Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.



Trevor Barton wrote:

>> Fascinating. So how could you tell from looking at my car
>> the date and time on which my contract changed so that I
>> will no longer lose my job if I am not in possession of a
>> current UK driving licence?

> No, it's the obvious clues. The distracted manner, the
> reading of the newspaper when you're on the move because
> it's the only time you have to yourself, the mobile phone
> because you have to let Sue in the office know that Jerry
> is expecting to meet you in the layby on the
> A65. As soon as you no longer need to drive for your job
> you don't do any of these things, obviously, so
> suddenly you become a courteous and law-abiding
> driver.

Heh! After I sold the second (my) car I started doing most
of my business travel by train. So much more civilised! And
my new job does not require me to have a driving licence,
although it is in many ways similar to the old job. Funny
old world.

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!
 
In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving, 'Just
zis Guy, you know?' wrote:

>>They also say I should not cause a hazard by sitting in
>>front of someone that wishes I wasn't.
>
>Fundamental error. The hazard is not you, it is the
>aggressive speedophile behind you.

And the position of greatest hazard is... ?
- Right in front of him or her.

>Their reactions and attitude are entirely wrong, and it
>will be their driving, not yours, which is most likely to
>cause a crash.

But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense that
causes them to crash into *me*.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]
 
Dave J <[email protected]> said:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:

*snip*

>>Their reactions and attitude are entirely wrong, and it
>>will be their driving, not yours, which is most likely to
>>cause a crash.
>
> But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense that
> causes them to crash into *me*.

I disagree, it's rather more impolite for a speeding
driver to crash into the back of someone obeying the limit
and the law.

Some retard rudely tailgating and/or attempting to whizz
past in an unsafe fashion are both intimidating, whatever
mode of transport one is using.

Regards,

-david
 
Dave J <[email protected]> said:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:

*snip*

>>Their reactions and attitude are entirely wrong, and it
>>will be their driving, not yours, which is most likely to
>>cause a crash.
>
> But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense that
> causes them to crash into *me*.

I disagree, it's rather more impolite for a speeding
driver to crash into the back of someone obeying the limit
and the law.

Some retard rudely tailgating and/or attempting to whizz
past in an unsafe fashion are both intimidating, whatever
mode of transport one is using.

Regards,

-david
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:03:09 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
Firth) wrote in message <1gdzivv.16r9ebc4gnlbpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>> Although safe driving experts such as Paul Ripley have
>> been known to mention that safe drivers keep within
>> the law...

>And he has also stated that drivers who obstruct others are
>more of a menace than those who use speed appropriately
>when passing slower traffic.

Which, of course, they have no reason (or right) to do if
the "slower traffic" is already travelling at the speed
limit. Or are you conveniently ignoring that bit?

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
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:03:09 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
Firth) wrote in message <1gdzivv.16r9ebc4gnlbpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>> Although safe driving experts such as Paul Ripley have
>> been known to mention that safe drivers keep within
>> the law...

>And he has also stated that drivers who obstruct others are
>more of a menace than those who use speed appropriately
>when passing slower traffic.

Which, of course, they have no reason (or right) to do if
the "slower traffic" is already travelling at the speed
limit. Or are you conveniently ignoring that bit?

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
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:20:49 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>>>They also say I should not cause a hazard by sitting in
>>>front of someone that wishes I wasn't.

>>Fundamental error. The hazard is not you, it is the
>>aggressive speedophile behind you.

>And the position of greatest hazard is... ?
>- Right in front of him or her.

Immaterial. You are not causing the hazard. If and when they
get past you they will merely be a hazard to someone else.
In some ways you could see it as your civic duty to restrain
their urge to speed...

>>Their reactions and attitude are entirely wrong, and it
>>will be their driving, not yours, which is most likely to
>>cause a crash.

>But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense that
>causes them to crash into *me*.

never been the best policy for dealing with them.

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
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:20:49 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>>>They also say I should not cause a hazard by sitting in
>>>front of someone that wishes I wasn't.

>>Fundamental error. The hazard is not you, it is the
>>aggressive speedophile behind you.

>And the position of greatest hazard is... ?
>- Right in front of him or her.

Immaterial. You are not causing the hazard. If and when they
get past you they will merely be a hazard to someone else.
In some ways you could see it as your civic duty to restrain
their urge to speed...

>>Their reactions and attitude are entirely wrong, and it
>>will be their driving, not yours, which is most likely to
>>cause a crash.

>But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense that
>causes them to crash into *me*.

never been the best policy for dealing with them.

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
 
Steve Firth wrote:

>> Ah, right, so if you don't know the road you should
>>exceed the  speed limit

> No, if you don't know the road you should allow other
>traffic to  pass,

Of course if you are doing the speed limit, you cannot, by
definition, be holding other traffic up, since they may not
legally go any faster. If you move out of their way you are
arguably aiding and abetting someone in the commission of an
offence.  Naughty.  All that is, of course, a long way from
the original suggestion that people deliberately obstruct
overtaking.  I have not seen that except in very rare
circumstances (and all have been horse boxes, as far as I
can recall).

> Sadly most drivers now feel that it is their duty to
>obstruct others.

So most people are now obeying the speed limit?
 Excellent news.

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
 
Steve Firth wrote:

>> Ah, right, so if you don't know the road you should
>>exceed the  speed limit

> No, if you don't know the road you should allow other
>traffic to  pass,

Of course if you are doing the speed limit, you cannot, by
definition, be holding other traffic up, since they may not
legally go any faster. If you move out of their way you are
arguably aiding and abetting someone in the commission of an
offence.  Naughty.  All that is, of course, a long way from
the original suggestion that people deliberately obstruct
overtaking.  I have not seen that except in very rare
circumstances (and all have been horse boxes, as far as I
can recall).

> Sadly most drivers now feel that it is their duty to
>obstruct others.

So most people are now obeying the speed limit?
 Excellent news.

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
 
On 18 May 2004 14:00:10 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes - they
>should. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#145

You forgot to include
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 - and the meaning
which attaches to the word "MUST" in the Highway Code.

Obviously you wouldn't stand on an advisory rule in the
Highway Code to require people to allow others to break a
law which is also described in the Code - that would be
hypocritical.

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? <[email protected]> wrote:
> PeterE wrote:
>
>>> I propose revoking the license of anybody incapable of
>>> understanding the simple and unambiguous text of rule
>>> 145. All in favour?
>
>> Nah, we'd have no truckers left, so nothing would get
>> delivered.
>
> There would be nothing to deliver anyway as all the
> tractors would be off the roads.

IME many tractor drivers have a very good understanding of
the principle of Rule 145.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Although safe driving experts such as Paul Ripley have
> been known to mention that safe drivers keep within
> the law...

They have also been known to mention that competent drivers
do not obstruct others.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The rules by which I drive give me priority within my
> lane; anyone who wants me out of that lane or who wants in
> can bloody well wait until I judge that it's safe for me
> to change my position. Since I alone am responsible for
> the safety of my vehicle, that is the only way it can be.

Does that override the advice in the Highway Code that, on a
multi-lane road, if the lane to your left is clear you
should move into it when safe to do so?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:21:09 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>IME many tractor drivers have a very good understanding of
>the principle of Rule 145.

Especially the three which drove in convoy at a stately
25mph for overiles from St Clears, accumulating one of the
most impressive tailbacks I have ever seen along the way.

I like to race tractors on my bike. I quite often win :)

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
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:21:09 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>IME many tractor drivers have a very good understanding of
>the principle of Rule 145.

Especially the three which drove in convoy at a stately
25mph for overiles from St Clears, accumulating one of the
most impressive tailbacks I have ever seen along the way.

I like to race tractors on my bike. I quite often win :)

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
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:22:27 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> Although safe driving experts such as Paul Ripley have
>> been known to mention that safe drivers keep within
>> the law...

>They have also been known to mention that competent drivers
>do not obstruct others.

I see. So you want me to follow Ripley's advice not to
"obstruct" you in order that you can ignore his advice and
speed. Hmmm. What's wrong with this picture?

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
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:24:30 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> The rules by which I drive give me priority within my
>> lane; anyone who wants me out of that lane or who wants
>> in can bloody well wait until I judge that it's safe for
>> me to change my position. Since I alone am responsible
>> for the safety of my vehicle, that is the only way it
>> can be.

>Does that override the advice in the Highway Code that, on
>a multi-lane road, if the lane to your left is clear you
>should move into it when safe to do so?

Which part of "until I judge that it's safe for me to change
my position" did you have trouble understanding?

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? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:21:09 +0100, "PeterE"
> <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> IME many tractor drivers have a very good understanding
>> of the principle of Rule 145.
>
> Especially the three which drove in convoy at a stately
> 25mph for overiles from St Clears, accumulating one of the
> most impressive tailbacks I have ever seen along the way.

As we have often discussed, "many" does not necessarily
mean "most".

I have also from time to time encountered friendly
behaviour from truckers who have helped following traffic
to pass, although regrettably this seems to be becoming
less common nowadays.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:

>>And the position of greatest hazard is... ?
>>- Right in front of him or her.
>
>Immaterial. You are not causing the hazard. If and when
>they get past you they will merely be a hazard to someone
>else. In some ways you could see it as your civic duty to
>restrain their urge to speed...

And become a martyr to a cause I don't even believe in. I
doubt that to be a good idea.

>>>Their reactions and attitude are entirely wrong, and it
>>>will be their driving, not yours, which is most likely to
>>>cause a crash.
>
>>But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense that
>>causes them to crash into *me*.
>

>never been the best policy for dealing with them.

No, the best policy is usually to get out of the way.

Making them angry without teaching them anything beyond
confirming a belief that the rest of the population are
obstructive fools is not really a clever idea.

Thinking it safe to go at a faster speed than I am capable
is not a reason to be angry, having me deliberately obstruct
his progress is.

In your case it's even worse because the *only* reason you
think it safe to drive at your chosen speed is that it
happens to be the speed 'limit'

Maybe your speedo is innacurate and you're driving at 6mph
*below* the speed limit, in which case you are obstructing
without even being correct.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
0
Views
503
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
D
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
0
Views
542
UK and Europe
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
D
T
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
7
Views
631
UK and Europe
Gawnsoft
G
J
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
149
Views
4K
UK and Europe
Dave J
D
A
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
167
Views
5K
UK and Europe
Gawnsoft
G
Top Bottom Back