think I have done the right thing telling you all, you best check

[Tom S]

What do you mean 'moving', Mr Pot?

[coupwotcoup]

Well discussing the idiosyncrasies of Daily papers is hardly keeping me awake.

[Arkwright]

Quote:

coupwotcoup? said:
I think you guys are moving into trite drivel territory!

Can't argue with that.
It seems LS has backed himself into a corner (Pun intended).
Obviously the laws as related to driving mustn't apply to him & he should be allowed to drive exactly how he wants with no thought or care to any other road user.

[Mr Happy]

Quote:

Arkwright said:

Quote:

lovely stuff said:
Ahh.The UN-Independent.

The only paper more left wing that the Guardian. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ban.gif" alt="" />

What exactly has that got to do with things?.
Do you only obey the laws that suit you?.
Oh yes, before you ask I don't read the Guardian, Independent or Sun.

We know. you were spotted with a copy of the Daily Sport in the supporters hut last season. Mind you, wasn't that a copy of Razzle Dazzle you had within it's pages!!!

[lovely stuff]

I adhere to the law,and i accept punishment if i get caught breaking them.I'm saying that the current speeding laws for motorways are 30-40 years out of date.Its the same with the highway code,the breaking distances we all learn for our drivingtest are actually from a 1972 Ford Anglia.Top gear had a test last year,and concluded that modern cars (In this case a Ford Focus)braking figures were nearly half the distance as that stated in the highway code.

 

I also feel i'm justified in criticizing the lack of regulation or consultaion with regard to local councils having carte blance to impose any artifical restrictions they like,or place humps,islands,traffic calming islands whever they feel like it,Once they are in place ,they will never be removed.

 

The motorists life is being made a misery by ideological dreamers who believe they know best.If a motorist spends 4k a year in tax,they have the right to good service.The same as a train traveller who buys a yearly ticket expects a good service.Instead of making the roads as free flowing as possible in order to cope with the huge rise in city populatuions,the government think it is clever to make the roads LESS free flowing ,in order to blackmail drivers out of their cars.They want us to buy new cars and pay very high amounts of tax,but then they constantly make the car driver feel guilty,and generally criminalise the motorist.

 

Heres my theory on freeing up traffic.

1.Ban bus lanes,there totally inefficient.That would double the size of a lot highstreets.

2.Figures show that one in seven drivers at anyone time are driving aroud looking for a place to park.Scrap all yellow lines and parking meters that arn't neccessary.

3.Scrap all speed humps (apart from outside schools) replace them with Camera's IF necceassary.

4. Up to 20% of all drivers are either uninsured,have no tax,driving licencse..etc.A major clampdown on those people (maybe with computer/camera technolgy) would reduce traffic a lot.

 

Thats the way to get traffic moving,Mr Livingstone,not by spending 50 milliom on a extra lane for the bussiest part of the north Circ,and then making the extra lane a bus lane. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wall.gif" alt="" />

 

Don't forget traffic congestion cost businesses over 2 Billion each year.

[Mr Happy]

I agree, but on a far more serious note, what do people think about Celebrity Love Island?

[Tom S]

"I adhere to the law" - well if that's the case you don't need to worry about the speed cameras, so what were we arguing about?

 

"Blackmail people out of their cars" - or, put another way, persuade people like me that they don't NEED to use their cars all the time, thus freeing up space for those who really do need to. Encouraging bus, tube and train use by those for whom it is a genuine alternative is a valid policy.

 

Simply increasing road space as you suggest doesn't improve the situation: figures show that the traffic simply expands to fill the new capacity. Cecil Parkinson's law if you like. And you haven't even addressed the environmental issues of excessive car use.

 

A modern car, when new, no doubt has shorter braking distances than the 1972 Ford Anglia. You can't, however, base your speed limits on that because there are far too many older, possibly poorly maintained, cars out there which are still capable of the high speeds but don't have as efficient brakes and are driven by less than perfect drivers.

[coupwotcoup]

Surely it is incongruous to use the words Think and Celebrity Love Island in the same sentence?

How about Celebrity Suicide? A quick and simple way to get rid of some of these E list celebrities.

[Tom S]

I can't comment on Celebrity Love Island, other than to say that I have absolutely no intention of watching it.

[Mr Happy]

Oh, come on where are all you red hot blooded males. Surely Abi Titmas gets som eof you old foggies going. Mind you, yes the programme is sh*t!

[coupwotcoup]

Have you seen her video? Slightly above Paris Hilton's effort on the crap scale.

[Tom S]

Do you mean it's slightly less crap or slightly more crap?

[coupwotcoup]

More or less the same!

[Jim Cunneen]

I come back to the point that a policeman was let off doing 159 mph because a judge thought he was justified in testing his and his cars capabilities. Further he accepted his need for pracise. This has been widely discussed on Radio 5 this morning and is in the Telegraph (just so you know which paper I read - and no I am not a Tory as all who knows me know)

 

 

What hope is there for members of the public to a) drive safely given this mans letting off and getting anywhere safely if this is allowed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/icon_smokin.gif" alt="" />

[zody]

as normal Double Standards, one rule for one

[coupwotcoup]

Nothing to do with double standards. He was testing the car's capabilities in a realistic environment. Car chases happen on built up roads/motorways, so surely it is natural to train for any such eventualities. Why does everybody jump the gun these days instead of checking the facts, in case they may get in the way of good story I presume.

[lovely stuff]

Tom S said:

"I adhere to the law" - well if that's the case you don't need to worry about the speed cameras, so what were we arguing about? But the law on any given stretch of road could be 50mph ,turn the bend and its suddenly 40mph.So you wern't breaking the law on the first stretch,but you suddenly find yourself breaking the law after you turn the bend.So you break sharply in order to maintain your speed inside the law.

 

"Blackmail people out of their cars" - or, put another way, persuade people like me that they don't NEED to use their cars all the time, thus freeing up space for those who really do need to. Encouraging bus, tube and train use by those for whom it is a genuine alternative is a valid policy. [/b] My advice to you Tom,is to apply for a local planning job.You sound just the man the're looking for.I've nothing against pursuading people to use public transport.but you can't artifically slow down roads and discrimate against the driver in order to do that.Roads should be made as free flowing as possible (and public transport decent) before forcing people off the road.Its funny how non car users are so keen to get everybody onto their form of transport.If 10% of car drivers actually took the governments 'advice' and switched to public transport,the system wouldn't be able to cope.Trains are already well overcrowded now in rush hours.You would have to put on more and more trains ,which would slow the system down to unmanageable levels.I think is a disgrace that government policy goes out of its way to hinder the driver,after all 80% of your public transport journey is funded from taxes on motorists.If petrol sales went down 10%,the government would lose billions each year .Its naive politics.A government should make people lives better TODAY.Not have fancifull dreams of how to make the future better,whilst making the present unbearable in trying to achieve that goal

 

 

Simply increasing road space as you suggest doesn't improve the situation: figures show that the traffic simply expands to fill the new capacity. Cecil Parkinson's law if you like. And you haven't even addressed the environmental issues of excessive car use. Figures don't show that ,its a myth .So by that rationale,you would also say 'As soon as we build more houses,demand expands to fill them to capacity'.So we should not build more house for the expanding population?? Surely they could find some other form of shelter.???

 

A modern car, when new, no doubt has shorter braking distances than the 1972 Ford Anglia. You can't, however, base your speed limits on that because there are far too many older, possibly poorly maintained, cars out there which are still capable of the high speeds but don't have as efficient brakes and are driven by less than perfect drivers.The braking distances in the highway code state that the figures are based on the average car,anyway the MOT test is now so strict,that most cars on the road are fairly new and have thoughly tested brakes. [color:"red"] [/color]

[Tom S]

Quote:

coupwotcoup? said:
Why does everybody jump the gun these days instead of checking the facts,

Our tabloid press have been taking that approach for years - or at least omitting those facts that don't fit their agenda.

[zody]

but rules are rules, why do we put up with a crap Royal Mail delivery service, today I got my post as normal at luch time, plus I will have to pay under payment on the postage of a letter.

 

Once I had been sent a letter with 1pence short of the correct postage, had to pay £1 extra, double standards

[Sawbo Shaun]

At last some reason

 

1) Change the Speed limit to 85 on motorways between 9 am and Say 10pm

2) Introduce a 140 mph speed limit between 10 pm and 6 am

3) Introduce a 60 mph linit during busy periods to improve traffic flow due to increased volume.

4) Dug up all speed humps and replace them with cameras.

Strict 29 mile limit in built up areas- why- because it keeps you below 30.

5)Get rid of road tax and put a penny on a litre or whatever coefficient is fair- then we all pay- the more you use the more you pay?

6) Insurance details and MOT in window rather than tax disk

 

Vote Scouse next time <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />