[Snip]
So here we have it. The point I am making is this:
Oh goody!
You know (although won't openly admit) that the 70mph legislation is bullshit,
Erm, excuse me? What on earth gives you the idea that I "won't openly admit" that the 70mph legislation is bullshit? Look, I tell you what, if it will make you happier:
THE 70MPH LEGISLATION IS BULLSHIT!!!
There, better now?
But there's a difference between that and *your* proposal of compulsory 70mph limiters on vehicles which was also bullshit.
and that we can (and do) travel at speeds in access of that in complete safety depending on the conditions and situation. Right? But although you or I may be capable of doing so we can't, because we are restricted to 70 mph by law.
Umm, no, we *can* do that, albeit not legally, because that's what the law says, but, again, there's a difference between the law saying "you must not travel faster than 70mph" and a physical device being introduced to ensure that you *cannot* travel faster than 70mph.
So like the blanket 70mph limit that you know is bullshit but won't come out and say so, you would like to see a blanket re-test that applies to all and tests the good with the bad. So your argument consists of a strange schism in that what you seem to be saying is you know the 70 limit is nonesense and restricts those will the knowledge and ability to safely exceed it, yet you want to introduce retesting system that includes those with the knowledge and proven ability to avoid accidents.
You can't have it both ways mate.
Oops, looks like *another* Straw Man argument from Rusty...!
Let's try an analogy. Let's say we have a competition where we both roll a 6 sided dice and the winner is the one who rolls it the most times without getting a six.
You roll it five times, then get a six. I roll it twelve times before I get a six. Does that mean that I have a "proven ability" to avoid getting sixes? Well, no, it just means I got lucky.
In the same way, someone can drive like a twunt yet "get lucky" and manage to avoid having an accident. Does that prove that they're a good driver? Well, no.
What I want is for everyone who is on the roads to have a demonstrable level of skill and to *continue* to have that level of skill. If the price of that is for them to have to demonstrate it again after X Years, I have no problem with that.
What you seem to want, however, is to consider that anyone who hasn't had an accident to be a "good driver" because they *once* passed a test (even though it could have been many years ago). Why not just go the whole hog and say that *NOBODY* needs to have a test and that they should *NOT* have to take a test UNTIL they have an accident? It makes about as much logical sense.
(NB this post may contain irony...)