Is tooth brushing water from hot tap safer than from cold tap?

Following up to Guy King

Its a pity that's not working, it obviously depends on people not hiding indoors. Only lunatic drivers will go fast with no idea where people are going to be, I was hoping that idea might be a winner. Segregation often seems such a failure. People struggling with heavy shopping harassed by yobs on skateboards and then there's the street entertainers.

Following up to Adrian Tupper

nobody should be encouraged to drive faster than they feel they cam cope with but they should use the leftmost lane available. Unfortunately they don't, probably partly lack of skills, lack of thought and in the case of a person I discussed it with in real life, laziness and selfishness.

dangerous driving IMHO. Careless is for mistakes, dangerous for intentional, but I'm not a lawyer and as I wouldn't want speeding on motorways to be dangerous driving I'm stuck with intentional dangerous manoeuvres being careless I suppose. These people are the worst drivers I see apart from those in towns on mobiles paying little attention to what they are doing. Confiscate the phone on the spot I say.

Its worth maintaining a good average speed, but in any sort of traffic nothing you do makes a significant difference at all. The best thing is too smooth the traffic by letting people out/merge etc. I average nearly 70 on London Aberdeen, not by doing stupid things in traffic, but by going fast on empty roads (I don't set off in the rush hour of course). I'm much more likely to be fined than the lunatics, because I'm breaking the speed limit, about the only motoring offence anybody does anything much about nowadays. On that run I will probably see two patrol cars, they don't do a lot, maybe cause a rolling road block for a while. There will be a "safety camera" on a bridge in Cumbria, fining people for doing 85 on a empty road, which I think is utterly pointless. I think you can drive like a total prat nowadays, as long as you stay within the speed limit and don't crash, nobody will stop you. The combination of that, congestion and lane hogging are IMHO lowering the standard of motorway driving. But traffic police are expensive and speed cameras make a profit, so that's the way it will be policed in future.

Following up to Ophelia

then there's no way he can be at fault unless maybe stopping without good reason on a no stopping allowed road.

|Following up to Dave Plowman (News) | |>> They all deny that it has any effect, and also swear blind that they are |>> *not* alcoholics. |>

|>A heavy drinker isn't necessarily an alcoholic. Addiction means you simply |>*can't* stop without external help. | |Dave (the other one I assume your making the mistake of talking |to) works with alkies and cant see that the majority of people |are not like that. |For the record Dave F, I dont think alcohol has no effect and Ive |never met anybody who did, however the small amount you mentioned |doesnt, but why am I bothering? Youre too pig headed to ever hear |anything you didnt already "know".

Pot, Kettle Black :-(

Then he really should learn about the subject. A few open AA meetings would be a start - as well as reading some of the vast amount available from a search.

The message from Adrian Tupper contains these words:

Actually, they're mostly OK, it was because it was so out of the ordinary that it stuck in my mind.

A few years ago, my B-I-L was pulled over for going at 91mph. The cop told him that if he'd been going at 90mph, they wouldn't have stopped him - he just pushed them a bit too much. After that, he set the speed warning thingy in his BMW to ping at 89mph. I understand that things are more restrictive now and the cops wouldn't be so generous. Graham

Following up to graham

the safety cameras will I think do you for 70 + 10% + 2 = 82. Your "indicated" is likely to be very slightly more. A patrol car probably doesn't want the aggro for 83 mph.

I know of someone getting a ticket for 32mph in a 30mph limit.

The same goes for people who *choose* not to go faster. There are other reasons, apart from "not feeling able to cope" for going slower than the limit.

This is true for many people.

Rubbish. People who want to drive faster should be able to deal with slower drivers in a safe manner. If they can't, they should not be on the road.

No. The Highway Code says you shouldn't do this. A following policeman will Have Words.

Is it possible that he was doing something else wrong? From ACPO's guidelines:

The guidance to police officers is that it is anticipated that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the issue of fixed penalty notices and summonses is likely to be the minimum appropriate enforcement action as soon as the following speeds have been reached:

Limit Fixed Penalty Summons 20 mph 25 mph 35 mph 30 mph 35 mph 50 mph 40 mph 46 mph 66 mph 50 mph 57 mph 76 mph 60 mph 68 mph 86 mph 70 mph 79 mph 96 mph

This guidance does not and cannot replace the police officer's discretion and they may decide to issue a summons or a fixed penalty notice in respect of offences committed at speeds lower than those set out in the table. Moreover, in particular circumstances, driving at speeds lower than the legal limit may result in prosecution for other offences, for example dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention when the speed is inappropriate and inherently unsafe.

Following up to John Cartmell

that's very unusual as the chief constables recommendation for the margin gives (thinks)......35 mph. Or probably an indicated

Following up to Chris Bacon

I think you may have completely misread this thread as your comments don't seem to make sense but I'll reply as best I can.

I don't think anyone thinks otherwise. Speed limits are not targets.

Not sure what you are getting at?

Who said otherwise? Perhaps you should understand what you're reading before you comment, to clarify, we are speaking of those who undertake and cut in, not fast drivers meeting slower drivers.

for racing on public roads you may well be arrested. But "racing" was in quotes in this "experiment".

In this case it was a speed camera. Twenty metres before an unrestricted sign, late at night, no pedestrians, no other vehicles, clear road, clear weather.

It can happen here if they have one of their selective enforcement campaigns, i.e., they blitz motorists for a week on some item such as a dead tail-light or they apply the speed limits very strictly. A speed cop once told me that he added 5% to the setting on the camera which annoyed me when I got a ticket in the mail for 103kph in a 100kph zone. At least here they treat speed camer tickets as 'property' offences (they send the ticket to the owner of the vehicle) and you don't get points. Graham

On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:59:03 +0100 someone who may be John Cartmell wrote this:-

Excellent news. The more of these criminals that are caught and punished the better.

Most criminals whine about how they are not real criminals, the law should be enforced against someone else and they are being picked upon.

exactly!! Anyway.. the Insurance company is paying out so that says it all!