Periodic Driver Retests.

[Rusty]

Rusty, do you actually bother to *READ* what people have written?

Yes Grahamm, even what you write. 

Go back and read my posts again and actually try to *comprehend* them and you'll find all your answers are already in this thread.

I thought I hadn't missed the answer but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and went back as instructed to, or was that ordered to? Painful as it was to have to re-read all the evasive reasoning you have been using I did do, and oddly enough found no direct answer to my question.  Fancy that. The only thing I can find is the bit below.

There are times and places and situations where even doing 70mph is going to be much too fast for the prevailing road conditions, yet drivers still use such inappropriate speeds because they think "Well, I've passed my test, so I can drive" not "should I be using this speed in these conditions?"

Now perhaps it my lack of *comprehension*, but does all this woffle about prevailing conditions and of how 70mph is often too fast constitute in your mind the answer to my question? Which was do you believe vehicles should be capable of greater than the national maximum speed limit? And does your sudden willingness to incorporate links to terms you've just learned into your reply explain why you haven't yet addressed any of the other points I raised in my last post?


So should all people be considered guilty until they are proven innocent Grahamm? As you said here. See I do read your posts.

I said you (and everyone else) should need to *prove* that you can still drive to an acceptably safe standard. Simply saying "well I've done this for X many years and not had an accident" is not proof.

Do you know THIS word Grahamm?