94 in a 70

[vonhosen]

turbobloke said:

vonhosen said: turbobloke said: mg6b said: turbobloke said: As mentioned before: "The problem generally is that of all laws in this country, speeding is the only law which requires constant vigilance for mere compliance. And to exacerbate this it is the oly law which expects us to operate constantly at the edge of legality. Really! What about other things such as making sure your tax has not run out... You're only at risk of non-compliance for say 1 week each year, and need to be vigilant for maybe a day or so more. Nowhere near close enough. Next. How many people check their lights before every journey ? How many people check their tyre pressures regularly ? etc etc. Who knows? So what? Again, these are nowhere near 'constant vigilance' issues, as in, you don't check your tyre pressures regularly while rolling along the M6, or your lights in daylight every few seconds. Neither do these examples meet the 'edge of legality' criterion. To quote the DfT: THINK!

Moving traffic offences require constant vigilence throughout your driving. If you don't effectively observe & comply with any mandatory roadsign or road markings you will be committing offences. Without due care can be commited at anytime through a momments inattention. You are always on that knife edge whilst driving.

As I've said if you are not upto the task that you were in order to pass your test then perhaps you shouldn't be on the road, it's a lame excuse.

[turbobloke]

vonhosen said:

Moving traffic offences require constant vigilence...

Now you're forgetting edge of legality, yawn.

This, like just about every response these days, is merely opposition for its own sake, mixed with obsequious obeisance to officialdom's risible position on road safety in general, and speed / limits / enforcement in particular. They've all been batted back. Try a new line that hasn't been annihilated before at least a dozen times.

boring boring boring

[vonhosen]

turbobloke said:

vonhosen said: Moving traffic offences require constant vigilence... Now you're forgetting edge of legality, yawn. This, like just about every response these days, is merely opposition for its own sake, mixed with obsequious obeisance to officialdom's risible position on road safety in general, and speed / limits / enforcement in particular. They've all been batted back. Try a new line that hasn't been annihilated before at least a dozen times. boring boring boring

How does not commiting the offence of without due care NOT require constant vigilence in order to achieve that ?

[turbobloke]

vonhosen said:

turbobloke said: vonhosen said: Moving traffic offences require constant vigilence... Now you're forgetting edge of legality, yawn. This, like just about every response these days, is merely opposition for its own sake, mixed with obsequious obeisance to officialdom's risible position on road safety in general, and speed / limits / enforcement in particular. They've all been batted back. Try a new line that hasn't been annihilated before at least a dozen times. boring boring boring How does not commiting the offence of without due care NOT require constant vigilence in order to achieve that ?

Because, compared to speeding, there's no fg way anyone will ever know 99.99999999% of the time. Trafpol are now a spent force, road safety is a one horse race and the poor fecker is lame and good only for the knacker's yard. Believe me I really do wish due care required constant vigilance. Attention, vigilance, observation, anticipation, are all being dumbed out of the brit driver - and by policies you endorse.

Next (since, inevitably...

VH Costner said:

Post it and he will come

[micky g]

vanhosen

Do you realy check your lights and tyre pressures before each journey??

If your answers are yes, you must be a bundle of laughs on a night out!!

If your answer is no, you must think yourself lazy.

Just curious you know.