Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

That's offences under the Construction & Use regs, not Road Traffic
Act. But that's hairsplitting, of course.

You want the C&U Regs done away with? What other forms of anarchy do
you propose?

Guy

 

Depends if your lack of MoT is because your car has no brakes and is
riddled with rust, I'd say.

Guy

 

If you meant the *annual* mileage of the *average* car decreases as it
ages, then you'd be right. But what you said was the *average*
mileage of *a* car, which, in the case of several of my former cars,
is flat wrong.

Yes, I was winding you up

Guy

 

Better to hang the innocent than that one guilty person escapes punishment?

There may well be a better way. I wouldn't assume that we have arrived at
the perfect solution.

But may well need to go to a lot of trouble to clear their name if their
plate has been used. Better surely to reserve the use of plates to helping
with serious crime solving, in a similar way to phone taps, where special
authority would be needed to reveal the "keeper" of a plate.

How? Logging everyone's journies you mean? Why bother with number plates,
a personal chip could be used, and criminals, not just motorists, could be
tracked then too.

A different treatment of "drunk" drivers might be more effective?

How? That wouldn't impact ANPR at all. What about old cars?

Matt
--

 

AndrewR wrote:

Funny then that the Germans are thinking seriously of introducing a new
limit on their famously unrestricted autobahn. And the limit is ......
130kph (81mph) -
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1255905,00.html

Tony

 

Yes, that seems to fit my definition of "shadowy" pretty well, or maybe
"shady".

If, as you said, they're not connected with safety then they are at least
arbitary and probably unfair as well.

That would be the poll tax that was abandoned after widespread refusal to
pay it?


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

That was obviously a deliberate attempt to invoke Godwin's Law which
automatically invalidates the attempt.

Tony

 

AndrewR () gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Again, a race can is hardly going to make you *less* safe - might even
decrease the SMIDSYs - "Are you f'kin deaf as well as blind?"

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

Because, of course, every car without an MOT is a completely unsafe shed,
and every car with is ready for concours...

 

JohnB () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Not in the slightest.

An MOT is a piece of paper, and absolutely nothing more.

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

You're making the huge mistake of assuming there's any relationship between
an MOT certificate and roadworthiness. There isn't.

 

So, as I've said, you hide from this hugely amoral thing that you do, even
though you recognise its enormity and placate your guilt by trying to pick
away at the fringes of the death toll and then try to take the moral
high-ground!

Ah, so what I suggested was true then. We appreciate that it's too
expensive, too difficult and too unpopular to make people better drivers, so
we'll just make do with the crap drivers that we have and make them go
slower.

Right, so your statistics are "incontrovertible evidence", but ours are just
"statistical humbug".

I deny they were fallacies, you merely contend that they were.

You're back to your inequal anologies again, aren't you? Why? Because
there isn't a situation on clear road, with good visibility, away from
pedestrians and with good conditions where it will actually do any harm to
be over the speed limit by a small amount.

The killer here is "all other things being equal". I agree that it's better
to be hit at 20mph than 30mph, but that doesn't automatically equal "speed
kills". If the collision takes place because of the higher speed then you
may have a case, but the truth is that bad driving is what causes the
problem and the speed of impact just makes things worse.

However, you seem keen to tackle the aggrivating factor while ignoring the
casual one.

Yet where are the extended driving tests? The vehicle power limits? The
compulsory off-road training prior to being allowed to learn to drive?

Bikers have had to accept those things. If we trained drivers better and
then encouraged them to keep on learning and kept on testing them then we
might actually end up with good drivers, who can make good decisions.

But that's too tough and too unpopular, isn't it? Let's just stick up a few
more speed cameras and pretend they're not just a cynical money-making
scheme.

It was supposed to be mildly humourous, that's why I stuck a smiley on the
end.

Rubbish, lots of rules have nothing to do with driving or killing anyone.

Your blanket statement was that "rules are good". Anybody who thinks like
that is dangerous.

That is you advocate prosecuting people who do 80mph on the motorway.

For heaven's sake, man, why must you skirt around this issue?

Good for you and how nice for the rest of us that you've chosen the
evangelical path.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Getting rid of democracy, for a start.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

As opposed to the reduced speed limits, traffic calming and
enforcement cameras which are installed after widespread demand for
them from local residents, yes.

Guy

 

Actually there is - at least at one point. You think the MoT should
be done away with as well? Any other forms of anarchy you'd like to
see?

Guy

 

Why does the MoT exist? Because large numbers of people were driving
completely unroadworthy vehicles. Why do many people not have an MoT?
Because they know the car will fail.

Guy

 

AndrewR () gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

No, no, no. The yoof of today are too thick to pass proper driving tests,
so - like GCSEs, A-levels and degrees - we're making 'em easier.

*Ding* - it's better not to be hit at all.

Yet we're removing all policing from the cause and putting it onto the
symptom. A symptom that may or may not be related to that one cause only.

That implies a degree of reluctance when they were introduced - was
there?

What's the general UKRM feeling - CBT/DAS/33bhp is a good thing?

<applause>

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

Bwahahahahahah - you're funny, Guy, you really are.

 

JohnB () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But it does not *inherently* imply any reduction in safety.

Getting wankered then driving is inherently unsafe, no argument.

 

I've come across morons who argue that they drive slower and take more
care having had five pints in the pub.

John B