Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

toontra · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

But you said that a statement was made. Where did I make that statement?

The answer is that I didn't, and once again you made it up.

You are also aware that the IAM is not the only advanced driving organisation aren't you? You think that I've only taken the one? What advanced qualifications do you hold Cunobelin?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hah. That's right, focus in the incidental detail rather than the thrust of the argument, why don't you! Ever thought of a life in politics?

Shouldn't be surprised - speeding seems to be an "incidental detail" to you, limits just there for the shmucks but not the imperious "advanced drivers".

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

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Did you take it in your "classic" Nissan, Simon?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Tourist Tony · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

But you said that a statement was made. Where did I make that statement?

The answer is that I didn't, and once again you made it up.

You are also aware that the IAM is not the only advanced driving organisation aren't you? You think that I've only taken the one? What advanced qualifications do you hold Cunobelin?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

HE'S GOT TWO MERIT BADGES!!!
HE CAN DWIVE FASTER DAN A COPPICEMAN NOW!!!
STRUE!!!!

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Cunobelin · June 2007

So we agree at last that you would not have passed the IAM test?

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.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cunobelin · June 2007

PS

I believe the advanced qualification relevant to this site is the Cycling Proficiency...

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.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

So we agree at last that you would not have passed the IAM test?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No we can't agree, firstly because my driving was to the required standard for a pass, secondly because you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.

Cunobelin · June 2007

Stop avoiding the question.

The arbiter in this case is the IAM (or is it another organisation now))whose stated standards you claim to have breached with impunity during the test.

Of course you meed to make up your mind whether it was the IAM test or not that you claim.

The fact still remains that for some reason you are reluctant to ask the IAM about the conduct of your test and its validity, why will you not do so if you are so confident about it?

The simple answer is to put your claims to the organisation, of course that is the problem isn't it - you might not like the answer.

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.
(Unattributed Trad.)

flattythehurdler · June 2007

Cretin, will you, or anyone else that posts on that wonker ____ _______'s site tell him that if that photo is really his, he should try hormone replacement (I am sure floyd could help him out). It might stop him dancing around is handbag down the local winelodge. I can't summon the will to register.

Dan

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

Stop avoiding the question.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thats very rich coming from somebody who has repeatedly ignored what I've said time and again - somebody who writes blatent lies to bolster his argument, and then tries to weasel out of it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin
The arbiter in this case is the IAM (or is it another organisation now))whose stated standards you claim to have breached with impunity during the test.

Of course you meed to make up your mind whether it was the IAM test or not that you claim.

The fact still remains that for some reason you are reluctant to ask the IAM about the conduct of your test and its validity, why will you not do so if you are so confident about it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Didn't you read my answer the last time you asked this? Did you miss the bit where I said that I couldn't really care less about the qualification, that its meaningless in any sense other than the skills I have learnt from it? The bit where I said that it offers me no financial benefits whatsoever?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin
The simple answer is to put your claims to the organisation, of course that is the problem isn't it - you might not like the answer.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So why don't you put my 'claims' (what claims again?) to them? You're so sure of yourself, you do it. I'm sure they'll be gravely concerned to know that one of their volunteer examiners had the audacity to encourage safe driving, that he pointed out that I had broken the speed limit but that overall he was satisfied that I was safe enough to pass the test? They'll be disgusted to learn the several faults I made during the test, and that I've taken that advice on board and rectified all of them. I'm sure they'd love to hear from such a qualified expert such as yourself.

In fact, why, if you're such an expert on this matter, have you not taken any advanced driving tuition yourself? Or do you not drive a motorised vehicle? Perhaps, if you do, you should pop along to your nearest group and tell them where they're going wrong.

ScumOfTheRoad · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Or do you not drive a motorised vehicle?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Aha. here we have it - the classic petrolhead troll bluster.
"Only the motorised citizen counts - all others are a lesser type. Only those who can drive can know about being safe on the roads". "Oh, and cyclists are bearded Guardian readers"

For our information, cyclists are MORE likely to own a motor vehicle than the average person. Can't speak for Cunobelin, but I certainly drive.

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So why don't you put my 'claims' (what claims again?) to them?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This one:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I should tell you that on my advanced driving exam, I did not adhere to the speed limit. In fact I broke it many times,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Or this one:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In fact while on the test I came across a peculiar speed limit on a motorway slip road - the examiner told me that I was entirely correct to ignore it<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Or this one:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In advanced driving, speed limits are pretty much at the back of the manual. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So why don't you put my 'claims' (what claims again?) to them? You're so sure of yourself, you do it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You seemed comfused as to whether it was the IAM test or not, which is unhelpful. equally we would require the date and time of the test, which Is unsuitable for pubklication on a forum like this. If you are willing to provide this information, I would be delighted to ask the question on your behalf.

I am sure of MY ground here the IAM made its position clear on claims like this - if you are sure of yours, then please clarify the position

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.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Mister Paul · June 2007

Cretin

You're the queen of unanswered questions.

While you're banging on about how wonderful a driver you are, compared with those who you have no idea of their level of competence, let's just remember that the questions to you remain unanswered-

-Please give a downside to 20mph limits.

-Please explain whether you think it possible to supplement a campaign to improve driving standards with measures such as 20mph limits, while standards are being raised and in order to minimise injury. And if not, why not.

And I'll throw in another-

-Evidence shows that 20mph limits are successful in reducing accidents. Recent European research shows that accidents reduce as speed reduces. Please explain how you, an advanced driver, incorporate those facts into your driving, attitude, and responsibility to educate others which comes with being an advanced driver .

And please, no diversionary flannel.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

Mister Paul, please explain why you keep posting the same questions when I've already told you several times why I will not debate the issue with you.

Please explain why you think its acceptable for forum members including yourself to post childish abuse and lies about someone just on the basis that they disagree.

Please explain why you're so qualified to ask questions about road safety when its clear you've undertaken no measures whatsoever to improve your own standards.

Actually, don't bother. I'm not interested in the replies. Feel free to reply for your fan club though.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ScumOfTheRoad

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Or do you not drive a motorised vehicle?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Aha. here we have it - the classic petrolhead troll bluster.
"Only the motorised citizen counts - all others are a lesser type. Only those who can drive can know about being safe on the roads". "Oh, and cyclists are bearded Guardian readers"

For our information, cyclists are MORE likely to own a motor vehicle than the average person. Can't speak for Cunobelin, but I certainly drive.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sorry did you miss the bit where I said I owned 2 bicycles and cycle regularly? Did you miss the bit where I asked how someone with no experience of advanced driver training can possibly form an educated opinion on the matter? I guess so. And where did I suggest that anyone not in a car doesn't count? Oh I didn't say that did I? Your mistake then.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin
This one:

Or this one:

Or this one:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You missed the ones you made up. Why's that?

rothbook · June 2007

"I should tell you that on my advanced driving exam, I did not adhere to the speed limit. In fact I broke it many times"

And you complain about lies!

LOL!!

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Mister Paul, please explain why you keep posting the same questions when I've already told you several times why I will not debate the issue with you.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because I'm giving you as much opportunity as possible to answer the very straightforward and reasonable questions. It's only fair. But, despite the opportunity, you are still unable to answer them. So instead you make up some excuse to not have to. And think that it will work. Well it doesn't. You're transparent.

So, any answers?...
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Please explain why you think its acceptable for forum members including yourself to post childish abuse and lies about someone just on the basis that they disagree.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Remind me where I lied.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Please explain why you're so qualified to ask questions about road safety when its clear you've undertaken no measures whatsoever to improve your own standards.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why should anyone need any qualification before they can ask a question? That's a very strange opinion.

Again, I remind you that you have no idea who you are talking to, and so have no knowledge of our experience and training.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Actually, don't bother. I'm not interested in the replies. Feel free to reply for your fan club though.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There you go again. You've responded, because you know that your avoidance of the simple but important questions leaves things hanging. But you can't answer them. Because it would show the flaw in your position. So instead you repeat your blatherings.

That's not good debating. It merely show you up to have a position that you can't justify.

To hold that position, surely you must have valid arguments against 20mph limits. You must have examples of their negatives. You must also have a good reason why they cannot be used to reduce accidents and injuries (which the stats show that they do) while your worthy idea of improving driver training is getting us all to a better standard. You must, otherwise you wouldn't hold the stance that you do.

And I can't understand why you won't share that knowledge with us poor, inexperienced drivers.

It would help you immensely. It would stop people feeling justified in thinking that you hold your position from a selfish point of view, and that you have to try and make up an argument to support it. It would stop people thinking that you scrabble around for reasons to ignore those who put questions to you, rather than answering them and revealing that you don't actually have any rock to stand on.

So, in your best interests, the answers please...

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Did you miss the bit where I asked how someone with no experience of advanced driver training can possibly form an educated opinion on the matter? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Did I miss the bit where your leader, Paul Smith, listed his road safety training?

Oh no, I didn't. He doesn't have any. Which means, by your own definition, that you support a campaign led by a man who doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's not going to like you saying that about him.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

bad company · June 2007

Mr P

What road safety training did you have in mind? I can think of the ordinary and advanced driving tests and the cycling proficiency test - after that well I'm struggling.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

rothbook · June 2007

The IAM is Britain's leading road safety charity and advanced driving organisation, and the Jaguar Enthusiasts' Club has set-up an affiliation which includes offering Club Members access to this course on special terms.

The Skill for Life course has everything you need to help you prepare to become an advanced driver. You can demonstrate your skill and safety on the road, perhaps cut insurance and other motoring costs, and enjoy your driving more as an advanced driver.

It is light years away from the "L" test that you did. The preparation and the test itself are challenging, but within reach of most drivers if they apply themselves. To help you, a network of volunteers in the IAM local groups give their time and expertise free of charge. Then, when you are ready, the 90 minute advanced driving test will be overseen by a police-qualified examiner.

It takes place in a wide variety of driving situations, including motorways where appropriate, and you will need to show that you are capable and confident at the wheel at the maximum achievable, safe and legal speed for each environment. All those bad habits that have crept in since your "L" test will have been ironed out. You will know the speed limits wherever you are, and fully employ them to make your driving smooth, efficient and progressive.

http://www.jec.org.uk/iam.htm

Perhaps cretin could tell us who his IAM examiner was?

Or admit he made the whole thing up....

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Mr P

What road safety training did you have in mind? I can think of the ordinary and advanced driving tests and the cycling proficiency test - after that well I'm struggling.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You've made the huge mistake of thinking that road safety is just about driving. It's that kind of blinkered view that leads to the position that SS is in today.

A very quick Google reveals options such as-

http://www.irso.org.uk/index.html

Or speak to someone like ROSPA. They have links.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Please explain why you think its acceptable for forum members including yourself to post childish abuse and lies about someone just on the basis that they disagree.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Remind me where I lied.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And thats your 'debating' technique in one. Casually ignore what you don't like and focus on shifting the issue. Still, I notice now that the real Simon whatever has posted, you've not actually bothered to apologise or admit you were wrong to suggest we were the same person. Neither for that matter has Tourist Tony or Rothbrook but I wouldn't expect them to, which is why I ignore them anyway.

You're well aware of why I don't like arbitrary speed limits as a method of improving road safety, it has been implicit in everything I've typed in this thread. If I were to suggest to you that cyclists would be safer if they were not allowed to use certain arterial A-roads because in an attempt to reduce cycling casualties, you'd be apopleptic with anger - as would I - because we both know that a great many cyclists are very good at avoiding hazards and managing the risks, they don't need laws which restrict their movement and distance them from the risk - they need laws that remove the risk altogether.

The right method, the only method that will ever improve road safety is education for all road users (cars, vans, cyclists, pedestrians, children, etc) leading to better skills. 20mph limits do not achieve this, and realistically will not ever be used to supplement road safety. Very little has been achieved over the last 10-20 years or so other than a raft of legislation that has made driving standards much worse than they previously were. For this, I blame the lack of traffic police, and the lack of any direction whatsoever by a government primarily interested in numbers rather than safety.

You can quote whatever reports you like, whatever statistics you find on google - I profoundly disagree with anybody who says that speed limits are a good way to improve road safety.

toontra · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
You can quote whatever reports you like, whatever statistics you find on google - I profoundly disagree with anybody who says that speed limits are a good way to improve road safety.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That being said, there's no point in you posting any more on this, is there. You're not here to debate and you're not interested in the facts - what you're doing is trolling.

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

Jaded · June 2007

I await good, sound, practical, costed proposals for training.

cretin you go on about speed limits not being any good, yet you have consistently failed to come up with any proposal as an alternative.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Please explain why you think its acceptable for forum members including yourself to post childish abuse and lies about someone just on the basis that they disagree.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Remind me where I lied.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And thats your 'debating' technique in one. Casually ignore what you don't like and focus on shifting the issue. Still, I notice now that the real Simon whatever has posted, you've not actually bothered to apologise or admit you were wrong to suggest we were the same person. Neither for that matter has Tourist Tony or Rothbrook but I wouldn't expect them to, which is why I ignore them anyway.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Remind me where I lied.

As to the 'childish abuse', grow up man. Are you really saying that you can't handle that, or are you trying to divert away from the argument? Hmm, I wonder?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

You're well aware of why I don't like arbitrary speed limits as a method of improving road safety, it has been implicit in everything I've typed in this thread. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yup. I'm aware that you don't like them. That doesn't address the fact that you can't give any downside to them.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

If I were to suggest to you that cyclists would be safer if they were not allowed to use certain arterial A-roads because in an attempt to reduce cycling casualties, you'd be apopleptic with anger - as would I - because we both know that a great many cyclists are very good at avoiding hazards and managing the risks, they don't need laws which restrict their movement and distance them from the risk - they need laws that remove the risk altogether.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, I wouldn't be 'apolpleptic with anger'. I'd join the debate. Which would be based on facts. Something that you aren't doing with 20mph limits.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

The right method, the only method that will ever improve road safety is education for all road users (cars, vans, cyclists, pedestrians, children, etc) leading to better skills. 20mph limits do not achieve this, and realistically will not ever be used to supplement road safety. Very little has been achieved over the last 10-20 years or so other than a raft of legislation that has made driving standards much worse than they previously were. For this, I blame the lack of traffic police, and the lack of any direction whatsoever by a government primarily interested in numbers rather than safety.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's all your opinion, which you're entitled to. You have slipped the highlighted phrase into the middle however, and have not given any reason why not. Which is the rub. And which is the question I have been asking you for a long, long time. You're telling me things, but not answering the question. The answer to which would throw a lot of weight behind your argument. An inability to answer the question says it all doesn't it?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

You can quote whatever reports you like, whatever statistics you find on google - I profoundly disagree with anybody who says that speed limits are a good way to improve road safety.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, you'll be wrong then. And very silly. Slower limits have been proved to reduce accidents. Which is recognised by everyone except those who just want to drive faster. You can't argue with that. You do try, but the flaws in you argument that keep being pointed out show that you're unsuccessful.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

nortones2 · June 2007

Driving standards are not made worse by legislation. Thats simply a nonsense. A feeble attempt to justify an anarchic approach. Driving has deteriorated for a number of reasons: crowded urban and suburban roads, widespread impatience and neurosis, inattention, greater numbers of drivers, less use of alternatives to driving etc. If you reject all attempts to quantify safety, as you indicate in your last sentence, how is it that you can espouse any particular method to improve road safety? Your prejudices are not credible alternatives to thought, Cretin. Since speed limits are a given, arguing for their abandonment is futile, particularly if reducing speeds (20mph in town, village) is identified by responsible observers as an aid to safety.

Cretin · June 2007

Jaded, yes I have actually, you'll find them a few pages back when you asked me the last time. Instead I seem to recall that you said my ideas for training were 'pie in the sky' - basically because you didn't like them. Don't look to me for costings, I'm not an accountant. I haven't got a clue what it would cost, but you asked for ideas and I gave them.

Well thats fine, lets just not bother having a driving exam to begin with, its not practical is it? All those L-plates to print, all those examiners to train, the driving centres, the companies doing the training, the provisional licences, the admin costs at the DVLA - imagine how much that all costs, who's going to pay for it? Lets just allow anybody onto the roads, no experience necessary. Driving lessons and a driving exam are 'pie in the sky' aren't they, lets just regress to the old Indian driving exam - pull off, drive in a straight line, turn left then right, and come to a stop.

What a load of tripe.

Mister Paul · June 2007

Cretin

Time to summarise again.

You have an opinion (i've highlighted the important word for you). Despite being asked reasonable and simple questions, you refuse to offer any support to your view. While at the same time you refuse to consider any proper evidence supporting an opposing view which is laid in front of you.

Well I think that says it all doesn't it?

You spend too long in the wrong circles mate. Your leader does the same. You have both decided what you want, and then try to work backwards. You, by refusing to consider any other option. It may convice you but it doesn't work on anyone else. All it does is reveal your true agenda.

Smithy does it just as obviously. Perfectly illustrated last week, when he banged out a press release to a DM story, without even reading the research document that the story was based on. It's clear that he's decided on his position and will not consider any further research. Because he can't. Because he's built his house on sand.

Which is why he's seen as a fool. And why you're in danger of going the same way. Advanced driving exam or not, you show no integrity, nor any ability to debate. You may see yourself as a safe driver, but your inability to consider road safety from any position apart from your own shows that you're not worth listening to. And your inability to consider others means that you're not as safe on the road as you could be.
__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Jaded, yes I have actually, you'll find them a few pages back when you asked me the last time. Instead I seem to recall that you said my ideas for training were 'pie in the sky' - basically because you didn't like them. Don't look to me for costings, I'm not an accountant. I haven't got a clue what it would cost, but you asked for ideas and I gave them.

Well thats fine, lets just not bother having a driving exam to begin with, its not practical is it? All those L-plates to print, all those examiners to train, the driving centres, the companies doing the training, the provisional licences, the admin costs at the DVLA - imagine how much that all costs, who's going to pay for it? Lets just allow anybody onto the roads, no experience necessary. Driving lessons and a driving exam are 'pie in the sky' aren't they, lets just regress to the old Indian driving exam - pull off, drive in a straight line, turn left then right, and come to a stop.

What a load of tripe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This is the tripe. You denigrate a method of enforcing the law. When challeneged you offer training as the solution. However you have no idea how practical this is. You suggest that every driver should be trained and that they should pay themsleves. How can you suggest that if you have no idea how much it will cost?

50p? œ10? œ100?

Can you not see that you are drifting round this forum pushing a wheelbarrow full of tripe, whilst shouting "Road Safety Solutions. Get your Road Safety Solutions here!". Why not come back with some real suggestions, instead of this vacuous, SS inspired twaddle.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cunobelin · June 2007

Have you decided whether it was the IAM advanced driving whose test you broke the speedlimits throughout(or not) yet?

Edited
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.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories