RE: Damon Hill against 80MPH speed limit
Discussion
martin84 said:
I don't understand how 80mph is supposedly so much more exciting, engaging and interesting than 70mph. That is probably the greatest strawman on here. If the limit had been 80 for 40 years you'd all be doing 90 and claiming 80 is supposedly 'not natural.' The real fact is 70 isn't 'natural' either because humans weren't meant to travel at 70mph. We weren't meant to fly or wear shoes either, but there you go. Is the difference between 70 and 80 magnificent enough to risk your licence on a daily basis for? I don't think it is.
heebeegeetee says he wants to be free to do a 'sensible speed.' Is 70mph not a sensible speed? Is it a ghastly awful horrific speed where as a mere 10mph extra is wonderful?
220mph can be interesting. 80mph? No.
What a load of cobblers. heebeegeetee says he wants to be free to do a 'sensible speed.' Is 70mph not a sensible speed? Is it a ghastly awful horrific speed where as a mere 10mph extra is wonderful?
220mph can be interesting. 80mph? No.
We're not really talking about changing speed. We're talking about legalising what is happening now already. Changing the law won't change much in reality.
heebeegeetee said:
What a load of cobblers.
We're not really talking about changing speed. We're talking about legalising what is happening now already. Changing the law won't change much in reality.
Pretty much. Its a rare occasion that I am below 80 on any motorway or dc and I am not the only one at that speed.We're not really talking about changing speed. We're talking about legalising what is happening now already. Changing the law won't change much in reality.
heebeegeetee said:
What a load of cobblers.
We're not really talking about changing speed. We're talking about legalising what is happening now already. Changing the law won't change much in reality.
Our Dutch friend a few pages ago told us we have to drive at 80mph (even though it's got him multiple driving convictions) because 70mph is so slow its unnatural, dangerous and its literally impossible to be alert enough to concentrate. 10mph faster apparently solves all of this.We're not really talking about changing speed. We're talking about legalising what is happening now already. Changing the law won't change much in reality.
Changing the law won't change anything which is another reason to not bother. I do still question the wisdom of rewarding consistent lawbreakers by changing the law to suit them. You've already said you choose to drive over the limit and give yourself the extra stress of scanning bridges, so you must feel it's literally impossible to drive slower if you're willing to give yourself extra stress and potential problems.
martin84 said:
Our Dutch friend a few pages ago told us we have to drive at 80mph (even though it's got him multiple driving convictions) because 70mph is so slow its unnatural, dangerous and its literally impossible to be alert enough to concentrate. 10mph faster apparently solves all of this.
Changing the law won't change anything which is another reason to not bother. I do still question the wisdom of rewarding consistent lawbreakers by changing the law to suit them. You've already said you choose to drive over the limit and give yourself the extra stress of scanning bridges, so you must feel it's literally impossible to drive slower if you're willing to give yourself extra stress and potential problems.
You are talking complete cobblers. Total and complete. Almost everything you are saying is wrong. I don't know if this is because you are stupid or because you are just wilfully arguing with everything everyone is saying.Changing the law won't change anything which is another reason to not bother. I do still question the wisdom of rewarding consistent lawbreakers by changing the law to suit them. You've already said you choose to drive over the limit and give yourself the extra stress of scanning bridges, so you must feel it's literally impossible to drive slower if you're willing to give yourself extra stress and potential problems.
Makes no odds to me. You're wrong, and I'd love an 80 limit.
martin84 said:
Our Dutch friend a few pages ago told us we have to drive at 80mph (even though it's got him multiple driving convictions) because 70mph is so slow its unnatural, dangerous and its literally impossible to be alert enough to concentrate. 10mph faster apparently solves all of this.
Changing the law won't change anything which is another reason to not bother. I do still question the wisdom of rewarding consistent lawbreakers by changing the law to suit them. You've already said you choose to drive over the limit and give yourself the extra stress of scanning bridges, so you must feel it's literally impossible to drive slower if you're willing to give yourself extra stress and potential problems.
What extra stress??? I scan bridges slip roads and other cars in case they are unmarked. Its a little tiring at times but not exactly stressful and keeps me alert and aware of my surroundings as I am looking forward a long way affording me the ability to predict any upcoming problems.Changing the law won't change anything which is another reason to not bother. I do still question the wisdom of rewarding consistent lawbreakers by changing the law to suit them. You've already said you choose to drive over the limit and give yourself the extra stress of scanning bridges, so you must feel it's literally impossible to drive slower if you're willing to give yourself extra stress and potential problems.
Had a wonderful occasion today when I came round a bend to find a scam van in a layby in a 30 limit where I knew the sit and regardless being a 30 I stick to 30.
Give him a BIG smile and a wave.
460k miles in 6 yrs no points.
SUCK IT!!!!
martin84 said:
The Wookie said:
Don't you just love a tired old argument perpetuated by fallacies and overly provocative rhetoric
heebeegeetee's assertion that whining speeding Audi man deserves the same standing as people who fought to break off dictatorial shackles and change the World is quite staggering isn't it?martin84 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Yes, luv...
So you believe 80mph is engaging and exciting but 10mph less is so slow it's literally dangerous?Yes or no?
You're looking at this from the wrong end. If the limit is raised, I shall continue to drive as I drive now, but there would be less chance of being ostracised for so doing.
martin84 said:
I do still question the wisdom of rewarding consistent lawbreakers by changing the law to suit them.
Once again, you view this from the wrong end.Bad laws are universally ignored. It is government's job to spot this and change the law. Failure to so do would make non compliance a way of life, with the danger that people might view other good laws with contempt.
Well seeing as the thread has reduced to heebeegeetee's only vocabulary being 'you're wrong!!!' I think I'm rather fed up of the whole thing.
Its a pointless discussion because the brutal fact is no British Government is going to raise speed limits so the argument is quite irrelevant.
Its a pointless discussion because the brutal fact is no British Government is going to raise speed limits so the argument is quite irrelevant.
I can definitely see where Mr. Hill is coming from, especially as I live and drive in the U.S. A previous poster's comment about many people not being fit to use shoelaces and belts is hilarious, cynical, and altogether true.
If U.K. drivers are even 20% as bad as those on American roads, then they shouldn't be in a car at all.
On the flip side, I do love my speed when done safely, on suitable roads, and when there's plenty of room to manouever to avoid potential hazards.
I don't believe for a second that speed is the ultimate driving sin, etc. as many gov'ts, police jurisdictions would have you believe. I'd argue that people impeeding are the cause of at least as many accidents as those attributed to "excessive speed", possibly more.
It is a pervasive lack of the combination of skill and good sense which modern driving requires, which is the real problem.
If U.K. drivers are even 20% as bad as those on American roads, then they shouldn't be in a car at all.
On the flip side, I do love my speed when done safely, on suitable roads, and when there's plenty of room to manouever to avoid potential hazards.
I don't believe for a second that speed is the ultimate driving sin, etc. as many gov'ts, police jurisdictions would have you believe. I'd argue that people impeeding are the cause of at least as many accidents as those attributed to "excessive speed", possibly more.
It is a pervasive lack of the combination of skill and good sense which modern driving requires, which is the real problem.
martin84 said:
Rewarding law breaking is a dangerous business. People will think they can get away with it.
With that outlook, how would an unjust law ever be changed? 'Speeders' are not being 'rewarded'; the laws are being re-examined (as they all should, periodically) to make sure they are still relevant to our society and proportionate in content, enforcement or punishment. The way you put it, homosexuality and mixed-race marriages would still be illegal "because you can't reward law-breakers". We're not talking pre-meditated rape or genocide here, things like speed limits are civil matters; and it's clear that large enough a proportion of society believes the current speeds need re-examining for us to be having this conversation in the first place. Considering we are 'policed by consent' it should be up to the people to set the speed limits by consensus, not to be dictated to by our so-called 'elected representatives'. vsonix said:
martin84 said:
Rewarding law breaking is a dangerous business. People will think they can get away with it.
With that outlook, how would an unjust law ever be changed? 'Speeders' are not being 'rewarded'; the laws are being re-examined (as they all should, periodically) to make sure they are still relevant to our society and proportionate in content, enforcement or punishment. The way you put it, homosexuality and mixed-race marriages would still be illegal "because you can't reward law-breakers". We're not talking pre-meditated rape or genocide here, things like speed limits are civil matters; and it's clear that large enough a proportion of society believes the current speeds need re-examining for us to be having this conversation in the first place. Considering we are 'policed by consent' it should be up to the people to set the speed limits by consensus, not to be dictated to by our so-called 'elected representatives'. 
That, good sir, is a well thought out and written post! Comparing going a few miles over the limit to any actual "crime" is assanine. mybrainhurts said:
Bad laws are universally ignored. It is government's job to spot this and change the law. Failure to so do would make non compliance a way of life, with the danger that people might view other good laws with contempt.
Precisely - any government genuinely out of touch with the populace is playing a dangerous game.martin84 said:
Well seeing as the thread has reduced to heebeegeetee's only vocabulary being 'you're wrong!!!' I think I'm rather fed up of the whole thing.
Its a pointless discussion because the brutal fact is no British Government is going to raise speed limits so the argument is quite irrelevant.
Martin - Is this your swan song and should we say farewell? ...Its a pointless discussion because the brutal fact is no British Government is going to raise speed limits so the argument is quite irrelevant.
vsonix said:
With that outlook, how would an unjust law ever be changed?
The 70mph speed limit has been here for nearly five decades which suggests consistently breaking it hasn't been too effective in getting it removed. It's not an unjust law, there's far more important things in the World to be talking about. A genuinely unjust law would've been repealed decades ago with such widespread constant flouting of it.vsonix said:
The way you put it, homosexuality and mixed-race marriages would still be illegal "because you can't reward law-breakers".
Ok can I just stop you there. I feel it's important to stress we're talking about millions of people (with basic training at best) driving 2 tonne piles of metal on wheels, plenty of the most everyday variants of which are capable of covering 180 feet every second. We're talking about the most congested roads in Europe, a motorway network severely lacking in capacity and these roads being a vital tool to the economy. They are not a playground and they're not meant to be fun or engaging, they're the white good of inferstructure. With the capacity issue I'd really like for them to not be shut for 8 hours due to crashes after the Government legally encourages people to drive faster. A man shagging another man up the arse in his living room is not as much of a profound issue to society as the roads, so to compare them is quite silly.vsonix said:
We're not talking pre-meditated rape or genocide here, things like speed limits are civil matters;
Where did I say speeders should be sent to the Hague? I have argued against several bogus arguments morons have put forward to prove why we have to raise the limit or society will supposedly collapse, these have ranged from how its physically impossible to concentrate at 70 (that was the guy who's had multiple convictions for doing the same thing every time) to how 10 seconds really does matter. These are pathetic arguments and they don't help the 80mph supporters case. I think driving at 80-85 on the motorway is fine and people currently do that. My point is if you raise the limit the inevitable trade off is more strict enforcement of it. The loose approach to speed enforcement will go and you can kiss goodbye to the days of being able to do 175mph on an empty motorway in the early hours because every yard of it will be monitored. I'm saying there's no practical need for a change in the law.
vsonix said:
and it's clear that large enough a proportion of society believes the current speeds need re-examining for us to be having this conversation in the first place. Considering we are 'policed by consent' it should be up to the people to set the speed limits by consensus, not to be dictated to by our so-called 'elected representatives'.
There is no clear consensus on this. There might be on PH, because PH loves to bang on about how people don't respect the law anymore until it comes to speed limits then every Audi driving tom-dick thinks he knows better. Most people will just say 'well everybody does 80 anyway so whats the point?'bobberz said:
That, good sir, is a well thought out and written post! Comparing going a few miles over the limit to any actual "crime" is assanine.
How far over the limit do you have to drive for it to be compared to an actual 'crime' then? I'm just interested. Should driving at 95 be considered a crime? 105? 120? 150? I get your point about 'a few mph over' but you can't stretch that forever by definition. So where is your cut off?martin84 said:
bigdog3 said:
Precisely - any government genuinely out of touch with the populace is playing a dangerous game.
You think the election is going to be fought on the motorway speed limit now?It's not even an issue. You're the one out of touch if you think anybody even gives a f
k.Please pay attention, be less offensive and make sense dear boy ...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff