(05-10-12, 08:19 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?
Perhaps the part that likes to uses Should a lot when it ought to be ought. 
(05-10-12, 07:44 PM)Grahamm link Wrote: And yet still you fail to comprehend.
Oh but I do comprehend, only too well. You have once again thrown up a barrage of repetition, restating the very same things you claim answered my original question. They didn't then, and they din't now, and should you reiterate them for a third time they still won't. I have not once asked you what are your views on relative urban impact speeds, or driving within prevailing conditions. I asked you should all motor vehicles be governed to a maximum speed of 70 mph Grahamm? Not anything else. If yes then say so, and if no say why not when speeding is a major factor in driving accidents and our maximum limit is 70mph?
I fully understand the balance of rights and responsibilities, but what you are advocating is the trampling of the rights of those who have paid good heed to their responsibilities. You are hailing a one size fits all solution to a problem that relates to a minority, albeit a growing one. I would therefore like to periodically search the homes of all Muslims as it is up to them to prove they are not terrorists - is that how it works?
Again it's not the safety aspect I disagree with you on, it's the premise. What you have said makes a nonesense of no claims bonuses, for the position is that no matter how long you've been driving - who knows what you'll do tomorrow. Answer = Nobody! So stop trying to legislate for it.
Folk are just dicks, thats the main problem, dicks to you on the phone,dicks to you in the supermarket and dicks to you on the road,
The only thing that changes is number of dicks increasing all the time,
I was waiting behind 2 cars earlier at a 2 lane standard roundabout, a bike filtered through the middle of the 2 leading cars and stopped which i felt was fair enough, the 2 dicks in the cars started creeping forward to try intimidate him almost in unison even though they didnt know each other, he obviously wasnt intimidated by the 2 massive dicks either side of him and fair play even though it was pouring with rain and he was surrounded by wet angry dicks he smoked them off the lights without holding anyone up despite their frantic attempts to knock him over,
I dont know if what the bike did was legal, i dont even care because what the car drivers did was just typical of the dickish behaviour we all see every day.
The moral of the story......these dicks dont need advanced training....they need shot! 
Easiest way to go fast........don't buy a blue bike
What worries me is the things people do out there to make their or other peoples life harder. They lack the scope of seeing the bigger picture or the implications of there decisions (of any subject by the looks of things).
(05-10-12, 09:32 PM)noggythenog link Wrote: Folk are just dicks, thats the main problem, dicks to you on the phone,dicks to you in the supermarket and dicks to you on the road,
The only thing that changes is number of dicks increasing all the time The moral of the story......these dicks dont need advanced training....they need shot!
:lol :lol I was only thinking today how some times I find people inspiring, and other times I could just do without them altogether.... usually both in the same day. :lol
(05-10-12, 08:19 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?
You do not have the right to drive a car, you must past a test to be allowed to do it.
You do not have to pass a test to have the right to freedom of expression, a fair trial, the right to go about your lawful business without let or hindrence etc etc etc.
(05-10-12, 09:16 PM)Rusty link Wrote: [size=1em]Oh but I do comprehend, only too well. You have once again thrown up a barrage of repetition, restating the very same things you claim answered my original question. They didn't then, and they din't now, and should you reiterate them for a third time they still won't. [/size] [size=1em]
Oh but Rusty, they *do*, you just don't want to listen to them. Oh and BTW it seems that you *have* swallowed the Government's nonsensical rhetoric because you say "speeding is a major factor in driving accidents"!
Please try to understand the difference between "speeding" (simply going above an arbitrary posted limit) and "inappropriate speed for the conditions" and then you will understand that I have already answered you.
[/size]
PS I'm still not going to address your Straw Man arguments.
(05-10-12, 09:32 PM)noggythenog link Wrote: I dont know if what the bike did was legal,
Legal? Yes.
Advisable in the conditions you described? Probably not.
"You don't understand"
'No, you don't understand'
"Oh but I do understand, its you that's not understanding"
'Oh, but you don't understand. As I understand it'
To be honest, I'm not sure I understand....
Which one of you can actually get their pee pee the farthest!?!?!?!?!?!
Smell ones mother. Yaas!
Noggythenog mentioned roundabouts as a pet hate. I think a lot of road users "blindly" follow the road markings arrows/place names so on a large multilane one they will find themselves in the "wrong"lane & cut across. If you follow the Highway Code re lane positioning,signalling you will be frequently cut-up by the " confused.com" types who consider youre doing it wrong! :eek
If you want an example of road users not thinking about their actions look @ the way some of them approach roundabouts(large open view).I often see people drive up to the entry point lines AND STOP! even when its clear of traffic & safe to enter junction. Thought the idea of roundabouts was to speed up/improve traffic flow apart from the ones where theyve had to introduce traffic lights which is a bit self-defeating!
Reading all the posts on this thread its clear that we are never all going to agree-indeed its good to have healthy debate. Seems to me that the government can legislate to its hearts content but in the final analysis its road users attitude that is the important factor in making the roads safer and until I see evidence that things are improving will still assume theyre all out to get me :'(
Yesterday was driving cage locally in 30mph limit along road very little traffic(late morning), visibility excellent behind an "old" fellow who drove @ 20mph or slower for 1 mile. There were no opportunities for overtaking-bollards etc. As we approached a mini-roundabout he stopped completely before he could have had a clear view of the junction and then shot across without looking right or left. Usually the focus is on speeders but I can see that his driving could be a contributary factor in an accident. But until he is involved in such will continue to drive without realising that going too slowly can be dangerous. If he cant see/react at prevailing speed limit hes a danger but his driving isnt going to be assessed unless he is involved in a serious accident. Dont think the idea of self-reporting medical conditions to DVLA is sufficient. And before anyone says "what about his human rights?" consider it could be you knocked off your bike at a junction by his driving. If I met the required standard to pass the test in 1966 theres no future guarantee that I will still be able to do so 46 years later especially if Ive never been eye-tested! :eek
Ah so you lost your right to drive when they introduced a drivng test in 1935. So you lost your right in 1935, i dont get how you can loose what was a right? Grahamm can you explain that. Cheers
06-10-12, 03:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-10-12, 04:53 PM by Rusty.)
(06-10-12, 12:23 AM)Grahamm link Wrote: [size=1em]
Please try to understand the difference between "speeding" (simply going above an arbitrary posted limit) and "inappropriate speed for the conditions" and then you will understand that I have already answered you.[/size]
I fully understand the premise of inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions Grahamm. You are saying that despite having a maximum speed discretionary considerations need to be made within that maximum. I don't see why you think that is something so difficult for others to grasp?
The point you don't seem to be addressing is the point I'm making. Which is that of record. The government puts any new legislation under the larger umbrella of 'road safety'. That's their justification for the introduction of new intrusions on personal liberty, after all who can argue if it makes the world a safer place? Therefore we must wear seatbelts, observe 70 mph speed limits, undergo MOT's and a myriad of other things all within that broad road safety justification.
[size=1em]Now you're saying the government are bullshitting, and I'm not going to argue as that's what governments do for a living. You won't address the 70 mph maximum question because both you and I know it is a complete fallacy that 'speed kills' just as it is that 'alcohol kills', - it's all down to when and how you use it.[/size]
[size=1em]Driving examiners are charged with training people to a standard that is deemed competent to drive on our roads. If this isn't happening then the standard required needs to be raised before one can drive. That's number one. Someone failing their test must undergo a retest, which means a system is already in place.[/size]
[size=1em]Inexperience causes accidents due to youthful over confidence, or lack of the experience in adapting driving to driving conditions. Such accidents result in increased insurance premiums, and/or points on the licence. I dare say a lesson is learned too. The potential for huge additional costs to young drivers go some way to encouraging caution.[/size]
[size=1em]Medical examination, eye tests and possibly hearing tests will address natural atrophy of those faculties. I agree that these should be introduced.[/size]
[size=1em]Inconsiderate, aggressive, abusive or downright dangerous drivers are out there. It is a character trait. It won't be cured by sitting them down and talking to them, they're just like that If and when they cause accidents, they get points, bans, dearer insurance and so on. Therefore, as before there is a system in place.[/size]
[size=1em]The final two groups consist of uninsured/banned dickwads in a £50 car from the auctions, and those[/size] who drive well, don't speed, have lots of experience and are rewarded with cheaper insurance as the assessors consider them to be a low risk. In the first instance they won't even be turning up to your proposed new re-test scheme. In the second these are people who are doing everything right, have demonstrated that they have been doing so for a number of years, and just want to go about their business.
[size=1em]So here we have it. The point I am making is this:[/size]
[size=1em]You know (although won't openly admit) that the 70mph legislation is 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.[/size]
[size=1em]What you are proposing then is a similar situation. We know that some people are bad drivers, we know that some are inexperienced, and we know that yet more just don't give a shit. And as mentioned there are already mechanisms in force that deal with this'[/size]
[size=1em]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.[/size]
[size=1em]You can't have it both ways mate.[/size]
(06-10-12, 12:23 AM)Grahamm link Wrote: PS I'm still not going to address your Straw Man arguments.
Ive had a brainwave :eek
psychometric testing..........if you're a dick you dont get a licence....but the government can't be in charge.....coz they're all dicks,
the police can make up a new offence......'being a dick'
the penalty...........being sent to the houses of parliament to join all the other dicks! and of course loss of licence.
how to get your licence back......stop being a dick! and complete tests of all things honour and courtesy...and donate money to FOC for shiny bike bits! :b
Easiest way to go fast........don't buy a blue bike
Question to anyone that things compulsary re-tests should be introduced... should it just be for cars or should it be for each category?
(04-10-12, 01:35 PM)BBROWN1664 link Wrote: From the BBC News website today
Quote:The ABI said an 18-year-old was more than three times as likely as a
48-year-old to be involved in a crash
If they are only 3x more likely to have an accident, why do they pay 10x (or more) the insurance premium??? Their accidents tend to cost more maybe?
None. :lol
(06-10-12, 04:36 AM)Tiberius Onklevaart link Wrote: [size=78%]To be honest, I'm not sure I understand....[/size]Which one of you can actually get their pee pee the farthest!?!?!?!?!?!
Up a wall? Depends how tall you are in the first place. 
I wrote to my MP some years ago on the same subject. he made all the right noises but did now't
Good idea but a political hot potatoe
(06-10-12, 10:38 AM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: Ah so you lost your right to drive when they introduced a drivng test in 1935. So you lost your right in 1935, i dont get how you can loose what was a right? Grahamm can you explain that. Cheers
Oh dear, is that the best you can come up with? Please, go and troll somone else.
Cheers.
(06-10-12, 03:14 PM)Rusty link Wrote: [Snip]
[size=1em]So here we have it. The point I am making is this:[/size]
Oh goody!
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
[size=1em]You can't have it both ways mate.[/size]
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...)
The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.
(07-10-12, 12:35 PM)grum_pe1@hotmail.com link Wrote: The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.
Of course I didn't because it's a stupid question. Please show me *ANYTHING* anywhere which says (or has said) that you have (or have ever had) the Right to drive a car and I'll answer it. But I won't be holding my breath.
|
