M1 mess at night

[Shunter 0]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

The thing that is wrong is that you can't or won't attempt to support the position you keep advocating and refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts your opinion.

I can't make you consider it though, so... Here we are.  You get increasingly aggressive in refuting the evidence, you repeat what you've said and apparently when I explain why you're wrong you think I'm doing something with "my toys".

I'm not baiting you, I've no idea what part of it you think is baiting.

We both know that there is a moral imperative and a duty to break unjust laws, you refuse to acknowledge it though.

You're obviously mistaken, we haven't talked about convictions and I certainly haven't said that I would be able to avoid one using this argument.  Nobody is appealing to mummy, well, perhaps you feel like calling her, I'm perfectly comfortable though.  At the moment you're flailing around, chucking out ad homs, desperately refusing to actually engage in debate.  I don't know why, perhaps I've challenged some deep seated belief you hold and cognitive dissonance is in full effect.

 

I didn't ask you to explain the law, we both know that.  I asked you to explain why you think there's a duty to obey the law.  Something you've so far refused to do.

 

It's interesting that you want me to confess, to your authority figure no less.  Perhaps you've seen some senior politicians though confess to breaking drug laws?  Were they immediately arrested?  If I walk up to a police officer and tell him I did 80 on the motorway, what do you imagine will actually happen?  Do you think that he'll have me in cuffs and off to the station?  I can imagine that most likely I'll get a bewildered look and either a sarcastic statement "well done", or possibly a "well don't do it again".

You might have wasted your fingerprints there because your reply was yet again off the point. I don't know how big the letters need to be, but I will try this..

I AGREE THAT SOME LAWS ARE AN ASS. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that all the various laws that you and others have quoted and were changed over time were done by mass public opinion, with real time protests and stand off. An individual cannot do this alone and whilst you seem to have a very vague idea as to what aggression is, you must try and take it on the chin when you openly admit to breaking a law that you will never change, and someone picks you up on it. Very adult indeed. Let me put it another way, if you were speeding and you caused an accident due to losing control, mechanical failure  or just generally being a wally behind the wheel, and you killed someone, your theory about it being morally right becomes even more so ridiculous than it was before. 

You may have a handful of idiots who agree with your lack of civil duty, but nobody likes a speeding motorist, even more so one who openly boasts about it, so your totally ridiculous admission is one of the reasons why 26% of road deaths are caused by, well ... guess what?

You just keep on with your fatuous replies old boy, because that is all they are 😘 

 

5 hours ago, Resident said:

I think the image of Chris Evans from the ad below when I posted this was an apt response 

 

So I screenshot it for you. 

 

You shouldn't really put yourself down. I'm sure you will get better as time elapses x

[Hook 10]

On 11/02/2019 at 17:52, Cyclone said:

 

 

Now, rather than prophesying terrible things for me based on a few very flimsy assumptions, how about you justify your statements about why the law is always correct and should never be disobeyed?

It’s funny - because your logic is the one that makes little sense. You’re breaking the law by speeding and attempting to justify your actions by comparing speeding to slavery and homosexuality. 

[Cyclone 10]

No, that's not what I did.

I made a statement that the law can be wrong.  Shunter made a statement that we have a duty to obey the law no matter what it is.

The last 3 pages were attempting to discuss the justification for both statements.

 

Perhaps the speed limit on the motorway is wrong, I haven't tried to make an argument that it is though, and I haven't tried to justify breaking it.

[Cyclone 10]

12 hours ago, Shunter said:

You might have wasted your fingerprints there because your reply was yet again off the point. I don't know how big the letters need to be, but I will try this..

I AGREE THAT SOME LAWS ARE AN ASS. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that all the various laws that you and others have quoted and were changed over time were done by mass public opinion, with real time protests and stand off. An individual cannot do this alone and whilst you seem to have a very vague idea as to what aggression is, you must try and take it on the chin when you openly admit to breaking a law that you will never change, and someone picks you up on it. Very adult indeed. Let me put it another way, if you were speeding and you caused an accident due to losing control, mechanical failure  or just generally being a wally behind the wheel, and you killed someone, your theory about it being morally right becomes even more so ridiculous than it was before. 

You may have a handful of idiots who agree with your lack of civil duty, but nobody likes a speeding motorist, even more so one who openly boasts about it, so your totally ridiculous admission is one of the reasons why 26% of road deaths are caused by, well ... guess what?

You just keep on with your fatuous replies old boy, because that is all they are 😘 

Ah, well, you might actually be getting somewhere.

So, laws can and should be changed if public opinion is against them.  I don't think they actually need protests or 'stand offs', they just need to be wrong, as defined by the behaviour of the public.

But then you go on to make out that speeding on the motorway makes me some kind of unusual driver.  That's hilarious.  Have you ever driven on the motorway?  Or ever driven?  Certainly admitting to speeding on the motorway isn't unusual.

I don't understand your point about the morality of the law after an accident causes a death.  It won't make it any better if I'm doing 70 mph and a mechanical failure causes a death, it won't make it any worse if it's 71 mph.  Speed alters the severity of accidents of course, but we purposefully allow some roads to be faster than others, so we clearly accept some increased risk on some roads.

Perhaps you've been confused though, I didn't argue that it was morally right to break the speed limit.  Since page three I have been trying to discuss your blanket statement that we should (and have a duty) to obey the law.  I haven't been discussing speed limits, I think that's really very clear.

So, good attempt to entirely change the topic, but you didn't say on page three that speeding was wrong and we shouldn't do it (although most motorists would apparently disagree with you), you said that we have a duty to always obey the law.

 

If you do want to discuss speeding though;

You know how many accidents have speed as a major contributory factor, 5%, not 26%.

And regarding speeding;

In free flow conditions, the proportions of cars complying with the speed limit were 52% on motorways, 91% on national speed limit single carriageways, 48% on 30mph roads and 14% on 20mph roads.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/743878/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-2017.pdf

Quite interesting actually.  So these are measured over quite a long period of time and you can see in a graph lower down that compliance on the motorway increases at rush hour (basically it's not possible to speed), it shows that outside rush hour >50% of cars on the motorway are exceeding the speed limit.

All these millions of people, routinely breaking the law!

So perhaps the speed limit should be reviewed...  Which is similar to what I said back on page 3 as well.

[Shunter 0]

6 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Ah, well, you might actually be getting somewhere.

So, laws can and should be changed if public opinion is against them.  I don't think they actually need protests or 'stand offs', they just need to be wrong, as defined by the behaviour of the public.

But then you go on to make out that speeding on the motorway makes me some kind of unusual driver.  That's hilarious.  Have you ever driven on the motorway?  Or ever driven?  Certainly admitting to speeding on the motorway isn't unusual.

I don't understand your point about the morality of the law after an accident causes a death.  It won't make it any better if I'm doing 70 mph and a mechanical failure causes a death, it won't make it any worse if it's 71 mph.  Speed alters the severity of accidents of course, but we purposefully allow some roads to be faster than others, so we clearly accept some increased risk on some roads.

Perhaps you've been confused though, I didn't argue that it was morally right to break the speed limit.  Since page three I have been trying to discuss your blanket statement that we should (and have a duty) to obey the law.  I haven't been discussing speed limits, I think that's really very clear.

So, good attempt to entirely change the topic, but you didn't say on page three that speeding was wrong and we shouldn't do it (although most motorists would apparently disagree with you), you said that we have a duty to always obey the law.

 

If you do want to discuss speeding though;

You know how many accidents have speed as a major contributory factor, 5%, not 26%.

And regarding speeding;

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/743878/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-2017.pdf

Quite interesting actually.  So these are measured over quite a long period of time and you can see in a graph lower down that compliance on the motorway increases at rush hour (basically it's not possible to speed), it shows that outside rush hour >50% of cars on the motorway are exceeding the speed limit.

All these millions of people, routinely breaking the law!

So perhaps the speed limit should be reviewed...  Which is similar to what I said back on page 3 as well.

It wasn't a percentage of accidents, it was a percentage of deaths. 

[Cyclone 10]

What's the source?

[DT Ralge 10]

Reviewing motorway speed limits is a good idea, speed in itself does not kill.    (discuss).

 

old chestnut, indeed.

 

Running out of space is a problem, fatal even, on occasions.

DfT made no mention of employing German speed/space enforcement technology - that would have been a great idea.  Instead, the ministers talked nonsense about “more productive economy”.

 

DfT made no mention of German experience of death on their motorways, limited and unlimited.  (They probably haven’t checked the stats like yours truly to know that Clarkson sees only the positives of unlimited speeds and talks - breaking news - utter ...)

 

DfT maybe had some knowledge of the coal-face of driving, cars and drivers' general ignorance, negligence and apathy when it comes to tyres, inflation, tread and tread performance.   Considering letting the average British driver loose with legalised higher speeds and the likely consequences is, well, maybe the reason DfT got cold feet when thinking about increasing speed limits.  It also went against all Govt plans for air quality and environmental targets. 

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by DT Ralge

[DerbyTup 10]

On 09/01/2019 at 14:24, Longcol said:

Whilst over in Sheffield over the Christmas period I did very much the same without noticing a flash - ditto on the M42 round Birmingham where they have the variable speed limit and I was doing consistently 10mph above it - ditto the roadworks on the M62 where it crosses the M6 where the limit is 50 and I must have averaged over 60.

I'd be careful old chap.  Especially on motorways where there is a temporary 50mph speed limit restriction due to roadworks.  Those are usually strictly enforced.  Anything over 10% above the speed limit there is likely to be punished.  Most police forces will enforce the speeding law at 10% plus 2mph, some enforce it at 10% plus 3mph.  So, you may get away with an average of 58mph in a 50, but anything over that and you're likely to be done for.  

 

I know that stretch of M42 you speak about.  It was one of the first stretches of motorway in the country to do away with the hard shoulder by making it into another lane.   A terrible idea imo - and one which I think will be reversed eventually - we just need a few more people to be killed on such roads before the authorities can no longer justify such a ridiculous scheme and are forced to get rid of them altogether.   

 

Coming back to the 50 mph speed limits on motorways - I must admit, I always set my cruise to 50 mph when driving through those.  At least, initially.  That's mainly to prevent me from losing concentration and allowing my speed to increase.  There are some very long stretches of roadworks on the M1 - I travel it most weeks.  The stretch from Luton to Northampton is all road works at present with a 50 mph speed limit and average speed cameras.  The problem is, someone needs to tell the juggernaut drivers, especially the ones who are non-UK drivers.  Because they drive particularly recklessly on the motorway.  It's as if they know they can't be caught for speeding because they are not driving a vehicle that is registered here, so they do what the hell they like.  When you're sitting there at 50 mph and a great juggernaut is sitting on your back bumper, flashing his lights and blasting a deafening air horn to try and make you get out the way, it's a bit disconcerting.  So, I often set the cruise to 55 mph, which is the 10% above self-imposed limit.  This gets me from under the feet/wheels of the juggernauts and is actually the speed at which most other motorists are travelling at - so it maintains a good distance all around - which is safer for everyone.