Speeding by royal approval
Discussion
Watched Fifth Gear in which VBH spent a day with the Royal police escort drivers who apparently drive in convoy in front and behind the top Royals when the travel on our roads.
Yes, after banging on at us ad nauseum about the positive dangers of speed they actually travel at approx 88 mph, a case of do as I say rather than do as I do.
They said they go this speed because it is safer :?
Yes, after banging on at us ad nauseum about the positive dangers of speed they actually travel at approx 88 mph, a case of do as I say rather than do as I do.
They said they go this speed because it is safer :?
t dont we all drive @ 88mph
MX7 said:
trackerjack said:
Yes, after banging on at us ad nauseum about the positive dangers of speed they actually travel at approx 88 mph, a case of do as I say rather than do as I do.
Do you really have a problem with this? Most of the general public are complete numpties.If there were no speedlimits on motorways I don't think we'd see too many people going 200 everywhere. People would drive in the 70-100 bracket more often that not. It's self regulating. Same as rsidential roads, we'd rarely see people doing 70 past a school at kicking out time.
Rich_W said:
I'm not sure the majority are. I think if anything giving the population draconian laws makes people numpties.
draconian: rigorous; unusually severe or cruel: Draconian? How can having a speed limit be draconian? Is Germany the only non-draconian country? Are we unusual in having a speed limit? Is our speed limit particularly low?
And I do think the majority are appalling drivers.
Draconian in that it was introduced in the 60s? And hasn't been modified to meet the changes in vehicle ability?
Whilst I accept the majority are not great drivers in the way that Sebastian Vettel is. (and I'm sensing you don't consider yourself to be a numpty of course
)
I'll point out that the majority drive every single day and we have a very low death count per number of people out there. Even better on motorways.
Whilst I accept the majority are not great drivers in the way that Sebastian Vettel is. (and I'm sensing you don't consider yourself to be a numpty of course
)I'll point out that the majority drive every single day and we have a very low death count per number of people out there. Even better on motorways.
The only problem I have with it is why our beloved Royal Family NEED so much protection.
Surely if anything adverse were to get underway as they travel the highways and byways on their bicycles or in their cars, worshipful locals would rise up to protect them and beat the bad boys until they ran away?
Surely if anything adverse were to get underway as they travel the highways and byways on their bicycles or in their cars, worshipful locals would rise up to protect them and beat the bad boys until they ran away?
Rich_W said:
Draconian in that it was introduced in the 60s? And hasn't been modified to meet the changes in vehicle ability?
So? We don't have a particularly low speed limit. Do you understand what draconian means?Rich_W said:
Whilst I accept the majority are not great drivers in the way that Sebastian Vettel is. (and I'm sensing you don't consider yourself to be a numpty of course )
I'm Raymond Babbitt. )Rich_W said:
I'll point out that the majority drive every single day and we have a very low death count per number of people out there. Even better on motorways.
I didn't say other countries didn't have more numpties than us. MX7 said:
So? We don't have a particularly low speed limit. Do you understand what draconian means?
Yes 1. In an age where speed is everything. 70mph is pathetic! Yes 2. You explained above. Severe. I think given most cars can stop within probably half of what was the case when the law was introduced it makes it severe. If not out of touch with reality. So maybe Draconian is heavy handed to describe the situation, but it doesn't mean the situation is correct.MX7 said:
I'm Raymond Babbitt.
Had to google that. You certainly strike me as Autistic. Taking everything very literally. MX7 said:
I didn't say other countries didn't have more numpties than us.
And? That's not my point. You view the country as full of numpties. I'm telling you it isn't. You sound borderline sociopathic http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Rich_W said:
If there were no speedlimits on motorways I don't think we'd see too many people going 200 everywhere. People would drive in the 70-100 bracket more often that not. It's self regulating. Same as rsidential roads, we'd rarely see people doing 70 past a school at kicking out time.
Werent speedlimits traditionally set at the median speed that people drove at or something because people did generally drive at a speed sensible for the location?Obvioulsy this rule no longer applies due to the speed kills fools.
Jimmyarm said:
We seem to be veering off topic.
The royal family should be leading by example.
If they disagree with the law of the land then one would presume they know what to do.
Well Princess Anne has been charged with and found guilty of speeding at least once. Unless under formal escort then the Royal Family are subject to the same laws as us, although technically The Queen is exempt as she cant prosecute herself. As far as I know the Royal Family only have formal escorts when on official business.The royal family should be leading by example.
If they disagree with the law of the land then one would presume they know what to do.
The other reason for driving at 88mph is presumably to ensure they dont get gawpers driving alongside saying its Prince Charles etc.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff