IMHO it is not 'excessive' speed that is the problem, buy
This includes the pillock doing 30 mph in a traffic stream that is
moving at 40mph. I mean what planet is he on that he is unaware of the
traffic flowing all around him.
I met a friend one day who was just off the phone to his daughter.
She had the most amazing story of an accident which had happened right
in front of her on a 3 lane dual carriageway. One car had passed her
on the inside, the other on the outside and then both had attempted to
occupy the empty space in front of her at the same time.
Neither father or daughter could work it out.
Paul Mc Cann
There must be some analogy in there. One person trying to explain the
situation in her left ear, one in her right ear, and the sound waves
interfering destructively in the empty space inside her head ?
And the pillock driving within the speed limit down a narrow street with
cars parked both sides. There are plenty of instances where 30 is excessive,
and presumably illegal if circumstances dictate.
Reminds me of a friend who refers to his credit card limit as a "target".
Cars leaving, entering and crossing from two small side roads on each
If you've ever tried it there you'll agree that cars doing 70+ on the 'clear
open and straight stretches' are a hazzard. Without the camera an F1 start
is required, and would be immpossible to join the A1 in a 7.5 tonner which
has just come from the industrial estate up the eastern side road.
Not normally one to rise to personal abuse, but...
16 years of driving. The drivers I have most problems with are not those
who obey traffic rules, it is those who don't, and in my personal
experience, someone who passes me at 20mph over the speed limit is quite
likely to get in the wrong lane at the next roundabout and exit the
darned thing without signalling (just an example, but you get the idea).
Now you're being facetious :-)
No. The 40 signs are at the beginning of a straight 1/2 mile or so of
wide single carriageway, a little way from the hidden dip part. Half way
down it there is a light-controlled cross-roads. Houses down one side,
couple of petrol stations on the other.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There is *no* safe place to cross this
road. Eastwards is the 60mph section and so very few people walk along
that stretch that it'd be silly to try there. Westwards lie the lights.
The lights, as I said, are timed to ensure an almost continuous flow of
traffic along the main road - this is a *very* busy road during the day.
There are no pedestrian crossings *at all*, and certainly not a
red/green man sequence to the lights. There is one island, on the
Western side of the lights, but it doesn't really make things much
easier, being almost directly outside one of the petrol stations.
Getting to it also means we would have to cross a second (though less
As it happens, we believe the safest place to cross is almost directly
outside our house - about equidistant between the 40mph signs and the
If they were not ignoring the limit they would not be speeding.
I inserted "most" to cover the few occasions where a genuine mistake is
There isn't a bloomin' crossing, and the crossing isn't relevant anyway
to the paragraph to which you are replying.
Ok, I understand what you are saying about people who drive too close.
I really meant something slightly different but...
[snip. can't be bothered]
Fair comment :-)
If you only knew :-)
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk /
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk /
I agree in principle with what you say. However driving slowly does
not equate with driving safely.
On a motorway for example, what is the safest speed to be driving at?
70mph? 50mph? Neither - it's the speed of the rest of the traffic. If
you aren't going at the same speed as the rest of the traffic then you
are either (a) going too fast or (b) going too slow. And slow drivers
relative to the rest of the traffic on a motorway are a PITA.
Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk
Which particular cereal packet did you get this particular nugget of
wisdom from?? My dictionary says that common law is that "derived
from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes" - nowt to do
with "common sense" ...
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
You must be joking.
OED> common law.
OED> [cf. L. ju<nfmac>s commu<nfmac>ne, in Du Cange (where the
OED> expression is used also of France and the Empire). Also F.
OED> droit commun in sense 1.]
OED> <dag> 1. a. The general law of a community, as opposed to
OED> local or personal customs, as of a caste, family, calling,
OED> city, or district. Obs.
OED> 2. The unwritten law of England, administered by the King's
OED> courts, which purports to be derived from ancient and
OED> universal usage, and is embodied in the older commentaries
OED> and the reports of adjudged cases. attrib.
OED> In this sense opposed to statute law; also used for the law
OED> administered by the King's ordinary judges as distinguished
OED> from the equity administered by the Chancery and other
OED> courts of like jurisdiction, and from other systems
OED> administered by special courts, as ecclesiastical and
OED> admiralty law, and (in the Middle Ages) the law merchant. In
OED> U.S.: the body of English legal doctrine which is the
OED> foundation of the law administered in all the States settled
OED> from England, and those formed by later settlement or
OED> division from them.
Just as "Steam gives way to Sail" afloat.
But just try challenging a tanker in your sailing dinghy. Or
wandering across a dual carriageway in front of a heavy lorry.
You'll find your "right to use the highway" won't count for much in
Ahh, but it's that comon sense thing again which is so sadly lacking. What's
90% of pedestrians involved in an accident with a vehicle after the hours of
darkness are drunk?
The crux of the whole speeding laws are a cheap blanket attempt to save
people from their own stupidity and like all the other nanny state solutions
which take responsibility for peoples actions away from them it is
ultimately doomed to failure.
I am a motor cyclist and fit into the category within Hywls mind of bloody
lunatic. I disregard speed limits at all times except when when there are
cmaeras or policemen and drive instead in a manner I consider to be
acceptabl;e for that piece of road. If that happens to be 140 mph then so be
I commute 35 miles eachway into and across London every day. The amount of
people driving who are on the phone, reading the paper, seemingly have no
indicators or fog light off switches, who will change lanes and open doors
with no thought whatsoever for the consequences, is astounding. But hey,
none of them are speeding ,so that's alright.
Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.
Just where did this discussion go from doing all you can to avoid a
collision, to speeding?
Yes, that well-known lobby group the peer-reviewed Royal Statistical
Society Journal. Why not actually read the references before jumping to
conclusions? In fact they show that UK death rates increased by ~8% for
pedestrians and ~13% for cyclists with the introduction of seatbelts in
cars, far outweighing the net reduction in DR for drivers & front seat
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.