and nations women are not allowed to vote or hold certain jobs. Indeed there are some in which a woman is not allowed to show her face in public. I suspect that there are many, many women in these societies who believe that these rules are "right".
Recently in one country (a country that contains millions of highly intelligent people and that is modern enough to possess nuclear weapons) a man chose to change from the country's predominant religion (into which he was born) to a different religion.
For this act he was sentenced to death.
It's not always obvious that one should respect and obey the law simply because it is the law, and that to violate it is inherently wrong.
Big Fat F'er said:
By the way, the "we" in "we set the rules" is referring to advanced groups (IAM, HPC, etc). You help to set those rules. So stick to 'em.
Not so, in more ways than one.flemke said:
First, thanks for the interesting replies.
And yours my good man.
Remember, there are many arbitrary laws. There are many pitched at the lowest common denominator. Yet I bet you follow most, if not all, of them.
Take an honest look at yourself. Be absolutely honest, even if you don't then admit it on here. Are you genuinely against speeding because you disagree with arbitrary laws. If so, which others have you campaigned against. Or are you against a speeding law, 'cos you want to speed. Full stop.
Try the "driving within the law for 2 weeks" by the way. I guarantee something. If you take the bends strictly within a speed such that you can stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear... (you know the rest)... I GUARANTEE you will not be able to do it at all corners at first. The reason is that you will have others behind you, and you will know that the cornering speed for safety is less than what you can actually corner at. In some cases much less. You will feel the pressure from the other drivers. The higher the performance in the car, the faster you will feel the need to take the corner.
People don't like that pressure. So they get around it by cornering too fast. Same with speed limits and all the other rules. It's easier to drive outside the law than in. It's time people owned up to that.
Go on, have a go. You might enjoy it.
Big Fat F'er said:
GreenV8S said:
Exceedingthe speed limit doesn't always make you less safe.
I didn't say it did (I don't think anyone else did either). It's a matter of principle. Should you, as an advanced driver, obey the law. Yes you should.
GreenV8S said:
That's quite apart from the common sense issue that there is always a compromise between safety, legality and convenience and none of these ever take absolute priority over all the others.
Hmmmm. Really?
Yes, really. If exceeding the speed limit by 1 mph gets me out of a potentially dangerous situation, I'll do it without a second thought. If I can cut half an hour off my journey by doing something that increases the risk by a small amount while remaining well below the level of risk that I decide is acceptable under the circumstances, I'll do it. None of these criteria takes absolute precedence over any other - it is simply a matter of achieving the best compromise between the various constraints. Safety and legality are obviously important, but they do not fundamentally override all other considerations.
I wear a seatbelt because the inconvenience is very small, and the safety gain is considerable. The fact that the law is enforced is a factor but only a small one since the interval between being seen driving by a police officer who is in a position to see whether I wear a seat belt *and* in a position to do something about it is measured in years rather than days. And despite all that, I would happily drive without wearing a seatbelt under the right circumstances.
I try to obey most laws most of the time, I'm a good little citizen. But I don't believe that all laws deserve to be obeyed without question all of the time just because they are laws. The speed limit is an example of a law which is particularly undeserving of blind obedience. I pay it lip service because of the potential penalties that I might face if I'm caught breaking it, but in my opinion it is a law which should never ever be enforced strictly. Strict enforcement is not only unjustified, it is counterproductive to road safety in my opinion.
Edited by GreenV8S on Thursday 8th June 22:14
Big Fat F'er said:
The law says don't speed, as do Advanced groups. So surely it's fair to say it's wrong.
You are right that we are using the word "wrong" differently.
I accept that I was brought into a society that imposes laws on me (many of which I am grateful for) and I do accept that if I break those laws I am likely to be punished (unless I have Nick Freeman's number).
I was (I suspect like most of us) taught about "right and wrong" as a morality issue.
I also learn about the law which attempts to enforse morals upon us.
In my view there is a clear issue separation between "right/wrong" (morals) and "the rules" (obedience) - often (normally even) they are the same.
flemke said:
It's not always obvious that one should respect and obey the law simply because it is the law, and that to violate it is inherently wrong.
Correct. So as I asked earlier, which other laws and countries are you fighting against. Presumeably you and yours that want to speed because you are so dead set against these type of arbitrary laws have formed a pressure group. Or an 'action' group. Maybe you've taken part in some subversive stuff. Perhaps a boycot. You've written to your MP. Changed from one type of institution to another. Something other than speeding, surely.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, you like going really really fast, and you want to justify it with this veneer of caring respectability. Own up to why you want to do it. Respect.
flemke said:
Big Fat F'er said:
By the way, the "we" in "we set the rules" is referring to advanced groups (IAM, HPC, etc). You help to set those rules. So stick to 'em.
Not so, in more ways than one.I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm sure you mean it!
The thing that always puzzles me is the penchant on here for people to want a talking to (education) from a Police officer, instead of prosecution for speeding.
I know why they want it (they don't want to be prosecuted) but they say it like the officer is doing a good thing with this "advice".
The people who the Police officer gives this "advice" to have no intention of changing their view on speeding because of this "advice". Their attitude towards speeding is already pretty fixed & behaviour will not be changed at all in relation to future limit observance by it. It's a waste of air.
I know why they want it (they don't want to be prosecuted) but they say it like the officer is doing a good thing with this "advice".
The people who the Police officer gives this "advice" to have no intention of changing their view on speeding because of this "advice". Their attitude towards speeding is already pretty fixed & behaviour will not be changed at all in relation to future limit observance by it. It's a waste of air.
GreenV8S said:
Safety and legality are obviously important, but they do not fundamentally override all other considerations.
They do in Advanced driving. Safety and Legality overide convenience. You know it. You just decide not to adhere to that.
GreenV8S said:
I wear a seatbelt because the inconvenience is very small, and the safety gain is considerable. The fact that the law is enforced is a factor but only a small one since the interval between being seen driving by a police officer who is in a position to see whether I wear a seat belt *and* in a position to do something about it is measured in years rather than days. And despite all that, I would happily drive without wearing a seatbelt under the right circumstances.
Very interesting, but not my point. The point is (and this is obviously factual record) millions of drivers put their seat belt on when it became law, ONLY BECAUSE it was the law. It's one example of the many arbitrary laws that you follow. Speeding is not the only arbitrary law, and you follow the others. What's the difference.
GreenV8S said:
Strict enforcement is not only unjustified, it is counterproductive to road safety in my opinion.
..and speeding is jolly good fun as well.
Big Fat F'er said:
flemke said:
First, thanks for the interesting replies.
And yours my good man.
Remember, there are many arbitrary laws. There are many pitched at the lowest common denominator. Yet I bet you follow most, if not all, of them.
Take an honest look at yourself. Be absolutely honest, even if you don't then admit it on here. Are you genuinely against speeding because you disagree with arbitrary laws. If so, which others have you campaigned against. Or are you against a speeding law, 'cos you want to speed. Full stop.
If I were asked to vote on fox hunting, I suppose that I would allow it. Because I have no interest whatsoever in the activity, however, I feel no obligation to agitate on behalf of fox hunting, and I doubt that hunt people would expect me to exert myself on their behalf. Similarly, I would not expect any of them who may drive without having any particular interest in doing so to be active advocates of eliminating the irrationalities of roads policies.
Big Fat F'er said:
Try the "driving within the law for 2 weeks" by the way. I guarantee something. If you take the bends strictly within a speed such that you can stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear... (you know the rest)... I GUARANTEE you will not be able to do it at all corners at first. The reason is that you will have others behind you, and you will know that the cornering speed for safety is less than what you can actually corner at. In some cases much less. You will feel the pressure from the other drivers. The higher the performance in the car, the faster you will feel the need to take the corner.
People don't like that pressure. So they get around it by cornering too fast. Same with speed limits and all the other rules. It's easier to drive outside the law than in. It's time people owned up to that.
I have been lucky enough to have taken hundreds of hours of advanced driving instruction and observation at the PC1 level. For this reason, I have learned this rule and do my best to abide by it (which of course is a HC 'rule' that is never enforced by CPS, even though it is a thousand times more important than speed limits usually are). People don't like that pressure. So they get around it by cornering too fast. Same with speed limits and all the other rules. It's easier to drive outside the law than in. It's time people owned up to that.
I hasten to add that before I took advanced instruction, as I suspect 95% of all adult males do, I thought that I knew how to drive. I soon learned that I knew nothing about how to drive, and required a period of enlightenment and 'de-education' before I could begin to do things properly.
As such, I now often drive in villages, over humpback bridges, up singletrack and in the myriad other blind or limited viz situations much more slowly than almost anyone but others who have also taken advanced instruction will do. I've been taught to use the horn liberally as a safety device, keep the window down when appropriate to listen for clues of other road users, take the correct line into the bend, how to overtake properly, imagine the dead sheep lying in the road just over the blind crest, etc.
On every proper road drive there will be several times when I consciously ask myself, "Can I really stop within the range of my vision?". Obviously that will often require continuous throttle modulation.
So I've been there, and am very glad of it.
At other times, I will overtake pretty much everyone on open A- and B-roads.
Big Fat F'er said:
GreenV8S said:
Safety and legality are obviously important, but they do not fundamentally override all other considerations.
They do in Advanced driving. Safety and Legality overide convenience. You know it. You just decide not to adhere to that.
Even safety will not override convenience comprehensively and without exception. If safety were all that mattered, we would never drive, nor would we redecorate our homes, have hot meals, play sport or take baths.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff