Super Cool Really Fat Drivers club.

[Thracian]

If you're incapable of glancing at the speedometer right in front of your eyes while being completely aware of your external road surroundings then I would suggest you shouldn't drive because you're clearly not fit to.

Exactly.

When you've driven for 43 years and safely covered 400,000 miles perhaps you'll be qualified to comment.

But, just as an experiment, why not try driving along the M6 at 70mph in three lanes of similarly moving traffic while glancing at your speedo every 30 seconds or so.

I guarantee you will soon be in trouble because in one of the moments you take your eyes off the road the situation around you will change.

[The Reverend]

When you've driven for 43 years and safely covered 400,000 miles perhaps you'll be qualified to comment.

But, just as an experiment, why not try driving along the M6 at 70mph in three lanes of similarly moving traffic while glancing at your speedo 30 seconds or so.

I guarantee you will soon be in trouble because in one of the moments you take your eyes off the road the situation around you will change.

did you like my picture Thracian? I thought you could put it in your sig

[Raj]

I like looking at scantily clad girls in short skirts whilst driving!!!

[Thracian]

Come on Thracian, it takes all of about 0.05 seconds to glance at how fast you're travelling. It's not difficult.

You are a drama queen at times.

It takes less than that for a road situation to change.

[Thracian]

did you like my picture Thracian? I thought you could put it in your sig

Very amusing. Almost in Dags' league.

[Alexikokopops]

When you've driven for 43 years and safely covered 400,000 miles perhaps you'll be qualified to comment.

But, just as an experiment, why not try driving along the M6 at 70mph in three lanes of similarly moving traffic while glancing at your speedo 30 seconds or so.

I guarantee you will soon be in trouble because in one of the moments you take your eyes off the road the situation around you will change.

Hang on, how did driving down a steep hill in a 30mph urban area suddenly become driving on a busy motorway at 70 mph?

Oh, by the way, I've managed to regularly check by speedo while driving along the M25 at 70mph in four lanes of similarly moving traffic. Only a fool breaks the two second rule Thrac.

[Thracian]

I don't think of driving at the speed limit as dawdling, Thrac, merely as driving to the standard that I was taught to do and have the qualilfication to prove that I can, and the one that applies to all drivers, as opposed to one I've arbitrarily created for my own convenience which is what a large proportion of drivers seem to do. Someone might career into me, that's the chance I take whenever I get in the car, but at least I'm doing what I can to prevent me from doing it to someone else.

The same laws may not apply to the emergency services, but at least there's a good reason for them to accept the increased risk associated with travelling at high speed and they're trained to do so

Trained? So why do they keep running into people?

It's funny. The only people who make excuses for the emergency services are people who've not had their wife or kids mown down.

[The Reverend]

Very amusing. Almost in Dags' league.

As long as it made you chuckle Thrac, thatsall that matters. Good on ya

[Thracian]

Hang on, how did driving down a steep hill in a 30mph urban area suddenly become driving on a busy motorway at 70 mph?

Oh, by the way, I've managed to regularly check by speedo while driving along the M25 at 70mph in four lanes of similarly moving traffic. Only a fool breaks the two second rule Thrac.

Now there's something I do agree with. I always leave stacks of space betwen myself and the vehicle in front. Unfortunately not everyone else does the same thing. With the consequences you've highlighted.

And I wonder how many such accidents are caused by a momentary lapse in concentration.

[Tabou]

Well, I have now completed said course.

And I have to say, it was absolutely amazing. The most worth while 'postdriving test' I could think of.

It was made very clear to us as we arrived that this wasn't a finger-wagging, "Speed kills everyone" course that we had to endure.

For example, whilst on the topic of concentration, we were shown a video of 8 youths, playing basketball. A white team and a black team. We were asked to count, (bearing in mind there were 2 balls and lots of movements), how many passes the white team made. I counted 14. I, along with the 20 or so other students, was right. 14 passes. What I failed to notice, was the 6 foot man in a gorilla costume that walked onto center stage, beat his chest, and walked off again. 22 people failed to spot this.

I left the course, genuinely thinking "What if it was my child/loved one/parent that was run over and killed. I have to say, I will no longer use my mobile whilst driving, and I most certainly will think twice about doing more than 30mph in a 30 limit. As was stated at the course, 30 is a maximum, not a target.

They did have an answer for everything, but not in a "We know better" way. For example, many people, including myself, pointed out that we had Anti Lock braking systems, so our cars would stop as quickly from 35-0mph as would a 15 year old motor going from 30-0mph.

We were, quite rightly, informed that a car with ABS will stop no quicker thn a car without. ABS was designed to help us control the vehicle in a heavy breaking situation.

All in all, a good 3 hours spent. And I get to keep my points total to just 3!

[James.]

I would be interested to hear their view on drivers who are seemingly incapable of knowing their speed while driving on motorways...

[Bellend Sebastian]

Trained? So why do they keep running into people?

It's funny. The only people who make excuses for the emergency services are people who've not had their wife or kids mown down.

It's not that funny is it? People generally get more upset about things that have affected them. I'd feel probably feel more strongly about gun crime if I'd had a cap in my ass.

This could run and run, couldn't it? The joys of lively debate

[dandannieldanok]

But, just as an experiment, why not try driving along the M6 at 70mph in three lanes of similarly moving traffic while glancing at your speedo 30 seconds or so.

30 seconds is hardly a glance

[Thracian]

It's not that funny is it? People generally get more upset about things that have affected them. I'd feel probably feel more strongly about gun crime if I'd had a cap in my ass.

This could run and run, couldn't it? The joys of lively debate

It's not a case of wanting to labour the point but it's easy to be theoretical when you're not involved.

I get it in my business all the time with people saying things are worth this or that. Any prat can "value" something if they don't intend to buy it.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Has a mod changed the title of this thread or has no-one noticed?

Who knows?

[Bellend Sebastian]

It's not a case of wanting to labour the point but it's easy to be theoretical when you're not involved.

I get it in my business all the time with people saying things are worth this or that. Any prat can "value" something if they don't intend to buy it.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but we're talking about approximately 1 per cent of road deaths (based on 06/07) and that includes the individuals killed in vehicles being pursued by the plod and the plod themselves as well as the poor buggers who get cleaned up going about their business and are unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The 2900 (estimate) killed on the roads where the police weren't involved, where presumably Joe Public has messed up are bound to be the focus of people's attention, surely?

[Thracian]

I would be interested to hear their view on drivers who are seemingly incapable of knowing their speed while driving on motorways...

It wouldn't necessarily make em right.

Frankly I'm sick of being told how to drive by politicians and policemen.

Do dawdling motorists ever consider how much potential danger they cause? Rightly or wrongly, people behind them have to brake, sometimes quite hard. They get frustrated and will sometimes even risk overtaking when it shouldn't be necessary.

I wonder if anyone has ever studied how many accidents are caused, not just by impatient motorists, but by the selfishness of slow drivers.

Whenever do you hear of crawlers being prosecuted for driving too slowly and being a constant danger to others either on motorways or even on virtually empty country roads. Never.

While the authorities try to treat us all the same (with notable and hypocritcal exceptions I won't dwell on) I believe people are different, including drivers.

Some people have a fast metabolism. They do everything quickly.

Others are plodders and that is reflected in the way they drive.

The plodders might be nervous wrecks were they ever to drive quickly and in fact I doubt they would ever respond well should an emergency arise. Yet they're allowed to drive without hindrance and the rest of us are expected to avoid them.

I don't tailgate or verbally abuse those dawdling drivers who don't give a toss who they hold up so why should I be victimised for driving quickly if I've caused no problems and done no damage? Just as the slow drivers feel safest crawling along, I feel safest and most alert going quickly.

That I can't do so legally is simply another example of society trying to punish people for what might happen rather than what does happen.

That isn't justice to me. It's political convenience.

I've owned and driven a multitude of vehicles: lorry, motor coach, customised transit, jaguar, formula one go-kart, hill-climb car, Daimler hearse, grass-track car, rally car and any number of other vehicles in between. I've also driven on snow chains in the Alps.

That's a lot of driving in a lot of conditions some drivers have never experienced.

But our politicians take the view that if one prat can lose control of his vehicle or hit someone at 35mph the rest of us have to be treated like morons as well. It's the same with drinking and driving. "One size fits all feet" is the attitude when we all know it doesn't.

I might be in the minority but I detest the nanny state in all its forms and don't see why my driving enjoyment should be reduced to that of the lowest common denominator by the decisions of law-makers who might not even drive a car or might conceivably want the number of drivers on our roads to be dramatically reduced as part of their political philosophy.

As for being lectured by "trained" police. With their record on road safety, even with the advantage of earsplitting sirens, flashing lights and, it seems, the licence to drive where and how they like, I'm surprised they're qualified to lecture anyone though I'm quite sure they do so for the best and that the scheme is well meant.

So what should the approach be instead?

Well, I'd favour advisory speed limits and different/sensible ones for different times of the day or week. Dead slow by a school in term time is common sense but 50mph on a quiet country A road in the middle of the night is unnecessary.

And if an accident occurs that involves a car travelling at a speed greater than the advisory limit (which should be sensible and realistic) then the "sentence" for a guilty party should be increased according to the consequences.

For a society that supposedly condemns bullying the authorities never stop bullying people with their draconian dictates.

In fact, and in so many ways, they never stop pushing people around and directing their lives for them. Indeed I think I'm right in saying this Government has made more laws per minute in power than any government in modern history.

[Thracian]

I don't mean to be dismissive, but we're talking about approximately 1 per cent of road deaths (based on 06/07) and that includes the individuals killed in vehicles being pursued by the plod and the plod themselves as well as the poor buggers who get cleaned up going about their business and are unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The 2900 (estimate) killed on the roads where the police weren't involved, where presumably Joe Public has messed up are bound to be the focus of people's attention, surely?

One per cent of a lot is a significant number. And 0.1% is enough if it's your kid that's been cleaned up by a policemn driving dangerously.

[Alexikokopops]

It wouldn't necessarily make em right.

Frankly I'm sick of being told how to drive by politicians and policemen.

Do dawdling motorists ever consider how much potential danger they cause? Rightly or wrongly, people behind them have to brake, sometimes quite hard. They get frustrated and will sometimes even risk overtaking when it shouldn't be necessary.

I wonder if anyone has ever studied how many accidents are caused, not just by impatient motorists, but by the selfishness of slow drivers.

Whenever do you hear of crawlers being prosecuted for driving too slowly and being a constant danger to others either on motorways or even on virtually empty country roads. Never.

While the authorities try to treat us all the same (with notable and hypocritcal exceptions I won't dwell on) I believe people are different, including drivers.

Some people have a fast metabolism. They do everything quickly.

Others are plodders and that is reflected in the way they drive.

The plodders might be nervous wrecks were they ever to drive quickly and in fact I doubt they would ever respond well should an emergency arise. Yet they're allowed to drive without hindrance and the rest of us are expected to avoid them.

I don't tailgate or verbally abuse those dawdling drivers who don't give a toss who they hold up so why should I be victimised for driving quickly if I've caused no problems and done no damage? Just as the slow drivers feel safest crawling along, I feel safest and most alert going quickly.

That I can't do so legally is simply another example of society trying to punish people for what might happen rather than what does happen.

That isn't justice to me. It's political convenience.

I've owned and driven a multitude of vehicles: lorry, motor coach, customised transit, jaguar, formula one go-kart, hill-climb car, Daimler hearse, grass-track car, rally car and any number of other vehicles in between. I've also driven on snow chains in the Alps.

That's a lot of driving in a lot of conditions some drivers have never experienced.

But our politicians take the view that if one prat can lose control of his vehicle or hit someone at 35mph the rest of us have to be treated like morons as well. It's the same with drinking and driving. "One size fits all feet" is the attitude when we all know it doesn't.

I might be in the minority but I detest the nanny state in all its forms and don't see why my driving enjoyment should be reduced to that of the lowest common denominator by the decisions of law-makers who might not even drive a car or might conceivably want the number of drivers on our roads to be dramatically reduced as part of their political philosophy.

As for being lectured by "trained" police. With their record on road safety, even with the advantage of earsplitting sirens, flashing lights and, it seems, the licence to drive where and how they like, I'm surprised they're qualified to lecture anyone though I'm quite sure they do so for the best and that the scheme is well meant.

So what should the approach be instead?

Well, I'd favour advisory speed limits and different/sensible ones for different times of the day or week. Dead slow by a school in term time is common sense but 50mph on a quiet country A road in the middle of the night is unnecessary.

And if an accident occurs that involves a car travelling at a speed greater than the advisory limit (which should be sensible and realistic) then the "sentence" for a guilty party should be increased according to the consequences.

For a society that supposedly condemns bullying the authorities never stop bullying people with their draconian dictates.

In fact, and in so many ways, they never stop pushing people around and directing their lives for them. Indeed I think I'm right in saying this Government has made more laws per minute in power than any government in modern history.

Oh my. You've just written nearly 700 words on an internet message board in one post. I've been writing less than that a day for my 15000 word dissertation.

[Thracian]

Oh my. You've just written nearly 700 words on an internet message board in one post. I've been writing less than that a day for my 15000 word dissertation.

But if you finished your dissertation in a fortnight or so think how much fun you could have in the spare time created.

[Guest]

I don't know how you drive around the City but, me, I look at the traffic ahead rather than my speedmoter. It's ironic that if I took my eyes off the road and ran into someone cos they'd braked I'd be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.

You might like to consider that if the police stopped you and asked you what speed you were driving at, and you said you didn't know, you would also be done for driving without due care and attention, even if you argued you were keeping your eyes on the road.

[stez]

When you've driven for 43 years and safely covered 400,000 miles perhaps you'll be qualified to comment.

But, just as an experiment, why not try driving along the M6 at 70mph in three lanes of similarly moving traffic while glancing at your speedo every 30 seconds or so.

I guarantee you will soon be in trouble because in one of the moments you take your eyes off the road the situation around you will change.

ahh, the old you're not as old as me, so therefore i'm right by default, argument.

congratulations you were born before me.

One per cent of a lot is a significant number. And 0.1% is enough if it's your kid that's been cleaned up by a policemn driving dangerously.

if my kid was cleaned up by any speeding motorist i'd have something to say about it.

[Jonbluefox9]

My Dad got caught speeding whilst we were on holiday in Wales a few years ago and had to go all the way back to do one of these speed awareness courses. I'm not sure why you can't transfer where you take the course?

[Thracian]

You might like to consider that if the police stopped you and asked you what speed you were driving at, and you said you didn't know, you would also be done for driving without due care and attention, even if you argued you were keeping your eyes on the road.

On the issue of stupid laws I rest my case!

[James.]

On the issue of stupid laws I rest my case!

You think it's stupid that you could get arrested for driving without having any idea how fast you were going?

I don't want an essay this time, just a nice, simple, straightforward answer.