We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
slow drivers
Comments
-
RichardD1970 wrote: »Yes you can,
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.
You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
:rotfl:
Unfortunately, that's not an absolute proof because you have to start with the nine Peano postulates in the first place, but they're axiomatic. So the proof is valid if and only if we assume the Peano postualtes as true in the first place.
And an absolute proof can't be based on an assumption, no matter how self-evident that assumption may seem to be
0 -
Worryingly, I think you actually believe this tripe.
If a driver was to plead they were driving at 40mph in a 60 zone, because they felt they were entitled to do so and that it was at the max of their driving ability & skill in doing so then they would get convicted, and you know it!
:eek:Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
-
No, that is the minimum standard required to attain your driving licence.Because it is.
The law sees every driver who has passed the UK driving test to have at least attained a minimum competence that is required to pass that test.
That is the basic level of ability & skill that is required by law.
In terms of driving the only legal standard required is not to drive below that of a careful and competent driver or without due consideration of other road users. This is why many drivers, especially older drivers, wouldn't have a chance of passing a driving test tomorrow, yet they are generally deemed to be capable of driving carefully.
To answer Mgdavid also
If any person was ever prosecuted for inconsiderate for driving at 40mph on an NSL 60mph S/C road, it would be headline news. That it is not shows that it is not considered sufficiently slow to be inconsiderate.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
rather than just shoot down the posters all the time how about you try to provide some rational argument to support your position?
Absolutely!
Member brat, (who's a triffic cop btw!), would never have passed his test in the first place had the examiner asked him why he drove at 45mph in a 60 zone despite perfect driving conditions.
And his response would have been 'It is at the level of my skill & ability and I am entitled to do so!!!'
What utter garbage.:rotfl:0 -
No, that is the minimum standard required to attain your driving licence.
In terms of driving the only legal standard required is not to drive below that of a careful and competent driver or without due consideration of other road users. .
Ahhh, so now you grasp it!!
The minimum standard to attain a driving licence includes not jumping a red light too, you don't then do it just because you eventually get your licence!!
And what about expecting the unexpected?
Get this, driving slowly can be driving without consideration, something you recognise yourself!
Your doddling along at 30% lower than what you should be driving at could prove costly for emergency services, for example.
But no, you just think of yourself don't you?0 -
There is rationale in spades throughout the thread if you had chosen to read it. Gilbert is one of these who either deliberately or ignorantly misreads what you post, then, when the penny drops, posts abuse rather than recognise his mistake.rather than just shoot down the posters all the time how about you try to provide some rational argument to support your position?
Clearly, an unnecessarily slow speed may be considered for inconsiderate driving. I have already posted that I have prosecuted this offence several times.
I'll precis the reasons why it is exceedingly unlikely that a person would be prosecuted for 40mph in a 60mph, if you can't be bothered reading the thread:-- 40mph is also the maximum permissible speed of other vehicles entitled to use such roads. It would therefore be inappropriate and frankly nonsensical to prosecute a driver for a speed that other vehicles using the same road are not allowed to exceed.
- The speed of 40 mph may be the optimum speed for the vehicle user (not their maximum speed capability). This optimum speed is user dependant and is generally recognised to be the safest speed. As we age, this comfortable speed will decrease as our abilities gradually diminish. Is it right that we suggest such drivers should be banned from such roads, or be prosecuted for trying to be as safe as they can?
- While CPS say that "Unnecessarily slow speed" may be considered an offence, the proof of where that barrier lies is in the pudding. I know of no prosecution for inconsiderate for 40mph (+/-5mph) in a 60, and there is no reference to such a prosecution in any case law manuals, or Wilkinsons Road Trafic Law, or PNLD legal database.
- Such a prosecution would be considered ageist, and rightly so.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
I remember from my much younger days, that after a few spliffs you would think you were belting along and then find the speedo was saying 15mph.
Happy days.0 -
Gilbert is one of these who either deliberately or ignorantly misreads what you post, then, when the penny drops, posts abuse rather than recognise his mistake.
Completely uncalled for, take that back.
Clearly, an unnecessarily slow speed may be considered for inconsiderate driving.
Right, well that's clearly different to when you stated 'drivers are entitled to drive slowly should their skill & ability dictate...'
And, therefore, completely legal!
Sorry but rubbish.
I have already posted that I have prosecuted this offence several times.
Have you now?:D
I'll precis the reasons why it is exceedingly unlikely that a person would be prosecuted for 40mph in a 60mph, if you can't be bothered reading the thread:-- 40mph is also the maximum permissible speed of other vehicles entitled to use such roads. It would therefore not be inappropriate and frankly nonsensical to prosecute a driver for a speed that other vehicles using the same road are not allowed to exceed.
In a convoy of a dozen cars, no HGV's, then the lead car dictates the speed. If they are doing 30 in a 60 then they are driving without due care and should be done.
You keep banging on about HGV's as if they are every second vehicle on the road!- The speed of 40 mph may be the optimum speed for the vehicle user (not their maximum speed capability). This optimum speed is user dependant and is generally recognised to be the safest speed. As we age, this comfortable speed will decrease as our abilities gradually diminish. Is it right that we suggest such drivers should be banned from such roads, or be prosecuted for trying to be as safe as they can?
You don't carry on driving slowly to compensate for your failings and be inconsiderate to other drivers just to be safe! It doesn't work like that!- While CPS say that "Unnecessarily slow speed" may be considered an offence, the proof of where that barrier lies is in the pudding. I know of no prosecution for inconsiderate for 40mph (+/-5mph) in a 60, and there is no reference to such a prosecution in any case law manuals, or Wilkinsons Road Trafic Law, or PNLD legal database.
Just explain, where do you get this info from????- Such a prosecution would be considered ageist, and rightly so.
An old codger drives down the M1 because he's fuddled due to age but to prosecute would be ageist!!!???
No, he gets prosecuted for being a stupid motorist, just like everyone else, there are standards that must be obeyed regardless!!!
You must be having a giraffe!!!:rotfl::rotfl:0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards