Mr_Squirrel

Maybe Isabelle reverses the car up?

Indeed. Hovis Bread and Mr Kippling cakes are owned by Smith and Wesson. I will have 2 loaves, a packet of French Fancies and a large caliber revolver please.

This is an interesting thread and has raised a few good memories from the SF busy period when i joined in 2007 and to see a few familiar names posting on here is quite reassuring. I stopped posting and visiting when moderation took an almost Nazi jackboot style with more mods than posters, issuing warnings and bans at every exchange of opinion. Since then, i only look in occasionally and feel that the forum has lost its warmth. As others have said, social media like Facebook has claimed many good posters and even more tragic, so has death. I do miss the old days of the forum where you had trouble keeping up with the fast pace and when you knew that the same posters would be on at the same time every day but times change and people move on.

The answer to this problem is surprisingly simple. Every driver in the UK should have a microchip planted in their brain which is monitored by a big computer with lots of flashing lights at some government facility. Should the driver drop dead or take his eyes off the road for more than 2.5ms, the big computer will flash lots of lights really quickly and the Borg will descend on the town/city in the vicinity of the car and assimilate everybody before the crash can take place. Eventually, Barnsley will be a Borg society and wage war on Leeds and Huddersfield with disastrous consequences for Crista Ackroyd and the look north team.

Lets not jump to conclusions over this terrible accident. It is every professional drivers worst nightmare to be involved in an accident such as this. I dont think it is age prejudice as such Gary, but to be realistic, 19 is still an age of relative inexperience driving a car. A 'few months' holding a HGV license puts that experience in its infancy but i stress that i am not pointing blame here, merely pointing out that the young mans inexperience may well have contributed to other possible circumstances like a mechanical failure. Its true that the brake failsafe system should apply the brakes if there is a loss of air pressure, however you have to remember that this vehicle was travelling downhill with what appears to be a 'heavy load'. This being the case, air pressure may have not been the issue but possibly brake fade (brake overheating) or even (though unlikely) engine over run. All said, witnesses claim that he was repeatedly blowing the horn on approach and 'swerved' into a line of cars (presumably to attempt using them as a crash mat?) in an attempt to avert the accident. Inexperience may well be a factor but that doesnt not essentially mean that it was in any way negligent. My thoughts go out to all the people involved in this tragic accident.

Keep left unless overtaking. There is no dispute to this. End of, thats it!

Thats a ridiculous remark and is irrelevant to the discussion as i suggested nothing of the sort. Firstly, i never stated that more accidents take place in 20mph zones, therefore i am not incorrect because i never stated as such. I suggested that the more a driver feels compelled to look elsewhere other than the road, the likelyhood of an accident is increased. Do you dispute that? Secondly, "What is so special about 20 that requires more looking?" Well, for starters, 20mph zones tend to have a lower traffic flow which means that there is more likelyhood of drivers having 'an open road' in front of them. An 'open road' naturally invites drivers to increase speed and lets not exaggerate and presume formula 1 speeds are achieved when a 'marginal' increase is most likely. An 'open road' with a lower speed limit would require most people to pay closer attention to the speedometer than they would when driving in a 'flow' of traffic where travelling faster is less likely due to traffic in front. Having a 1/3rd longer to react to a problem is fine and agreeable, however, one first has to be witness to the 'problem' in the first place to reap the benefits of the extra 1/3rd. This 1/3rd is reduced if one is not witness to the 'problem' as a result of looking at something other than the road and surroundings. Im not quite sure as to your problem with my opinions other than to troll up an argument. If you seriously think that roads would be made safer with more emphasis on speed and having drivers concentrate more on their speedometer than on observation, i would like to hear it. ---------- Post added 17-11-2014 at 01:02 ---------- There is much sense in Xt500's post. As an aside, your speedometer is not 'accurate' as such. The guy who recalibrated it only recalibrated it to be 'true' to the new wheel (circumference) size.. it still has around a 10% deficiency. This is due to how car speedometers are made at the factory and the range of speed they have to cover. A trucks speedometer and tachograph have to be calibrated every 2 years by law. They are calibrated to the vehicle they are fitted in and have a lower speed range than that of a car. I understand that commercial tachographs have less than 1% deficiency overall. Basically, if a trucks tachograph is saying its doing 50mph.. it is doing 50mph as opposed to the 45mph that a car would most likely be doing if the car speedometer is reading 50mph. (10% deficiency)

Just my opinion Cyclone. My opinion is based upon my 20+ years of professional driving, driving an average of 100000k per year and managing in that average of 2 million miles driven, not to ever have hit anything or anybody. I dont need to prove anything as i am not in this discussion to 'prove' who is 'right or wrong'. Its a simple common sense aspect of driving that if you are watching the road and surrounding area, you are less likely to hit anything than if you are looking elsewhere. (like the speedometer) I am neither in this discussion to engage in an argument over 'facts and figures' retrieved from google.. My extensive experience and qualifications are good enough to cement my opinion as a perfectly adequate and sensible approach to safe driving. At no point have i implied that drivers should flout the law by ignoring the speed limit - far from it. I am implying however that good observation and driving techniques are far better weapons against accidents than placing all the emphasis on speed.

The lower the speed, the more likely a pedestrian is of surviving an accident with a vehicle. However, the lower the speed limit is, the more likely a driver is to be watching the speedometer as opposed to the road and surrounding area - thus more likely to be involved in an accident or near accident. I personally would rather drivers watch the road and surrounding area than their speedometer - thus lowering the likelyhood of actually having an accident in the first place. Of course, the law and the moral highgrounders (or liars!) have this subject in their favour as anybody breaking the speed limit is breaking the law and therefore is at fault regardless. Safe driving is not purely about sticking to speed limits but the emphasis given to speed limits over recent years has removed 'common sense' driving practises from drivers psyche.

There are better things to 'slip' her than a mobile phone number on a bit of paper.

The hard shoulder is far from a 'safety zone' as you put it. The hard shoulder is an incredibly dangerous place to be and as i understand it, is responsible for more motorway deaths than any other part of the motorway carriageways every year. This is why you are advised that in the event of a breakdown etc, you are to exit your vehicle and take refuge up the embankment behind your vehicle. Re: managed motorways.. That is exactly the point... they are 'managed'... They are monitored by camera and in the event of a breakdown etc where the 'hard shoulder' becomes blocked, the highways agency closes down the lane and it is the responsibility of the motorist to adhere to the instructions on the gantries. For the most part, 'managed motorways' work very well indeed.

We have a relief road.. Its called the A57 and links J31 of the M1 with the roundabout at the bottom of Fence hill. It was opened in 1985 (iirc) Before that, the road that goes from the Fire station right through to the roundabout at Fence, Now the B6067 was the old A57. I grew up on that road before the bypass was built and can say with certainty, that and the surrounding roads of the village are still way quieter than they were before the bypass was built The OP has not considered really, layout of the route from Rotherham through to Beighton, the main route for Ambulances from Rotherham Hospital. There are various junctions along the route which are particularly nasty. Treeton/Ulley X roads, The Junction by the Robin hood, the side roads near the Black bull and hill crests with junctions to the estates by the Top shop, The Schools and finally the junction by Rotherham road/Main street. Most of which are mostly 'blind' to a vehicle travelling along the main road at speed. It is a nuisance but has been like that for years and is unlikely to change anytime soon.

The entire licensing system is a mockery. People can pass their test first time through pure luck and are never evaluated again - ever! Its high time that periodical re-testing (with a different system to the standard 'L' test) was introduced. That way, the roads would be safer still and people who have been driving for years and who may have lost some of their knowledge and skills, could be re-educated and re-trained to be safer, more competent drivers.

While i personally understand this 'rule' over libel, i cannot help but wonder if people on the possible receiving end of such libellous accusations (such as the McCanns) that are discussed on SF, would really bother with perusing such a case against a relatively small media such as a local forum when there are potentially much bigger fish to fry. Many 'current affairs' stories are discussed on many media with equally suggestive remarks made against the people/companies at the centre of debate etc and as far as i am aware, very little in the way of 'libel action' actually takes place. As i understand law as it currently stands, one can offer an 'opinion' of just about anything without it actually becoming a libellous action providing one does not actually state as a 'matter of fact' that 'X' person/company actually 'did' this that other etc. Under 'human rights', one is entitled their 'opinion'... whether that opinion is factually correct or not is besides the point.. an opinion is just that - an 'opinion' and one that one is entitled to as a matter of law. Of course, SF is a privately run and moderated media outlet and as such, the rules/terms are laid out by the owners and members are obliged to adhere to, nonetheless, stifling members opinions and public debate is tantamount to dictatorship in many respects and counterproductive in maintaining the human right of 'free speech'. The first step on the road to dictatorship and eradication of human rights, is the eradication of thought and free speech... something that Britain, as a democracy, is fully entitled to.

Wealth is wasted on you lot! Big Yacht moored in Brazil, Whisky, Cocaine, big Cigars, porn queens, fast cars and an early death!