Bad Drivers

stephen77

vassa wrote: »

I did, that's why i passed. I also passed my bike test Mod1 + Mod2 first time with 1 minor for both tests combined.

You're trying to mock me for not driving like an aggressive idiot? Are you completely puddled or something pal?

No he was not trying to mock you for not driving like a aggressive idiot.
He was just mentioning your a bad driver as you do not give other road user consideration and you are quite proud of this fact.

vassa

stephen77 wrote: »

No he was not trying to mock you for not driving like a aggressive idiot.
He was just mentioning your a bad driver as you do not give other road user consideration and you are quite proud of this fact.

Nope, i give plenty of consideration. If i want to do 5 or 10 mph under the speed limit when safe to do so, that's my prerogative. My experience on the road is that of selfish, inconsideration idiots in a rush to accelerate up to the nearest lights on red before slamming on the anchors. If they want to do that, that's fine, i'll move out of the way for them, i'll even pull into the side to let them pass, but i won't speed up costing myself more money because they are aggressive morons, essentially being bullied into driving like them.

If you think that's inconsiderate then i suggest you ask for a dictionary for Christmas.

stephen77

vassa wrote: »

Nope, i give plenty of consideration. If i want to do 5 or 10 mph under the speed limit when safe to do so, that's my prerogative. My experience on the road is that of selfish, inconsideration idiots in a rush to accelerate up to the nearest lights on red before slamming on the anchors. If they want to do that, that's fine, i'll move out of the way for them, i'll even pull into the side to let them pass, but i won't speed up costing myself more money because they are aggressive morons, essentially being bullied into driving like them.

If you think that's inconsiderate then i suggest you ask for a dictionary for Christmas.

There are many people who drive at the speed limit with out driving like a aggressive moron.

Though if you pull over, if your causing a tail back to let people pass. Then I have no problem with that and will take back the selfish comments.

Jamie_Carter

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Limiting the maximum speed to 85mph will probably do little or nothing to lower the overall accident rate in the UK.
Motorways are by far the safest roads to drive on (statistically there are less accidents per mile driven on them than on any other type of road), and to be honest, if you have a major pileup at 85mph or 120mph, the outcome is likely to be the same.

Having a 85mph speed limiter won't do anything to stop people who want to vastly exceed the limit in built up areas or on rural roads where there may only be a 40 or 50 limit in place.


And what about suing knife manufacturers if someone uses one of their products to stab someone or pen makers if someone buys a pen and writes a blackmail letter with it?

Actually the outcome can be very different.

On motorways the main contributing factor to the seriousness of injuries and entrapment, is the speed differential. So if a HGV is driving at the speed limit of 60mph, and someone in a car doing 120mph ploughs into the back of them. then this would be the equivalent of a car driving into a stationary truck at 60mph. 90% of the time this sort of collision would lead to fatalities. If the car was doing 85mph, then it would be the equivalent of the car hitting the truck at 25mph. This sort of impact would very rarely be fatal.

You also have to consider stopping distances at 120mph. Most people drive too close as it is.

Jamie_Carter

doughnutmachine wrote: »

If a boy racer buys a new BMW and he crashes the car and kills innocent people I think BMW should be sued. Just the same way that I would go to court if I lent an inexperienced person my shotgun and he accidentally shot someone.

What a load of rubbish. A vehicle is a deadly weapon in the wrong hands, and it doesn't have to be going over the speed limit to kill someone.

Are you saying that if someone drinks and drives, and then kills someone, then the car manufacturer is responsible for supplying them with a car that they can drive whilst drunk?

Also you would have to sue the car dealer, the insurance company for insuring a car that can break the speed limit. This list could go on, including the DVLA for selling tax for a car that will do 140mph, etc, etc....

Jamie_Carter

doughnutmachine wrote: »

tbh, I cant think of any other consumer product where you can be 99.9% sure that the product will be used to break the law. imho if car manufacturers are sued for selling a product that breaks the law it serves them right. It's easy enough to fit speed limiters, they just don't want to.

Only a small proportion of knifes are misused, and there is no easy way to design knifes so they cant be used to hurt people. So I don't think knife manufacturers should be sued if their product is misused.

Almost all cars are capable of breaking the speed limit, but only a small proportion of them do.

Also if someone is knocked down and killed by a car doing 40mph in a 30 limit, would your prosecute the car manufacturer for not making a car that sticks to speed limits?

Just as with a gun, a knife, or a brick. If someone uses one to kill someone, it is that person who is prosecuted.

Jamie_Carter

vassa wrote: »

That's their problem.

And the problem of anyone else they kill or injure in the process, when overtaking what is an obstacle due to their slow speed that is slowing the rest of the traffic down.

Jamie_Carter

vassa wrote: »

I did, that's why i passed. I also passed my bike test Mod1 + Mod2 first time with 1 minor for both tests combined.

You're trying to mock me for not driving like an aggressive idiot? Are you completely puddled or something pal?

If you drove well below the speed limit on your test, when it was safe to drive at the speed limit, then you would have failed your test. So it sounds like your driving has become worse since you passed.

martinthebandit

stephen77 wrote: »

No he was not trying to mock you for not driving like a aggressive idiot.
He was just mentioning your a bad driver as you do not give other road user consideration and you are quite proud of this fact.

Thanks, I couldn't have put it better myself.

There are aggressive idiots and there are selfish idiots but the majority just try to go along and get along.

The requirement to drive at or near the speed limit WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO is there for some very good reasons.

vassa

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

If you drove well below the speed limit on your test, when it was safe to drive at the speed limit, then you would have failed your test. So it sounds like your driving has become worse since you passed.

Another clueless person.

Where did i say i drive 'well below' the speed limit? I said i drive at whatever speed is best for my fuel consumption, and this (although i didn't say it at the time) is in relation to what the speed limit is. It's also in relation to the conditions and what sort of road i'm on, but me pointing that out originally would have negated everyone's need to be a self-righteous Uncle Tom wouldn't it? Crawl back under a rock or something.