I haven't watched the news properly in about 6 months - It seems now every story reminds me of stories of Eurasia from 1984, or things from V For Vendetta - i.e. a Sci-Fi Britain-oppressed-in-the-future sort of film...
so why do you believe in giving up freedoms to supposedly protect you from an even more unlikely death?
then again you even believe the bs about them hating you for your freedom so i guess all reason is lost on you
Police (and most people) assume that going above the speedlimit is dangerous, outright. This simply isn't the case. People who go 90mph on a perfectly open, fast flowing and visible A-road that they know well or doing 110mph down the Motorway at night is very safe.
What's not safe is going 50mph in 30mph limits which normally indicate a built up area with lots of pedestrians.
As they say, it's not the speed that kills you. It's the sudden stop that happens when you crash.
Some speed limits are just plain ridiculous, I agree. There's a two mile stretch of road near our house, where my Mum got her only two penalty points. It's perfectly straight, wide enough for three cars (there is only two lanes though), and there are no houses on either side. There is a cement factory entrance at the end of it though. She was pulled for doing 65km/h in a 60km/h zone
This country has become so laughable lately. We were once feared as the potato eating warriors of the West, but now we're the land of benefits
You're ignoring the fact that a speed limit is a compromise. You must take into account:
- Some drivers have less than perfect eyesight, reflexes, and car control.
- Some cars are in a less than perfect condition (worn tires, etc.)
- Faster driving produces more pollution (exhaust gases and noise).
- Unfavourable weather conditions.
- There are times when there are lots of cars on the road.
- Differences in speed (between cars and lorries or bicyclists) are extra dangerous.
- The limit should apply to a longer stretch of road. Otherwise you'd have to brake and speed up a lot, the cost of placing road signs increases, and drivers get confused about the current speed limit.
The speed limit must be safe in the majority of these cases.
Then they should maintain their vehicle. You're taught (at least you are on a bike test) the checks you need to make, such as tyres, chains (not relevant), lights and the general controls.
If you're going 30mph in 3rd or 60mph in 5th you'll find the revs are pretty much the same, so emissions are generally unchanged. Besides, cars have to pass noise emission laws, as well as engine emissions.
This is why the good drivers slow down in fog or at times where the road surface is less than desiered.
Again, being a good and alert driver.
It's not often you see a cylist going down a fast flowing A-road or motorway. The few times I have seen them on the A4 (Main road around here) they're halfway out into the road anyway. Maybe hitting a few of them would teach them not to take half the road up.
Signs are there for a reason, which are paid for with the money we pay in taxes. Signage is fine currently.
Yup, take for example the 70mph limit on the motorway. This was set in 1965 because AC cars would take cars out on public roads at speeds of up to 180mph.
In town, limits are fine. On open roads, not so sure.
Myth - in planning for years before and the government used it as the "last straw" to sound less evil.
Case in point - I was doing 80 on the A14 (i know - naughty me) which is the local motorway-come-dual-carriageway- came round a small bend and guess what there was - a sodding tractor doing 30 (:really with cars all swerving to avoid it. During a driving lesson I did the same (at 65) and came round a bend to find a queue of cars following a boat (literally a proper yacht boat taking up over 2 lanes on a trailer) doing about 20.
But according to S14 DRIFT and his obvious worldly years of experience from driving, you'd have rightly been doing 100mph and used your X-ray eyes to see through the corner and anticipated the slow moving vehicle. Or even better, they wouldn't be there as anything moving slowly has no right to be in your way.
If you couldn't see round a corner you'd use your god damned brain and engage that before you engage your throttle.
Basically, the rule of thumb is if you can't see round a corner, assume there's gunna be a f*cking great big digger in the middle of the road.
Jack, if the bend was that small, I guess you'd be able to see round it, so the problem shouldn't be there. Unless the small bend is more like a 180R at Suzuka.
Again I don't think that a tractor should be allowed on the A14, but then i've realised the only person rules actually apply to are learners - whenever i'm on the A14 (i drive to work on it so i'm on it alot) I count the number of people who indicate to overtake me and usually it's about 5 people out of the 50 or 60 who have overtaken me. Same with people who aren't in the right lane in roundabouts, or chose to go for the middle of BOTH lanes.
AAAAH!
Other rant - "he's a learner, lets overtake him even though he's doing 37 in a 30 - lets go at 50"
EDIT - It's a little curve in the road, but at 70 even a little curve which you can't see round only takes a second to get round...
Motorway laws are the same kind of thing here. No vehicle less than 50cc, no learners (), and no vehicles that can't do more than 50km/h. The A14 is really a dual-carriageway though, so that's all fair game.
I have no idea if it was allowed on the motorway, but the police were escorting the boat (i.e. a bunch of fat policeman asleep in their Volvo's parked on roundabouts doing sod-all on Sunday double-time!).
The A14 = a double carriageway, not a motorway (even though they are virtually identical), so even though it's 2 lanes each way and 70 mph i'd imagine a lot more "goes".
EDIT - Dougie beat me, but you can't ride a 50cc scooter on a motorway, for example, but you can ride it on the A14 which is also 70 MPH and just as busy in places - crazy!
Under police escort any vehicle can go on any road, i've seen yachts being transported up the M11 before, and those mysterous flat back lorries with the big phallus shaped thing under a cover too. And this weekend in Huntingdon a lot of road illegal cars came trundling round the ring road with a police escort aswell...
I dont know about you, but i'll settle for the chance of a nuclear blast and the ocassional delay behind a boat that thinks its a car anyday, if it meens I get to drool over cars like these so up close and personal as I did this weekend...
Left: Alan Jones' Beatrice F1
Right Front to Back: [current] Lola LMP2, I forget, Malaysian A1GP car, F3, I forget, Really old Formula Ford type thing
But you punish dangerous driving (i.e. excessive speeding for the conditions) which is a much MUCH better idea imo...
(i.e. the "i'm a safe driver, I always do 70, even when it's raining so hard i can't even see where i'm going and am driving through puddles an inch deep and feet wide / long" brigade).
As for the rest of the article and the govt plans it references, it's quite frightening just how prophetic George Orwell really was. It's also quite saddening how apathetic most people seem to be over these things. You'd think there would be talk of it everywhere, protests in every city, riots outside Parliament, over the prospect of the government logging every email, phone call, or website visit. But everyone just sits and lets it happen, not realising and not caring what it represents.
It's been common practice for years to receive a phone bill with the dates/times/duration of calls- it's how the phone company proves to you that you owe them the money they're asking. I would imagine the same holds true for website listings- although I agree that the current style plans of throttling back to dial-up speeds when going over a prescribed limit negate the usefulness or appropriateness of such a list these days..
Phone companies keep details about your phone calls only for 3 months, and strictly for billing purposes. Government can only access the data if it has a warrant from a judge. They keep it for 3 months in case the customer disputes the bill. After that, the data is wiped.
ISPs never had any reason to register surfing behaviour or e-mail details. Most subscriptions are flat-fee, the rest is based on connection time or the amount of data.
If more details are stored, it's because the government wants to get its hands on the data.
I think it's because it is so hard to see the consequences. Most people only wake up when they see the damage it can do.
The most effective would be to hire a detective agency to search the digital trail of a few important MPs. Find out what they buy in the supermarket, who they mail and call, what's on their tax form, etc. You can find out a lot by purely legal means, and more with some social engineering. Then publish it.
), and no vehicles that can't do more than 50km/h. The 