Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

1252628303135

Posts

  • JadedJaded Posts: 6,663
    The best way forward is to stop attempting to de-criminalise illegal behaviour by drivers. A mini-industry has grown up supporting these "otherwise law abiding motorists" and condoning law-breaking.

    With the car industry suppported newspaper columns that publish column inch after column inch of pro-law-breaking motorist is it any wonder that motorists don't think it is too bad to break the law?

    I don't see how training is going to make any difference now. Firstly you have to undo the damamge done by prats campaigning against enforecement mechanisms and re-establish the law on the roads. Loads more cameras and loads more traffic police, paid for by the bad drivers.

    Hey, after donig that, you might not need this expensive pie-in the sky all-driver training scheme!

    --
    <font size="1">[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one</font id="size1">
  • Mister PaulMister Paul Posts: 719
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>

    <b>I believe in a world where responsibility should be assumed by the individual. The two positions are diametrically placed and will never meet.</b>
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    So I take it that you still can't come up with any arguments against a 20mph limit then?

    __________________________________________________________
    <font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">
    [/quote]

    You really are not worth talking to. Your estimation of your intellect is overshadowed only by the size of your ego.

    Don't go away thinking that you've somehow 'won' anything, because I really couldn't care less. I know you'll find that very hard to believe but at least your 3 chums will be impressed.
    [/quote]

    Cretin, don't worry about losing. That's not what this is about mate. It's about debate. And no matter how many times I ask you, you haven't been able to come up with an argument against 20mph limits, nor can you explain how they are not necessary while we strive to reach your high driving standard nirvana.

    Instead you still choose to waffle on in any way you can to avoid having to address this failure.

    (my bold) See, this is another thing. You may have learned it from Smithy, or you may always have done it. These statements all sound lovely -indeed he uses them as often as he can in press quotes. The problem is that the devil is in the detail, and when the both of you are asked to break down these statements to the actual points and methods, you find that you can't find the justification for them. So you start looking for reasons to run away from the discussion. And that's not good debating.



    __________________________________________________________
    <font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">
    __________________________________________________________
    <font>What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font>
  • Mister PaulMister Paul Posts: 719
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>



    So how would you solve these problems? Would you force radar technology that stops tailgating, force automated high visibility lamps (they are not called foglamps), purchase of number plates only from DVLA (can you imagine the price), automated indicator technology, lane forcing technology (as seen on Mercedes and Lexus cars), MOTs that test to manufacturer's specifications on every single component (œœœœ), GPS controlled speed limiters, GPS controlled parking zones, having to justify car choice to the government, cars that refuse to move without the seatbelt clipped?

    Would you rather have all that, or would you think, as I do, that its better to have a dedicated force of police officers patrolling the roads and penalising offenders appropriately?
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    There you go again. State an extreme that you pretend your oposing debater wants, and the talk like it has to be one or the other. One or the other. One or the other. What's wrong with a combination? What's wrong with a dedicated police force (which you seem to have forgotten that we have BTW, admittedly it could be more) and devices like safety cameras to supplement it?

    Here's where you start to lose it in the detail...

    __________________________________________________________
    <font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">
    __________________________________________________________
    <font>What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font>
  • CretinCretin Posts: 266
    Inevitably some drivers would resent paying such a charge - quite possibly those who are over-confident in their abilities to begin with.

    I think though that most people would accept it, provided they thought that the training would be useful to road safety as a whole - that could be achieved with a decent government campaign. Considering the benefits to the economy of a nation of safer drivers (fewer incidents, less congestion, etc), I think it would be well worth it, don't you agree?
  • Mister PaulMister Paul Posts: 719
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Boss</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mister Paul</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Boss</i>

    I don't mean they lose concentration as in become tired, but in the sense that they (mistakenly) believe that they can do something else at the same time, like mobile phone, make up, etc.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    So now you're saying that 20mph limits are responsible for making people use their mobile phones while driving.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    Not <i>responsible</i> for MAKING people use them, but encouraging people who are irresponsible in the first place to.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    So you're blaming an inanimate object for someone's actions?

    __________________________________________________________
    <font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">
    __________________________________________________________
    <font>What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font>
  • Mister PaulMister Paul Posts: 719
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Boss</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mister Paul</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Boss</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mister Paul</i>


    Oh, and you still haven't given an example of a problem with 20mph limits. You've just done your usual thing of making up a hypothetical situation. Which isn't an example. What are you going to suggest next? That a 20 mph limit is dangerous because some elephants might be chasing you and the could catch you up?

    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    WELL I HAVE - you just haven't liked any of them. Less bunched up cars making it harder for pedestrians to cross, and the fact that drivers will think they can do other things while driving more and not concentrate on the road as much.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Slower traffic doesn't make it harder to cross Bonjy. It makes it easier.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


    No it makes it harder, because when the traffic can only go 20mph the release from one phase of <b>the lights </b>overlaps with the release from the next phase, resulting in a 'constant stream' of traffic, rather than 'convoys', which pedestrians can cross between.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    What does traffic do at lights Bonjo?

    __________________________________________________________
    <font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">
    __________________________________________________________
    <font>What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font>
  • CretinCretin Posts: 266
    Mister Paul I have already explained why hypothecating revenue from fines to a police force is a bad idea, I don't understand why you ask the question of me again. I have repeatedly made my position clear on 20mph limits and why such policy is a bad idea but you're insistent on flogging a dead horse.

    Continue flogging if you like, its your time. I couldn't care less.
  • CretinCretin Posts: 266
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jaded</i>
    Hey, after donig that, you might not need this expensive pie-in the sky all-driver training scheme!
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    So you're not interested in improving driving skills then. I'm sorry to be emotive but that'll be cold comfort to your family and friends when the driver who cuts you up and injures/kills you is fined œ500 and banned for 12 months.
  • JadedJaded Posts: 6,663
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jaded</i>
    Hey, after donig that, you might not need this expensive pie-in the sky all-driver training scheme!
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    So you're not interested in improving driving skills then. I'm sorry to be emotive but that'll be cold comfort to your family and friends when the driver who cuts you up and injures/kills you is fined œ500 and banned for 12 months.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    All drivers start out with the skills, if they have a valid licence.

    What has happened is that groups like SafeSpeed have worked tirelessly to say that you don't need to worry about enforcement as it infringes on your right to drive the way you want.

    It's not about skills, it is about understanding that you, as a driver, are not the centre of the universe.

    --
    <font size="1">[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one</font id="size1">
  • CretinCretin Posts: 266
    Your first line assumes that no further learning need occur - this is a pretty bad attitude. Your second line is completely wrong. Your third line will do nothing for road safety.

    I dread to think that there are people with your views who express them in public. Its almost embarrassing.
  • JadedJaded Posts: 6,663
    No - you make those assumptions about thr first line

    The 2nd line is spot on - SS apologists just can't see it.

    The third line - you think drivers should be the centre of the universe? Extraordinary.

    --
    <font size="1">[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one</font id="size1">
  • Mister PaulMister Paul Posts: 719
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>

    Mister Paul I have already explained why hypothecating revenue from fines to a police force is a bad idea, I don't understand why you ask the question of me again.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    What are you telling me this for? I've not questioned you on it.


    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>

    I have repeatedly made my position clear on 20mph limits and why such policy is a bad idea but you're insistent on flogging a dead horse.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    No, you've said that you don't like it. You've said that you'd prefer standards to be raised to the point where limits aren't needed. But you have still failed to suggest what we do in the mean time to reduce accidents. Putting a sign up takes a couple of hours. Trying to improve driving standards will take years. During which time more people will be killed or injured unnecessarily on the roads. why can't one supplement the other, cretin? You still haven't answered that question, after being asked several times over several days. You just keep coming back to your 'give drivers responsibility' line, but that doesn't answer the question.

    You still don't see how 20mph limits would benefit us in the mean time. You don't like them, but you can't give one reason why they can't be put in place while your driving nirvana is sought. You can't give one reason why they are a bad idea. What is wrong with you?



    __________________________________________________________
    <font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">
    __________________________________________________________
    <font>What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font>
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    quote: I take full responsibility for my actions, which is why I took the IAM training in the first place.



    But you make claims that the test waas carried out in contravention of the IAM standards, this would invalidate the test. You also claim that the IAM are misleading, and in fact lying when they say that they advocate driving within speed limits.......

    You have been asked to put this to the test by checking that your test is valid, is here a reason you are reluctant to do so?


    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I believe in a world where responsibility should be assumed by the individual. The two positions are diametrically placed and will never meet.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Agree totally with this statement.

    The "irreconcilable difference" is that many of us believe that part of the responsibility is to live within the rules, laws, and standards of their society and community, an apparent anathema to yourself.

    The latter position is simply posturing to try and justify antisocial and illegal behaviour.



    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • Mister PaulMister Paul Posts: 719
    Cretin

    Can I summarise?

    -You think that iproving driving standards is the answer to improving road safety. I couldn't agree more.

    -However this is done, it is going to take time. Whether it can be done successfully, given that actions are always about choice despite knowledge, would remain to be seen.

    -During this time, there are proven, very simple measures that could be taken on the roads to improve safety. 20mph speed limits are one of them.

    -You're not arguing that these measures are not effective, but you still don't want them implemented.

    -No-one can offer any argument against these simple, effective measures. The choice is to either implement these measures and improve safety while we get driving standards up, or leave things as they are and watch people continue to be injured unnecessarily. You are against these measures.

    And that is where the rub of your argument is.

    __________________________________________________________
    <font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">
    __________________________________________________________
    <font>What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font>
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mister Paul</i>
    So you're going to continue to use that tactic to ignore the perfectly legitimate questions, central to your position?

    I see...
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Do you consider it a perfectly legitimate tactic to guess my real life identity and then use that guess to place doubt on anything else I say?

    Its truly pathetic, even more so because the person involved is offensive.

    As for the argument about 20mph limits, nothing of yours that I have read over the last few months has demonstrated that you have anything but an unwavering belief in your own opinions and superiority - and therefore I simply will not waste my time helping you to inflate your ego. You believe in a world where responsibility should be abrogated to the state. <b> I believe in a world where responsibility should be assumed by the individual. </b> The two positions are diametrically placed and will never meet.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Not to find out who you are, but so as not to duplicate effort, have you been debating this with me anywhere else?

    This sig is under construction.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • CretinCretin Posts: 266
    No.
  • CretinCretin Posts: 266
    Mister Paul, can I summarise?

    Certain people here appear to have entire paragraphs saved on their computer that they regurgitate on demand. You can see it in practically every rabid thread about cars.

    You're one of these people, along with Rothbrook, Tourist Tony, Jaded, and now Cunobelin who has managed to utterly ignore the last reply I gave him, possibly in the vain hope that nobody noticed he didn't know what he was talking about.

    Talk about trolling all you like, you all love it. You'd have nothing to do if places like PH and Safespeed didn't exist. I find it hard to believe that <b>any</b> of you own or ride a bike, none of you appear to know what the real problems for cyclists are.

    Personally I think none of you have the slightest clue what you're talking about other than what you've managed to find on Google. But thats fine, I'm sure you'll all be smiling happily in hospital after the driver doing 19mph clouts you while turning left. Or perhaps it will be a pedestrian who blithely wonders into the road because "20mph is safer than 30mph" and now no longer needs to look out for his own safety. After all, nobody teaches the green cross code any more, they don't have to, because its not their responsibility.

    All of you, do yourself a big favour - go and talk to some people in real life who know a thing or two about road safety - because you all need some real life lesssons on the subject.
  • JadedJaded Posts: 6,663
    Aha! Everyone else is out of step! Now I understand.

    --
    <font size="1">[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one</font id="size1">
  • JadedJaded Posts: 6,663
    cretin,

    when we get close to a difficult point for you you simply withdraw from the discussion.

    --
    <font size="1">[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one</font id="size1">
  • toontratoontra Posts: 1,160
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>

    All of you, do yourself a big favour - go and talk to some people in real life who know a thing or two about road safety - because you all need some real life lesssons on the subject.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    My, my ... are you trying to win the prize for the most patronising post of the year? Sadly no prizes for a coherent argument though. [;)]


    there's no such thing as steep hills - just the wrong gear


    a serious case of small cogs
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,667
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cunobelin</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I take full responsibility for my actions, which is why I took the IAM training in the first place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    But you make claims that the test waas carried out in contravention of the IAM standards, this would invalidate the test. You also claim that the IAM are misleading, and in fact lying when they say that they advocate driving within speed limits.......

    <b>You have been asked to put this to the test by checking that your test is valid, is here a reason you are reluctant to do so?</b>

    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    He passed the test therefore it is valid.
  • <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>

    Or perhaps it will be a pedestrian who blithely wonders into the road because "20mph is safer than 30mph" and now no longer needs to look out for his own safety.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Yeah. Let's stay out of the way of our motoring Lords and Masters, like you.

    Oh, and while you're at it, find the law on jaywalking in this country for us.
  • mjonesmjones Posts: 1,915
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cretin</i>
    ... <b>After all, nobody teaches the green cross code any more, they don't have to, because its not their responsibility.</b>

    ...
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    What complete and utter bollox. There is lots of road safety training going on in schools, and as for responsibility one merely needs to see the endless succession of trivial fines handed out to motorists that have run over pedestrians and used the "stepped out without looking what could I possibly have done" excuse. [:(!]

    As ever we have the stark contrast between attitudes to road accidents and accidents in the workplace. Try using the "it was their fault, they made a mistake" excuse if a child gets hurt in forseeable circumstances on commercial premises and see how the HSE respond...
  • The BosscpThe Bosscp Posts: 647
    YES! Today, I was driving along and came across the situation I've always wanted to happen to me on the road! Someone* was standing in the middle of the road right in my way, <i>eating their lunch!</i> And they <i>refused</i> to move, so what did i do? I <i>beeped</i> them! And then they scuttled off onto the pavement. Get in!


























    * <font size="1">who happened to be a pigeon.</font id="size1">

    <hr noshade size="1">
    CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpathGenericPath
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">He passed the test therefore it is valid.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Welcome to the forum....

    An interesting conclusion...

    I am an external examiner for two Universities. Believe me - invalid conditions, or misconduct by an examiner is grounds for revoking a result or changing the level of a pass. It is called a "professional standard".

    Students have had entire course results revoked and "sent down" when later evidence has cast doubt upon results.

    So will you support answering the challenge and repeating the claims to the IAM that he was encouraged to speed during the test, thus invalidating the test procedure and asking their opinion about the validity?



    We await the reply eagerly.........





    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have not claimed that my test was carried out in contravention of the IAM standards - I have claimed that elements of my test included driving that was technically illegal, and that the examiner agreed with me that it was safer for me to exceed the limit at that point. I have already stated in a previous post that to pass an examination of just about any kind, you do not need to attain a score of 100%. It is absolutely no different whatsoever to a standard driving test in which some actions earn a mark against you, and some actions earn you an instant fail.

    My driving was to the required standard for a pass mark, I made quite a few mistakes all of which were pointed out to me and which I have since worked on to eliminate, and yet you are so sure of your knowledge of advanced driver training that apparently you haven't taken any training whatsoever - which in my eyes hardly qualifies you to speak authoritatively on the subject.

    I have not claimed that the IAM are misleading in any way, and I have not said they are lying - these are your words not mine, and I'll thank you not to make things up that are obviously untrue.

    You have asked me to test your assumptions, I have told you I do not need to because the qualification is meaningless in any financial sense - my only gain is that I know how to drive more safely. There is no reluctance on my part, only disinterest.

    Does that answer your questions then, or would you like me to wait while you invent some more things?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    So you are now stating that the IAM's policy of driving within the speed limit is one that you fully support and adhere to?

    My challenge still stands as the ultimate arbiter in this case is the examining body - the IAM

    Contact them, make the same claims the speeding is allowed during the test and that adherence to speed limits is "back of the manual" and in opposition to their stated position and publish the reply here.....






    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,667
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cunobelin</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">He passed the test therefore it is valid.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Welcome to the forum....

    An interesting conclusion...

    I am an external examiner for two Universities. Believe me - invalid conditions, or misconduct by an examiner is grounds for revoking a result or changing the level of a pass. It is called a "professional standard".

    Students have had entire course results revoked and "sent down" when later evidence has cast doubt upon results.

    So will you support answering the challenge and repeating the claims to the IAM that he was encouraged to speed during the test, thus invalidating the test procedure and asking their opinion about the validity?



    We await the reply eagerly.........





    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    What invalid conditions or misconduct do you refer to?
    The IAM is not a university nor are there any pecuniary benefits to be gained from being a member.
    Imagine that you are driving down a hill within the promulgated limits .There are numerous vehicles travelling in the opposite direction up the hill.
    You look in your rear view mirror and notice that an HGV driver is flashing his lights and gaining ground on you at an abnormal rate.
    What do you do. Stay within the speed limit or accelerate to a speed in excess of the legal limit in order to minimise the risk of him either having to overtake you or run into the back of you?
    Safe driving is as much to do with circumstances and common sense as blind adherence to the law at any cost.
    If as cretin says there was a point in his test when ignoring the limit was considered the safer option then the examiner would have noted this and not penalised him.
    You should join your local Sunday morning assessment sessions.
  • nortones2nortones2 Posts: 208
    We have only Cretins word that IAM examiner traduced IAM principles, as a straw grasped to support Cretins untenable argument. I think I know what that means....
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    OK - here goes.....

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Certain people here appear to have entire paragraphs saved on their computer that they regurgitate on demand. You can see it in practically every rabid thread about cars.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Mainly in reply to the same regurgitated arguments about speeding being justified and "safe", or that driving slowly id dangerous. The arguments are so predictable, and so easily dismantled that it saves time. Of course the apologist pro-speeding and "nobody else has any rights" argument is reasoned, structured and coherent and certainly not "rabid?

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You're one of these people, along with Rothbrook, Tourist Tony, Jaded, and now Cunobelin who has managed to utterly ignore the last reply I gave him, possibly in the vain hope that nobody noticed he didn't know what he was talking about.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    Answer the challenge then - your answer simply avoided the issues.



    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Talk about trolling all you like, you all love it. You'd have nothing to do if places like PH and Safespeed didn't exist. I find it hard to believe that any of you own or ride a bike, none of you appear to know what the real problems for cyclists are.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    Totally correct....
    However it would be much better if we didn't have to continually debunk the myths and false claims. Of course as none of us ride bikes, we wouldn't know what problems cyclists face............such as speeding motorists?



    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Personally I think none of you have the slightest clue what you're talking about other than what you've managed to find on Google. But thats fine, I'm sure you'll all be smiling happily in hospital after the driver doing 19mph clouts you while turning left. Or perhaps it will be a pedestrian who blithely wonders into the road because "20mph is safer than 30mph" and now no longer needs to look out for his own safety. After all, nobody teaches the green cross code any more, they don't have to, because its not their responsibility.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Unproven and unsubstantiated claims. The point is that there are poor drivers who believe(and are encouraged to believe by some pro speeding lobbyists) that they are above the law.

    Your assumption is that these drivers only overtake illegally at 19 mph is laughable - these drivers will do the same at 30 mph, 40 mph and 6 mph, the 19 mph will increase our chances of survival.

    Your claims about pedestrians have been unsubstantiated. There is no proof whatsoever that this happens.


    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All of you, do yourself a big favour - go and talk to some people in real life who know a thing or two about road safety - because you all need some real life lessons on the subject.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Like yourself?


    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
Sign In or Register to comment.