Speed Cameras ... ::sigh::

Strider590

Inactive wrote: »

The insurance companies would disagree with you.

I think you mean young drivers? how does the insurance company know when someone is a "chav"?

Are you painting all young drivers out to be chavs?? If so, our expressing a somewhat bigoted opinion.

Young friend of mine happens to come from a very wealthly family, he has 3 cars and sometimes drives his new Renault Clio which has been stripped out and fully track/race prepared (cut off switches, fire extinguisher system, the lot) for track days....
He gets pulled over constantly by the Police, for no reason at all and has been called "chav" and "boyracer" on numerous occasions despite the vehicle being 100% road legal and being driven fully within the law.... He has no need to drive like an idiot on the roads.


But anyway, lets entertain this.... Young drivers and the insurance companies.

Officially or unofficially?

A group which has been painted out to be a risk and cannot defend itself because the public, society and gossip dictates that young drivers are bad.

It's easy money for the insurance companies. I don't see them making dithering old OAPs pay more for insurance dispute their increased risk and accident rates...... Although granted these are often low value, low speed shunts which rarely involved other vehicles.

I have to say that I rarely encounter young drivers who are driving dangerously, it does of course happen, but the majority are middle aged... More often than not, if ive seen a young driver who is driving erratically he (or she) is usually involved in a race with another vehicle being driven by someone of middle age who was trying to "teach the youngster a lesson".

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

I think you mean young drivers? how does the insurance company know when someone is a "chav"?

Are you painting all young drivers out to be chavs?? If so, our expressing a somewhat bigoted opinion.

.

Not at all, however young drivers are all put in to the same bracket by insurers, purely based on their claims experiences with them.

Male young drivers get charged more than females for the same reason.

Insurers don't make it up as they go.

You can dress things up any way you like, but you cannot escape from the facts.

Oh and BTW, you accusing anybody of being " bigoted " is a bit strong, knowing your history of racially motivated posts on here.:)

ajuk

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Took your advice and went to my local charity shop this morn.

However, when I asked the assistant 'I wish to purchase an old flash gun' the reply was, 'What the hell you on about?!'

I have since rung around several other charity shops asking to purchase an old flash gun and eveyone thinks I'm nuts.

Please advise further.

Well I've seen them in charity shops although often with a camera and lenses etc.

Strider590

Inactive wrote: »

Oh and BTW, you accusing anybody of being " bigoted " is a bit strong, knowing your history of racially motivated posts on here.:)

They're factually motivated, rather than "racial"...........

Last time I looked, race wasn't determined by which country you came from!

Drivers of middle eastern origin in the UK have a exponentially far greater chance of ignoring road signs and markings, of being uninsured, untaxed, untouchable and of having cars registered at fake addresses to people who do not actually exist.

We all know it, we all think it and one day someone will have the balls to put all these facts together and do something about it. They (the Motor Insurance Bureau) say that 50% of vehicles in Bradford are uninsured, but we all know what that really means.... Don't we?

If Polish drivers were just as bad, i'd be saying exactly the same about them.... Would that be racist?
In fact i'd be even more angry about them because there's no "race card" for them to pull.

Anyway... Off topic :rotfl:

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

They're factually motivated, rather than "racial"...........

Yeah right.. :rotfl:

Flyboy152

Come on guys, different topic for a different thread, yeah.

cyclonebri1

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

Which is why I said an empty junction, eliminating the possibility of a collision. No matter what you say in law a stop sign means stop.

If you fail to stop and have a collision at the very least you'd face prosecution for careless. In that situation it would be quite easy to prove.

How long do you have to stop for?

birkee

This topic started out with a speeding question. Hasn't it gone a bit astray?

Racism. stop signs, flash guns used by pompous idiots to cause accidents?

Lum

Forums do that, especially in threads like this which are more of a discussion point than a specific question.