Super Cool Really Fat Drivers club.

[Bellend Sebastian]

No regrets at all about the traffic wardens comment. I witnessed another example of their unreasonable and dictatorial bullying only on Wednesday.

Did it involve someone being penalised for parking illegally, perchance? This country etc.

Like JTB, I'm pulling out of this one. It's been emotional. Laters, dudes

[Thracian]

This all seems a bit silly. Regardless of whether you think the laws on speeding are 1984-style Big Brother government controls to break the free-thinking people of this country, they are there. You know it, and if you choose to ignore the speed limits set out I have absolutely no idea how you can then bleat on about the injustice of getting done for speeding. And as for moaning about the dastardly, fiendish schemes set out to trap the poor unsuspecting speeding motorist, I can't see how that washes either.

I've never understood the notion that you should be warned about the presence of speed cameras. Why on earth should you be given advanced warning that you might be caught breaking the law? If someone's standing in the street selling drugs to people, should they be given prior warning that they're about to get busted by the police, should burglars receive a text telling them the police are on the way & they'd better scarper sharpish?

The fact you are given warnings about speed cameras gives the impression that it's ok to do it (and they do HAVE to provide sign-posting, so if it's at the bottom of a steep hill, you'll know as you hurtle down it that you've got to slam on the anchors before you get to the bottom), these people who get off speeding fines because the camera/speed trap wasn't sign-posted properly really get on my tits. They were speeding, they knew what the limit was, they got caught, regardless of the method of detection, that should be an end to it.

I myself have 3 points from speeding. I was doing 60 in a 50 zone, a dual carriageway where there was no real justification for it to be 50, but it was.

I wasn't paying enough attention to the speed I was going, even though it was perfectly safe to be doing that speed on that road. I got done, I hold my hands up, I shouldn't have been doing the speed I was. I don't feel a sense of injustice because the speed limit didn't fit with my notion of what the speed should be on that road, I'm just annoyed with myself that I wasn't paying enough attention to how fast I was going when I knew the limit was 50.

Thracian, you should move to France. In one area there, they took an interesting approach to tackling the problem of drink-driving on a particularly dangerous road where trees lined the carriageway & where drunken french people kept crashing into the trees while driving home mullered. Rather than punishing the motorists for endangering their own lives and those of other road users by stopping them & taking away their driving licence, they removed all the trees along the side of the road so the drunken motorists would trundle gently through the fields behind rather than smash into the trees. Your type of place, eh?

I love France and the French attitude to many things in life.

But this comment of yours: "I myself have 3 points from speeding. I was doing 60 in a 50 zone, a dual carriageway where there was no real justification for it to be 50, but it was," makes exactly my point - there's often no justification for it. It's just an authoritarian dictat.

[Thracian]

Did it involve someone being penalised for parking illegally, perchance? This country etc.

Like JTB, I'm pulling out of this one. It's been emotional. Laters, dudes

Not in the context of the situation it didn't. And in the end, after much heated conversation involving various potential victims, the army of maroon-clad enforcers accepted the situation and allowed common sense to prevail.

[Manwell Pablo]

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.

It takes 0.25 seconds to have a glance at your speedometer.

I have never, in my life, herd about a crash caused by someone who "had looked away from the road to check their speedometer"

Ridiculous.

[The People's Hero]

I don't really want to get dragged in to an argument here, but no one stares at their speedo for a whole second.. it's a quick glance down while the road reminds in your peripheral vision. Speedometers are designed to be clear and prominent enough that such a glance does the job.

I'll bet you're happy to play around with your stereo aren't you Tony?

[JoeyB]

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

who doesn't

Gary Glitter stops and pulls over tho

[Manwell Pablo]

Talking of girls, my mates mrs came down the pub last night.

Thats doesn't sound very interesting Manuel I hear you all cry.

This is she, be warned this picture has tits in it.

http://blog.joins.com/usr/t/s/ts7270/26/ma..._welch_02_0.jpg

I didn't know where to look.

[Dr The Singh]

Talking of girls, my mates mrs came down the pub last night.

Thats doesn't sound very interesting Manuel I hear you all cry.

This is she, be warned this picture has tits in it.

http://blog.joins.com/usr/t/s/ts7270/26/ma..._welch_02_0.jpg

I didn't know where to look.

Wow, what she like in the flesh, some of these nudey models don't look all that in real life????

[Manwell Pablo]

Wow, what she like in the flesh, some of these nudey models don't look all that in real life????

Err, alot better than that.

hold on.....I'll get a vid.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

[Dr The Singh]

Err, alot better than that.

hold on.....I'll get a vid.

Can I borrow the vid Manny, err it's for research purposes only!!

It's just my mate used to go out with a maxim model, her name was Tracy Garmin I think, she looked cracking in the mag but we were alittle disapointed with her in the flesh, she was quite short and stumpy and had loads of achne, but great tits though, and she wasn't afraid to show them off, My mate after a few was fixed on them, so much that she ended up having a go at him!!

[Guest]

The problem is the victimising attack on people's freedom to drive according to the circumstances and conditions.

But as you work in the law industry

Not yet.

As I say, no-one is victimised/penalised for driving too slowly and causing obstruction, irritation and potential accidents. You say that so many people break the law, but that's not because they are mostly intent on being reckless criminals but simply because they consider it perfectly safe to do so.

Doesn't that tell you something?

It tells me that people care only about their own pathetic selves as they show no regard as to what goes on around them.

After all, if "so many" people voted for a politician they would probably call him elected and give him power. If "so many" people voted for a ban on smoking they would doubtless say it was the right course of action.

But if "so many" people didn't agree with some European charter they would make sure they were ignored.

What the hell does European law have to do with this?

The authorities do what they want and according to how they wish to manipulate things. Justice and right doesn't always come into it even with the application of the laws we have. As some policemen would be able to testify if they were honest, which they're not.

But can't you see that there is a need to put some kind of restriction on traffic speed? Ok, so you might be able to drive down a particular road xmph quicker, but it doesn't mean that everyone else can. Why should less able drivers be intimidated by a tailgater who is a clearly more skilled person?

Then of course, there are the super-confident, who are an accident waiting to happen. You don't think that having a lower road speed ultimately protects them and more importantly, other road users by not giving the opportunity in the first place? Some people are not safe at speed.

I've said it before; the law needs to be certain. You cannot start bringing subjective elements into it. How do you legislate for that? How do you go about proving who can drive down a road at 30mph and who can go at 50mph?

Speed limits that are below what you think they should be are not unfair, they're just inconvenient.

[Tabou]

**Lots of valid points***

Obama Lisa for US president!

[Alexikokopops]

No, but waving a knife around would be just as fucking stupid as driving after having had a few. The point isn't intention, drivers aren't being punished for what "might happen" but for having the temerity to hedge their bets on other peoples lives in the first place.

And BAM, there it is.

[Flynny]

But this comment of yours: "I myself have 3 points from speeding. I was doing 60 in a 50 zone, a dual carriageway where there was no real justification for it to be 50, but it was," makes exactly my point - there's often no justification for it. It's just an authoritarian dictat.

Other people's decisions not always making sense to us on a personal level doesn't equal an "authoritarian dictat". Every other possible solution that would still keep the roads safe would only require more and more legislation and thus another layer of frustrating bureaucracy. I doubt that's what you or most people really want, government is bloated enough as it is; I'd agree with your sentiments about 'authoritarianism' there, if not your point.

Speed limits are a blunt instrument, of course thats true, but with respect you seem to be getting a bit childish over something thats close to the best solution for all parties, even if it mildly inconveniences you.

If you want to moan about health and safety you might reflect on the somewhat more ridiculous fact that with public education institutions I'm required to be given a hard hat to wear whilst examining slate outcrops in the middle of a wide, open beach.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

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.

If you've been driving for 43 years even you should no that it's very rarely that you can actually go 70mph down the M6 anyway!

[Thracian]

If you've been driving for 43 years even you should no that it's very rarely that you can actually go 70mph down the M6 anyway!

I've avoided most of the M6 for years because of exactly that. Nightmare of a road.

[Thracian]

Other people's decisions not always making sense to us on a personal level doesn't equal an "authoritarian dictat". Every other possible solution that would still keep the roads safe would only require more and more legislation and thus another layer of frustrating bureaucracy. I doubt that's what you or most people really want, government is bloated enough as it is; I'd agree with your sentiments about 'authoritarianism' there, if not your point.

Speed limits are a blunt instrument, of course thats true, but with respect you seem to be getting a bit childish over something thats close to the best solution for all parties, even if it mildly inconveniences you.

If you want to moan about health and safety you might reflect on the somewhat more ridiculous fact that with public education institutions I'm required to be given a hard hat to wear whilst examining slate outcrops in the middle of a wide, open beach.

Yes, I'm surprised you don't have to envelop yourself in bubble wrap too.

[Thracian]

Not yet.

It tells me that people care only about their own pathetic selves as they show no regard as to what goes on around them.

What the hell does European law have to do with this?

But can't you see that there is a need to put some kind of restriction on traffic speed? Ok, so you might be able to drive down a particular road xmph quicker, but it doesn't mean that everyone else can. Why should less able drivers be intimidated by a tailgater who is a clearly more skilled person?

Then of course, there are the super-confident, who are an accident waiting to happen. You don't think that having a lower road speed ultimately protects them and more importantly, other road users by not giving the opportunity in the first place? Some people are not safe at speed.

I've said it before; the law needs to be certain. You cannot start bringing subjective elements into it. How do you legislate for that? How do you go about proving who can drive down a road at 30mph and who can go at 50mph?

Speed limits that are below what you think they should be are not unfair, they're just inconvenient.

If some people are not safe at speed, no-one forces them to drive quickly, obstruction though they may be.

But why should everyone have to drive like a half-blind octogenarian because such people are used to set the standard?

If some people are not safe at speed no-one forces them to drive quickly.

And I don't tailgate anyone - never have. It's provocative and the height of bad manners.

And with an advisory approach and other common sense measures "the law" doesn't need to "be certain" of anything because it doesn't have to come into it at all unless there's an accident.

[Katy]

I've just trawled through 5 pages of this and lo and behold it's turned into Thracian On Roads again.

Why do we fall into this trap every time?

[James.]

I've just trawled through 5 pages of this and lo and behold it's turned into Thracian On Roads again.

Why do we fall into this trap every time?

Because it's fun making him look foolish.

[Thracian]

Because it's fun making him look foolish.

You reckon?

It's a quiet time, there's a guy who's forum needs to stay active and so far we've got nearly 95 posts and 900 views of a topic on speed awareness simply because someone expresses a noncomformist point of view. So who's the fool? Me for helping provoke some argument or you for thinking you're clever?

And folk say I take things too seriously.

[Milky]

You reckon?

It's a quiet time, there's a guy who's forum needs to stay active and so far we've got nearly 95 posts and 900 views of a topic on speed awareness simply because someone expresses a noncomformist point of view. So who's the fool? Me for helping provoke some argument or you for thinking you're clever?

Woah, that's far out maaan. gnarly.

[The People's Hero]

You reckon?

It's a quiet time, there's a guy who's forum needs to stay active and so far we've got nearly 95 posts and 900 views of a topic on speed awareness simply because someone expresses a noncomformist point of view. So who's the fool? Me for helping provoke some argument or you for thinking you're clever?

And folk say I take things too seriously.

Non-comformist in this case equals IDIOT.

[Thracian]

Thracian. Drink drivers are stopped to prevent the risk of causing an accident. I cant see how you can argue against that. You're more likely to have an accident if you're intoxicated, they are just preventing it from happening in the first place. And if you get caught drink driving, having not caused an accident or done anything wrong, it serves you right for being such a cocknob. The rules are there in black and white. If you break them, you get punished, deservedly punished.

That all sounds very pious.

But what about the lorries in the rain?

The immigrants who can't read the signs?

The road hogs in the centre lane?

And all those sodding hedgehogs crossing the roads with their bristles up.......

[James.]

You reckon?

Yes. It really is.

So who's the fool? Me for helping provoke some argument or you for thinking you're clever?

Definitely you.

I know I'm clever. I've got 10 GCSE's for crying out loud.