Bashed up Bentley
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
Dark85 said:
Jesus, I sort of assumed the Bentley was coming into a built up area and had failed to adjust to the change in road conditions; a somewhat understandable mistake although retarded to make it on such an epic scale. I was being too kind the cammer is going into town, this spanner was carrying that speed down a busy high street in the middle of the day, total lunacy.
It gets better. It's only about 500m from a just-about-two-cars-wide pinch immediately after a pair of mini roundabouts.https://goo.gl/maps/cDyane6qSmu
kambites said:
SystemParanoia said:
I notice there are absolutely no signs warning of the road being artificially narrowed ahead.
Why would there need to be? There's an enormous amount of space for anyone not travelling at twice the speed limit to see it directly.but a sign further back wouldn't hurt
OverSteery said:
SystemParanoia said:
I notice there are absolutely no signs warning of the road being artificially narrowed ahead.
Wow. I assume you must want to see a whole lot more signs on the road, if you really think that is necessary in a 30mph zone,The pinch by the market hall... well, the hall itself is a good chunk more visible than a sign.
kambites said:
The ratio of custodial sentence to ban seems odd to me. Wouldn't be shorter prison sentence and longer driving ban make more sense - it'd be far cheaper and arguably keep the roads safer for longer... or maybe he has history which means they don't trust him to honour a ban.
Well, if that isn't dangerous driving I don't know what is. Not sure why we should go easy on him because nobody died.Too Drunk to Funk said:
kambites said:
The ratio of custodial sentence to ban seems odd to me. Wouldn't be shorter prison sentence and longer driving ban make more sense - it'd be far cheaper and arguably keep the roads safer for longer... or maybe he has history which means they don't trust him to honour a ban.
Well, if that isn't dangerous driving I don't know what is. Not sure why we should go easy on him because nobody died.
I'm suggesting four years isn't long enough to keep him off the road, but I see little benefit in spending tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money to keep him in prison.
kambites said:
Too Drunk to Funk said:
kambites said:
The ratio of custodial sentence to ban seems odd to me. Wouldn't be shorter prison sentence and longer driving ban make more sense - it'd be far cheaper and arguably keep the roads safer for longer... or maybe he has history which means they don't trust him to honour a ban.
Well, if that isn't dangerous driving I don't know what is. Not sure why we should go easy on him because nobody died.Too Drunk to Funk said:
You seem to be suggesting he didn't deserve the time he got in prison.
No, I'm suggesting it's not worth the cost to society to keep him there. If prisons weren't (a) so damned expensive to run and (b) full I'd be all for a long custodial sentence, although I still think the driving ban is too short. kambites said:
Too Drunk to Funk said:
You seem to be suggesting he didn't deserve the time he got in prison.
No, I'm suggesting it's not worth the cost to society to keep him there. If prisons weren't (a) so damned expensive to run and (b) full I'd be all for a long custodial sentence, although I still think the driving ban is too short. kambites said:
Too Drunk to Funk said:
You seem to be suggesting he didn't deserve the time he got in prison.
No, I'm suggesting it's not worth the cost to society to keep him there. If prisons weren't (a) so damned expensive to run and (b) full I'd be all for a long custodial sentence, although I still think the driving ban is too short. Because once a twunt like that is out the ban won't make any difference - stick them in those prisons that apparently aren't very nice because they have cockroaches (and scum) in them.
If I'm helping to pay for it I don't want it to be Butlins FFS!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff