Speed Limits

[Shytalkz]

there are few motorists who constantly maintain the speed limit 100%

Maintain, or stay within? If the latter, I can think of one...

but ultimately, they were the ones operating that vehicle so have paid the price for their stupidity.

Not necessarily stupidity, could just be down to misjudgement. But, yes, it's often a personal choice and then there is no one to blame other than themselves.

what makes my blood boil, is when innocent children are hurt as a result of speeding.

Unless they're 14 year old chav twokkers. But then they're hardly innocent

 

[noseall]

Unless they're 14 year old chav twokkers. But then they're hardly innocent

quite.

a 6 month old baby who has had her head caved in by a motorbikers' helmet has never driven a vehicle in anger, never exceeded the speed limit or has ever been aware of the rights or wrongs of motoring.

 

[Softus]

I don't think we are, because car usage is still increasing.

And here in the sticks there is no viable alternative to car useage. Or are we all to decant to the bright lights and leave the country to the wild life?

You're not unique - I rely on the use of a vehicle for my livelihood. I would happily pay more tax on fuel if it were the right thing to do.

By that logic, would you also be increasing council tax, say, for people who choose to live in older, less thermally efficient houses, than modern, featureless, badly-built boxes?

I would.

Why? Is the proximity to "1984" life standards not close enough for you as it is?

1984 has nothing to do with it. I happen to live in a thermally inefficient house, and would happily pay extra for the privilege of doing so.

You have the freedom to pay for what you can afford, not to expect other people to foot the bill.

So just throw by me again just how mega-taxing 4x4 owners and anyone else who's chosen lifestyle does not accord with your vision of Valhalla fits into the scheme of things?

I never mentioned 4x4 drivers (since owners have nothing to do with this), and since I fall exactly into the set of people who you believe I'm in favour of 'unfairly' taxing, you argument has completely vaporised.

Because it is one action with dual benefits:

(1) It raises revenue with which to pay for the effects of car usage.
(2) It curbs excess.

Yep, just like road tax gets used for the purpose for which it was intended..and who's to decide just what excess is?

The elected government, of course. Who else?

It's entirely subjective.

No it isn't.

And it would be fine to curb it, if it was replaced with something viable and workable, which it never is, never will be.

Oh ye of little faith. Go and live in another country then.

The truly weak people are those who are incapable of conforming even when it's for the common good, not those who want to make rules for the benefit of everyone.

That is true

I know. I don't write things that are false, except in irony.

not everyone lives to whatever common standards of decency are judged to be the norm by the majority. But equally, those self-same chavs, benefit scroungers, pikies and so forth are never dealt with in the manner in which the majority of people would wish to see them so dealt.

Their time will come.

 

[Shytalkz]

a 6 month old baby who has had her head caved in by a motorbikers' helmet has never driven a vehicle in anger, never exceeded the speed limit or has ever been aware of the rights or wrongs of motoring.

Would that be a child sitting in the back seat of a car that pulled out on a bike, with the result that the bike went through the side of the car, though? Tragic whichever way, but the fact that it's a bike helmet does not necessarily a) indicate excessive speed or b) mean that it was the biker's fault. And, of course, he may only be wearing one, not because he wanted to, but because the law compelled him to do so.

Like most things, it's rarely black or white.

 

[Softus]

Any speed in excess of the legal speed limit is inappropriate.

I can't agree with that one, joe-90.

Any speed in excess of the legal limit is illegal.

Any speed in excess of a safe speed, given the conditions at the time, is inappropriate.

They aren't one and the same thing though. There are roads on which it would be entirely unsafe, at certain times of day, for me to drive a car at 60mph, although it would be ostensibly legal. At other times of day, I could do 120mph on my motorbike, on the very same roads, and although it would illegal, it would be safe.

 

[Shytalkz]

I would happily pay more tax on fuel if it were the right thing to do.

But seeing as it isn't presumably you won't be happy to?

1984 has nothing to do with it. I happen to live in a thermally inefficient house, and would happily pay extra for the privilege of doing so.

You already do, by virtue of increased fuel costs. So, do you then say that, because your house is thermally inefficient, on top of your additional fuel costs, you should then pay a further premium?

I never mentioned 4x4 drivers (since owners have nothing to do with this), and since I fall exactly into the set of people who you believe I'm in favour of 'unfairly' taxing, you argument has completely vaporised.

Well aren't you the embodiment of everything that makes this country "great"? I would wager that, being of whatever set it is that you are on about - house? 4x4? Both? - you are far from being in the majority. Or maybe you really are just one of those who accepts, blithely, all the cráp that gets spouted from Westminster? Rhetorical.

The elected government, of course. Who else?

Oh, silly me, I forgot about those who are far far better than us out in the real world.

No it isn't.

Oh yes it is. Repeat ad nauseum.

Oh ye of little faith. Go and live in another country then.

Yep, the answer to everything: bail out. Most of it just passes me by, mercifully, but it gets on my thrupennies when people purport to spout jargon dressed up as fact.

I know. I don't write things that are false, except in irony.

You forgot sanctimonious drivel

Their time will come.

You just put your tin-foil hat on. Of course nothing will ever happen: too many people these days are so afraid of upsetting even one person that the whole country is paralysed into a state of inertia.

 

[Shytalkz]

Any speed in excess of the legal speed limit is inappropriate.

I can't agree with that one, joe-90.

Any speed in excess of the legal limit is illegal.

Any speed in excess of a safe speed, given the conditions at the time, is inappropriate.

They aren't one and the same thing though. There are roads on which it would be entirely unsafe, at certain times of day, for me to drive a car at 60mph, although it would be ostensibly legal. At other times of day, I could do 120mph on my motorbike, on the very same roads, and although it would illegal, it would be safe.

Ah, but as greater minds than ours have determined those speed limits, then by definition exceeding the speed limit = unsafe = inappropriate. As well as illegal. (Irony, btw )

Yet, somehow, I get the feeling that, while you could do 120 on that road, entirely safely, you never have or do.

How about if we agreed to pay an extra punitive tax, we would then be allowed to speed? That's an "unfair" tax that I would definitely go for ! And if we kill ourselves, we have no one but ourselves to blame; and if we do someone else in, then we, quite correctly, have the book thrown at us and deserve everything we get?

 

[Softus]

I would happily pay more tax on fuel if it were the right thing to do.

But seeing as it isn't presumably you won't be happy to?

That's a fatuous approach to a debate. Clearly we would disagree on whether or not it's right, so if you merely want to play word games instead of discussing beliefs, then find another sandpit.

1984 has nothing to do with it. I happen to live in a thermally inefficient house, and would happily pay extra for the privilege of doing so.

You already do, by virtue of increased fuel costs. So, do you then say that, because your house is thermally inefficient, on top of your additional fuel costs, you should then pay a further premium?

I don't know why you want me to repeat it, but here goes:

If such a law was passed, then I would support it.

I never mentioned 4x4 drivers (since owners have nothing to do with this), and since I fall exactly into the set of people who you believe I'm in favour of 'unfairly' taxing, you argument has completely vaporised.

Well aren't you the embodiment of everything that makes this country "great"?

And there it is. Sarcasm - the final resting place of the terminally stupid. And you got there so quickly! Did you use a satnav?

The elected government, of course. Who else?

Oh, silly me, I forgot about those who are far far better than us out in the real world.

If you don't like the fact that the elected government makes the laws, then what are you doing about it?

 

[Shytalkz]

That's a fatuous approach to a debate. Clearly we would disagree on whether or not it's right, so if you merely want to play word games instead of discussing beliefs, then find another sandpit.

I was merely enquiring as to whether or not you thought it to be right: your comment gave no specific indication as to leaning.

If such a law was passed, then I would support it.

Ok. Why, though? For the greater common good, a feeling of warmth in your pants, so that you can puff your chest out with pride and say "Yes, it hurts me in the pocket, but I totally agree with it for the benefit of mankind"?

And there it is. Sarcasm - the final resting place of the terminally stupid. And you got there so quickly! Did you use a satnav?

Actually, I was being deadly serious. You worry me. Greatly. Where did your individuality get so subsumed that you are nothing but one of the sheep?

If you don't like the fact that the elected government makes the laws, then what are you doing about it?

There's f**k all that I can do about it, it matters not a jot whether I vote, or don't vote and I for one am not conceited enough to think that my take on the matter will be either heard or considered by thems that's in the position to call the shots. The only thing that "they" haven't fully taken away from me - yet - is my right to a) harbour a mindset that is not in tune with theirs and b) the right to expound in that regard. I say: yet....

 

[noseall]

a 6 month old baby who has had her head caved in by a motorbikers' helmet has never driven a vehicle in anger, never exceeded the speed limit or has ever been aware of the rights or wrongs of motoring.

Would that be a child sitting in the back seat of a car that pulled out on a bike, with the result that the bike went through the side of the car, though? Tragic whichever way, but the fact that it's a bike helmet does not necessarily a) indicate excessive speed or b) mean that it was the biker's fault. And, of course, he may only be wearing one, not because he wanted to, but because the law compelled him to do so.

Like most things, it's rarely black or white.

this was precisely the point i was trying to get across.

dad does not want to kill his child but he has because he has seen a blur about a 1/4 mile away and has checked the other way then pulled out when that blur has become a 90 mph superbike in a 50 zone and has killed his daughter.

both parties are to blame.

only one innocent casualty.

 

[Shytalkz]

I can't disagree with that, Nose.

But that's not what happens every time someone breaks the limit, which is the reasoning behind Joe-90's dogmatic take on speed. If he had his way, we'd be back to the man with a flag and 4mph.

 

[Softus]

I was merely enquiring as to whether or not you thought it to be right: your comment gave no specific indication as to leaning.

It's a bit late for wide-eyed innocence. You claim absence of any clues as to my leaning, but you're quite happy to make a wild insinuation as a basis for a non-sequitur, here:

Where did your individuality get so subsumed that you are nothing but one of the sheep?

_______________________________

If you don't like the fact that the elected government makes the laws, then what are you doing about it?

<paraphrasing>

Nothing.

I thought as much.

 

[Shytalkz]

It follows, precisely because in one of your earlier holier-than-thou paragraphs, you said that you would - and I paraphrase - willingly embrace disproportionate taxation through not choosing to fit the norm as decided by "them". However, your subsequent uttering re fuel taxation seemed to be at odds somewhat, or at the very least, somewhat equivocal.

And you have not said - and I am genuinely interested, if not a little bemused - as to just why you would willingly pay a disproportionate tax, for not complying with some entirely arbitrary set of "norms".

You've got all night to concoct: I'm off for a **** .

 

[dg123]

If all drivers drove appropriately there would not be a need for speed limits.

 

[tim west]

Some things are universal constants.

Until disproved as constants in the future