Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

The 10%+3mph used to be there because of the immense amount of paperwork
required. In these times of speed cameras, that's much more automated
than it used to be (i.e. when all speeding tickets had to be produced
and processed by hand, and were the result of actually being stopped by
a real human copper).

Irrespective of any standing orders, you almost always stood the risk of
being done for doing 1mph over the limit, it would be filed in the
category "things we could do you for if we really wanted to go to town
on you, sonny".

I know that for a while certain constabularies had standing orders to
not stop cars under 100mph on motorways unless there was a good reason.
An admittance that of itself 100mph was not necessarily always dangerous
and that officers generally had better things to do.

 

Which is a lot more dangerous than doing 10mph.
--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger"
"Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.upce.org.uk

 

It's on the registration document. Do try to KUATB!

And your basis for that assertion is...? Oh, you made it up. Right then.

Motor deference is taught from a very young age already. Maybe that's why
so many kids think they own the road when they finally get behind the
wheel...

ITYM http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="speeding+kills"+site:gov.uk

So now I have - nearly twelve links. Impressive.

If you don't understand then I can't explain it to you. It is blindingly
obvious.

No, because the stick is part of the carrot. What happened to drink-driving
offences after there was a realistic chance of detection and
disqualification?

You can teach road sense without promoting the car. Getting more kids
cycling to school, for example, would achieve the same aim.

So how do you account for the continued illegal behaviour once they hit
middle-age? Driving seems ot be one area where people do not become
noticeably more compliant with maturing years.

I'd rather the punishments were meaningful, pour encourager les autres.

You assume that road sense can only be taught from a car-centric viewpoint.
That is false.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

30 is more dangerous then had he been doing 25. Why arent limits 25mph?

 

Actually the GBH attracted a more severe sentence than the tyre slashing.
By 8 months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2869009.stm - Baxter had at least one
previous conviction for assault following a traffic tantrum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3632417.stm - and note
the stated reason for his behaviour.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

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

You're assuming the fundamental honesty again.

What about those cars that *aren't* registered to a nice fundamentally
honest middle class person at his true home address, or aren't correctly
displaying the right plate?

In practice, that doesn't happen. The last three or four plates I've had
made have involved a quick phone call, then a wait of an hour or two until
they're delivered.

Again, there's the assumption of fundamental honesty.

Clue : The bad people probably have other routes to get these things made
than wandering into Halfords.

 

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

Genuine question - Do they still do cycle proficiency tests at school?
If not, why not?

I know my parents wouldn't let me cycle on the road until I'd taken it.

<Yes, I know I've responded to other points in that post in another reply,
but this is such a different tack it deserves not to be lost>

 

I don't. I assume that 90% of them are due to driver error, i.e. would be
preventable if people drove more carefully. That figure was quoted to me by
an road taffic incident investigator. His personal view was that most
crashes could essentially be traced back to impatience.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Are you sure about the photo bit? I got a plate from Halfrauds just over a
year ago, and didn't need a photo. They /did/ want the V5 and, IIRC, 2
separate proofs of address.

 

Could this be because on the speed-limited parts of the Autobahnen (of which
there are many), the locals actually take note of the speed limits? Stick
to 130 km/h on most autoroutes and you'll be the slowest car on the road...

 

How did it get there?

From you actually, earlier in the thread remember:

You: I have no caring if someone wants to see if my car was on a certain
road at a certain time,
Me: Not your car, a simiar number plate to yours.
You: In which case I get a new one.

So put them "behind the wheel" earlier.

That's twelve more than before

Well, you could say "all other things being equal" if you made cars out of
marsh mallows they would be safer... It is meaningless.

Like I said, if you need the stick you've done something wrong before. Is
it only "fear of detection" that stops you murdering everyone you come
across?

When you consider that most adults drive why resist teaching good driving
habits from an early age?

It's the "compliance" with arbitrary regulations that _is_ the problem.
Educate and de-regulate - make a difference.

I'd rather we all respected each other.

No. I assume that as most children will drive in later life they might be
better at it if they are coached in the skills from an early age.

 

Not every time then. The other times you were in the queue that lost the
advantage.

 

Open it up and the noise level can be loud enough to considered as physical
assault.

 

OK, like _most_ *accidents* then.

Engendered by poor education, poor infrastructure and poor transport policy.
Lets blame the poor punters shall we?

 

Look you cant have it both ways. Either speed is dangerous (germany and
france are faster and have a higher death rate then the UK), or there are
other factors (germany is faster then france, and has a lower death rate).
In the later case arguing against an 80mph limit on the UK motorway's
using this justification is stupid

 

70 was a limit and not a reflection of the speed most people routinely
cruised at (which was lower).

Perfectly? No, it is the comfort (isolation) that often gives the perception
of safety. All technical gains over the last 30 years are likely to be used
up by going less than 20% faster.

Would you like it to go to a rigidly enforced 80?

 

Huge accusing someone of hair splitting.

Who'd have thought it?

 

Let me introduce you to Mssrs Reducto, Ad and Absurdum.

I'd place the emphasis on the Absurd, but that's just me.

 

But as the driver knows a police officer on duty is not bound by speed
limits when they prevent the officer doing his duty....

 

There is suggestion that when limits were raised, people increased seat belt
wearing rates. Remember, wearing rates are lower than Europe.

Also, it seems unrealistic to extrapolate freeway speed/casualty rates to
effect of speed in urban situations