Super Cool Really Fat Drivers club.

[The People's Hero]

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.......

So what are your solutions?

Or do you not do solutions?

Didn't think so.

[Thracian]

Non-comformist in this case equals IDIOT.

Just guessing but I bet that was your first word as a baby. I bet your mum nodded too when you said it.

[Flynny]

Personally I wanted a proper reply to my post. Or TPH's most recent. What system would be better? You seem to just be making vague grumbles in response to some peoples points that no-one can argue with and flat-out ignoring others. It's like you want to drag this out as long as possible.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

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.

So taking this as an example of your system - if a road has an advisory speed of 45 mph between 10pm and 6am and from 6am onwards it's reduced to 40mph. The police see someone going at 60 on it on a wet day - what do they do? I suppose there's also an experience or age factor i haven't put into this, but surely you can see the problem.

Your plan's would make an adminsitrative nightmare. All cases would have to go to court, no-one would be clear what was acceptable or not, and the roads would be a lot more dangerous because guaranteed if you were going at an 'acceptable speed' close to the advisory limit, someone else behind you wouldn't agree and would be pushing you to go faster.

End of the day you couldn't argue these points to someone who's lost someone due to in-excessive speed.

[Thracian]

Personally I wanted a proper reply to my post. Or TPH's most recent. What system would be better? You seem to just be making vague grumbles in response to some peoples points that no-one can argue with and flat-out ignoring others. It's like you want to drag this out as long as possible.

Okay TPH's is nearest:

But what about the lorries in the rain? .... already answered way back.

Immigrants who can't read the signs?... make sure they can read and understand all road signs before they get a licence.

Road hogs in the centre lane? .... cautionary warning and explanation. Road safety course second time.

And all those sodding hedgehogs crossing the roads with their bristles up.......road signs warning hedgehogs that walking is not allowed on the roads.

PS: I've said briefly how I'd tackle speeding all along.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

PS: I've said briefly how I'd tackle speeding all along.

I think you're soultion is flawed though. You could have got a lot more agreement with people if you suggested that due to the fact current speed limit's were created a while ago and cars and roads have since greatly improved that the speed limit on motorway's and dual carriageways could be increased.

But built up areas and the like - well 30's plenty (even if i do quite often find myself a tickle over that.) not that you can do that in many of them these days thanks to the wonderful creation that is speed bumps.

[Guest]

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.

So bolting the stable door etc etc is the way to go? Great, so when an accident does happen you won't be asking why something wasn't done to prevent it from happening in the first place?

Nice thinking.

[Alexikokopops]

Just guessing but I bet that was your first word as a baby. I bet your mum nodded too when you said it.

I don't like to get involved with the bickering that goes on between you but that's probably the most elaborate response I've even seen to being called an idiot. My hat goes off to you.

[Hullfox]

But what about the lorries in the rain? .... already answered way back.

So when it rains, all lorries have to pull into lay bys.

That's a great idea and should work, why on earth has nobody thought about this before? You really should be a policy advisor for a Political Party

[Daggers]

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

I thought there could be nothing more worthless than Media Studies - but crying out loud certainly trumps it.

[Thracian]

So bolting the stable door etc etc is the way to go? Great, so when an accident does happen you won't be asking why something wasn't done to prevent it from happening in the first place?

Nice thinking.

There are plenty of things that can and could have been done to prevent accidents without turning thousands of people into petty criminals just because someone says they should drive like funeral directors.

[Thracian]

So when it rains, all lorries have to pull into lay bys.

That's a great idea and should work, why on earth has nobody thought about this before? You really should be a policy advisor for a Political Party

I'll perhaps remind you of that next time there's a motorway pile up in a downpour.

[Alexikokopops]

I'll perhaps remind you of that next time there's a motorway pile up in a downpour.

Just out of curiosity how do you think the country will function without getting any deliveries in wet weather?

[Thracian]

So taking this as an example of your system - if a road has an advisory speed of 45 mph between 10pm and 6am and from 6am onwards it's reduced to 40mph. The police see someone going at 60 on it on a wet day - what do they do? I suppose there's also an experience or age factor i haven't put into this, but surely you can see the problem.

Your plan's would make an adminsitrative nightmare. All cases would have to go to court, no-one would be clear what was acceptable or not, and the roads would be a lot more dangerous because guaranteed if you were going at an 'acceptable speed' close to the advisory limit, someone else behind you wouldn't agree and would be pushing you to go faster.

End of the day you couldn't argue these points to someone who's lost someone due to in-excessive speed.

I think the whole thrust of this Government in turning so many of us into petty offenders in a multitude of ways from speeding to dustbin collections is flawed and just a means of collecting stealth taxes to bale them out of their constant and irresponsible overspending.

I respond a lot better to being asked to do something rather than being told or bullied and judging by the numbers of court cases for traffic offences, there's plenty more feel the same way.

I briefly worked in Switzerland where you hardly ever saw a policeman, yet their respect for the law was pronounced because, to a considerable extent, the people made the laws.

If you really want safe roads you could start by insisting that cars made for the UK market must not be able to exceed 80mph. You could extend the chevron advisory system whereby people are encouraged to drive a safe distance behind the vehicle in front.

You could have the flexible speed advisory system I mentioned with recommended top speeds governed by time, place and the weather with people only being prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving and worse.

Seriously inconsiderate drivers like tailgaters and centre lane road hogs would be asked to attend safety refreshers and there would be far more publicity emphasising the merits of safe, considerate and responsible driving.

Acquiring a driving licence should be a staged process and should ensure that drivers have experience of controlling vehicles at different speeds and in different conditions.

Novices should only be allowed to drive a certain size of vehicle until they've completed so many hours on the road and the carrying of passengers by novices should be restricted.

Constantly fining people and turning them into offenders for no good reason is antagonistic and unnecessary. It can also cause hardship and domestic difficulties way out of proportion to the so-called offence committed and especially if no problem has been caused by the motorist in any case.

In some cases speeding is a mistake not a deliberate offence and I'm damned sure that people in other walks of life - politicians, teachers, policemen, doctors etc - don't have to pay for all of their mistakes and flawed decisions?

They might be criticised, retrained or further advised but they are not generally turned into offenders. Yet their mistakes can all affect lives just like those of the motorist.

None of the above would affect the prosecution of motorists for dangerous, reckless driving that may have caused an accident or resulted in injury or loss of life.

But then the policemen, doctors, politicians I mentioned might well have to answer seriously for major mistakes (unless shamefully shielded in some way) so at least we'd have a fair and consistent approach to all things and one where the authorities help and serve communities rather than penalissing them and treating them as enemies or victims to be bullied and exploited.

As with so many things the answer lies in education, example, persuasion and common sense rather than constant flogging with a big stick.

[Thracian]

Just out of curiosity how do you think the country will function without getting any deliveries in wet weather?

Quietly!

Today's not a good day to say this but there are not that many heavy downpours that result in the excessive spray I'm concerned about and there is usually plenty of dry or dryish weather to drive in.

My main danger from spray occurs in busy periods on motorways and dual carriageways and I'm sure it is not beyond the wit of man to reduce the problem in a reasonable way.

One alternative would be to restrict HGV's to a slower speed in heavy rain which would result in far less spray or even have lane restrictions because there's not much delivered when a motorway is closed by accidents partly caused by excessive spray and by truckies who too often show precious little inclination to slow down or show consideration to other road users in such conditions.

Mind you, motorists are appalling in refusing to slow down in the wet so there's more education needed there too.

And again on the subject of trucks they more than anyone else should be persuaded to leave proper space between themselves and the vehicle in front. Times you see great lines of them nose to tail and there's no need for it.

I'm sure half the time it's just done to cut wind resistance and save fuel but it's a risky way of saving money.

[Flynny]

Brilliant. Totally unenforcable, but brilliant.

Did I mention totally unenforcable?

[Thracian]

Brilliant. Totally unenforcable, but brilliant.

Did I mention totally unenforcable?

Why this constant worshipping at the altar of enforcement? Far more needs to be done to educate and persuade people to drive more responsibly but the authorities need to be more realistic.

Why is it necessary to have a 50mph limit on a dual carriageway in the middle of the countryside between 1-00am and 5-00am in the morning?

And what has enforcement really done apart from gather in mountains of money in fines? If I drive down the motorway at 70mph I am constantly overtaken as if I'm a milk float.

Whether the development of "average speed" measurement will be a genuine improvement I don't know but if we set the speeds at the levels of the octogenarian nervous wreck who doesn't feel safe out of second gear I can see every journey taking an age and we'll be able to revive the pedal car. How much fuel and global warming will that save!

[Flynny]

Sorry no you're right, if the law isn't enforced everyone's lovely altruism will shine through and no-one will ever do bad things. Or anarchy will ensue. One of those, definitely.

[Guest]

There are plenty of things that can and could have been done to prevent accidents without turning thousands of people into petty criminals just because someone says they should drive like funeral directors.

I don't know what kind of funerals you've seen, but that certainly takes exaggeration to a new level.

At the end of the day, it is very easy not to get pulled up for a speeding offence. No, really.

Sorry no you're right, if the law isn't enforced everyone's lovely altruism will shine through and no-one will ever do bad things. Or anarchy will ensue. One of those, definitely.

I'm sure youngsters weren't this cynical when I was young. Well, apart from me, that is.

[Hullfox]

Mrs HF who is a lovely lovely person and rarely annoyed has just summed this up in three succinct words.

I'm backing her judgement I think.

[stez]

Mrs HF who is a lovely lovely person and rarely annoyed has just summed this up in three succinct words.

I'm backing her judgement I think.

load of shit?

[Hullfox]

load of shit?

All three words wrong.

Similar sentiment though.

[Thracian]

Lisa: "At the end of the day, it is very easy not to get pulled up for a speeding offence. No, really. "

Light-reflecting number plate spray?

[Katy]

Lisa: "At the end of the day, it is very easy not to get pulled up for a speeding offence. No, really. "

Light-reflecting number plate spray?

Ha good luck with trying to talk your way out of that one when you get pulled over by the police. Highly illegal in the real world of course but in Thrac world - go for it.

[Daggers]

I remember the good old days, halcyon days when this thread was nothing but frivolity and fields.