good deed for the day
Comments
-
if you have ever flashed a car to warn it of a speed camera , you are no better than meSiechotic wrote:
Over the limit is over the limit!lots of friends have been done for being just over the limit
It's 30 for a reason.
Yet!none have ever killed anyone .
Lilactime, you sir, are an idiot.0 -
Still would have been better in Campaign
0 -
better than " ive got £ 500 to spend ect ect "Smokin Joe wrote:Still would have been better in Campaign 0 -
Lilactime:
The only time I have ever flashed my lights at someone is to warn them of my prescence, as is stated in the Highway Code Rules 110 and 111:
110
Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
111
Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.
Please read the link to better your understanding:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070289
I reiterate my previous statement: You are an idiot.0 -
oh my god !!! goodniteSiechotic wrote:Lilactime:
The only time I have ever flashed my lights at someone is to warn them of my prescence, as is stated in the Highway Code Rules 110 and 111:
110
Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
111
Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.
Please read the link to better your understanding:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070289
I reiterate my previous statement: You are an idiot.0 -
Meaning what exactly? Have you run out of comebacks?oh my god !!! goodnite
As Daz said:what an idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was no justification for what you alledgedly did at the side of the road.
You just made yourself look silly, not only stood at the side of the wildly flailing your arms about but also on this forum.
You have been found by your peers to be an idiot who performed an idiotic act.0 -
i think your parents done that
Is that even English? Are you 12?
You obviously are not only an idiot but also a moron who has no grasp of what is morally or legally correct.0 -
When I was younger and before I wizened up a little I used to warn oncoming drivers of cameras but now not so, I can understand drivers who drift over the limit by a couple of mph, (I do it myself often enough) feeling hard done by when getting fined but these days there seems to be a lot more idiots on the road than in days gone by, luckily the Police don't seem to bother with those who drift over the limit by a couple of mph but rightly so come down hard on excessive speed violators.
My feeling on the subject of speeders now is that anyone caught speeding should be fined and those idiots who speed recklessly should be driven off the roads for a time in the hope that a lesson will be learned. Perhaps they should be made to attend educational classes full of nasty photographs and videos showing the carnage caused by speeding, there's a lot at stake to condone speeding by warning speeders, one day it could be you or one of your loved ones killed by a speeding car, so don't do it
0 -
Very eloquent Marko1962, exactly what I was trying to convey to Lilactime.0
-
lilactime wrote:
if you have ever flashed a car to warn it of a speed camera , you are no better than meSiechotic wrote:
Over the limit is over the limit!lots of friends have been done for being just over the limit
It's 30 for a reason.
Yet!none have ever killed anyone .
Lilactime, you sir, are an idiot.
I am certainly no better than you. I shudder to think of some of the things I'm going to have to explain on judgement day.
In any case, as a 4x4 driver I routinely club baby seals with the stiffening bodies of hunt saboteurs I have driven over on my way to whatever act of environmental vandalism I am perpetrating today.
But warning motorists about speed cameras? At least that's one tawdry, pathetic little piece of paltry wretchedness I won't have to worry about.0 -
Stop and think about that for a minute.st68 wrote:so if the polititians want safe roads then why dont they put speed restricters on cars problem solved but that wouldnt make any money for them to top up there wages :evil:
The simplest way to do that would be to restrict every car to 70mph. This would do absolutely nothing to prevent speeding where it matters, in towns, because the limiter wouldn't do anything to stop people going over 30mph. It would also destroy the track day industry.
The second way to do it would be to fit every car in the country (not just the new cars, all of them, otherwise it wouldn't work) with an integrated GPS system, upgrade the GPS network to tell the systems the speed limit on the roads, allow the GPS system to control the engine computer to limit the speed... Firstly, I'd love to see a speed limiting GPS system fitted to a 1930s vintage car, or even a 1980s car (there's loads of them still on the roads). Secondly, the cost to the government would be many billions of pounds, paid for by taxes. Now, think carefully. Do you really want to pay hundreds of pounds to get that system implemented, or would you prefer to slow down slightly?0 -
Time for new laws;
Anyone who buys an exhaust pipe which you can fit a small child in or "Lexus" lights automatically qualifies for a 15mph limiter.
Anyone in baseball cap - 15mph limiter
Anyone I don't like the look of - 15mph limiter
Noisy fecking mopeds - Automatic castration for the owner (+ 15mph limiter)Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
whyamihere wrote:The simplest way to do that would be to restrict every car to 70mph. This would do absolutely nothing to prevent speeding where it matters, in towns, because the limiter wouldn't do anything to stop people going over 30mph. It would also destroy the track day industry.
Personally, I don't think it would be catastrophic to limit _all_ road vehicles to 30mph, with the possible exception of emergency vehicles. Nobody would like it, but it would improve safety and reduce destructive emissions enormously. I don't suppose anybody would vote for it except me, I guess.0 -
Personally, I don't think it would be catastrophic to limit _all_ road vehicles to 30mph, with the possible exception of emergency vehicles. Nobody would like it, but it would improve safety and reduce destructive emissions enormously. I don't suppose anybody would vote for it except me, I guess.
It would be a bit catastrophic if you lived in the remoter parts of the Scottish Highlands, or even just wanted to visit them occasionally...Stop and think about that for a minute.
The simplest way to do that would be to restrict every car to 70mph. This would do absolutely nothing to prevent speeding where it matters, in towns, because the limiter wouldn't do anything to stop people going over 30mph. It would also destroy the track day industry.
The second way to do it would be to fit every car in the country (not just the new cars, all of them, otherwise it wouldn't work) with an integrated GPS system, upgrade the GPS network to tell the systems the speed limit on the roads, allow the GPS system to control the engine computer to limit the speed... Firstly, I'd love to see a speed limiting GPS system fitted to a 1930s vintage car, or even a 1980s car (there's loads of them still on the roads). Secondly, the cost to the government would be many billions of pounds, paid for by taxes. Now, think carefully. Do you really want to pay hundreds of pounds to get that system implemented, or would you prefer to slow down slightly?
It wouldn't really be necessary to physically limit the speed of the car. As long as every single instance of speeding was detectable and was prosecuted, hardly anyone would break the speed limit. That would also remove the potential for the system to be used selectively, so it couldn't be used (or be suspected to be used) for financial gain first and safety second.0 -
talk about over engineering a solution!
Tachograph's have been used for years in long distance lorries. Hooked up to the speedo and a clock, it can be used to track the speed of a motor veehikul.
Now clearly it doesn't say where a vehicle was when it was doing that speed, but I reckon the majority of offenders would be found out, and law abiders who occasionally stray over the speed limit would more than likely be very cautious about doing so.
Also, r.e the comment above about straying over the limit.....
I thought that only detections more than 10% over the limit were prosecuted. so a speed camera will not flash at 31mph. it would be at least 33mph. likewise, on a motorway, a police officer is unlikely to prosecute you for overtaking at 75mph. This means that the strayers stay safe, whilst fols REALLY speeding can be done. I might be wrong though....this could be one of the areas where police officers can use discretion.
*edit. I know police officers dont prosecute anyone....i probably meant charge, but i think you all know what i mean!Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Robmanic1 wrote:Noisy fecking mopeds - Automatic castration for the owner (+ 15mph limiter)
Ooooh that's a bit harsh......fancy putting a 15mph limiter on something that, let's face it ain't that quick anyway!!!!! Heaven kicked me out and Hell was too afraid I'd take over!!!
Fighting back since 1975!!
Happy riding
Denny0 -
neeb wrote:It would be a bit catastrophic if you lived in the remoter parts of the Scottish Highlands, or even just wanted to visit them occasionally...
I'm not suggesting for a moment that a blanket national 30mph limit would not be inconvenient to many people
But, to be honest, the remote parts of the Scottish Highlands that are currently inhabited have almost always been inhabited for a long time -- well before it was practicable to zip around at 70+ mph.
Families and friends get so dispersed these days at least partly because we all know that it is possible to drive from one end of the UK to the other in a day. Businesses and industries get concentrated into (relatively) small areas because people can drive 50 miles to work in a hour. If these things stopped being possible, we would adapt.0 -
If draconian solutions were the order of the day, personally I'd rather just ban cars from all urban / suburban areas in favour of hugely improved public transport, cycle lanes and covered inline skating lanes, replace motorways with cheap highspeed railways, retain roads and cars in remoter areas with government subsidised car rental facilities at the appropriate railway stations, ban domestic flights (other than maybe bringing back helium based airships) and reinstate/expand the canal network as a major method of commercial distribution.
Oops, did I say "just"? 0 -
neeb wrote:If draconian solutions were the order of the day, personally I'd rather just ban cars from all urban / suburban areas in favour of hugely improved public transport, cycle lanes and covered inline skating lanes,..
Well, yes, in an ideal world that is what I would favour to. But I don't think restricting the speed of cars is draconian. After all, many people think that imposing a blanket speed limit of 70mph is draconian. If you're going to have a speed limit, you've got to have it somewhere, right?
In any event, I don't think the environmental situation is as straightforward as that. The modern bicycle is an offshoot of the automotive industry. In fact, if you look at a full-suspension mtb with hydraulic disk brakes, it's basically a motorbike without the engine. What that means is if there were widespread de-motorization, there wouldn't actually be any bicycles more sophisticated than a penny-farthing. Nor in-line skates, neither
And there'd soon be no viable roads to cycle on other than in urban areas. There will never be enough people who are even capable of cycling more than, say, 30 miles to make the maintenance of a large-scale road network economically feasible. In 50 years' time we'd be back to cart tracks.
I think we cyclists have a tendency to get on our high horses about environmental issues. But we have to remember that modern bicycles are inherently part of a sophisticated, industrialized society.0 -
neeb wrote:You are one of the tiny percentage of 4x4 drivers that actually needs one then!
That's OK then. I don't actually "need" mine. I don't "need" to have a 14 year old Land Rover nor do I "need" to run it on primarily vegetable oil. I don't "need" to maintain it and service it myself using recycled parts whereever nesessary and make sure it keeps on going instead of subscribing to the "must have new" throwaway culture that the rest of the world seems to be loving so much. I don't "need" to be able to load it up with walking kit and bikes (locked securely inside) and put my boat (and that's a sailing dinghy) on the back and head off to the lakes etc for a week, I could always just fly somewhere instead? I could book a hotel instead of sleeping in it too. I don't "need" to be able to tow a boat up a slipway or a trailer across a muddy field. Hey, I don't even "need" to drive my everyday car which does 58 to the gallon according to the book figures and even switches itself off in traffic which I specifically chose partly due to green credentials.
FFS we're all the same people, don't be so narrow minded as to judge people by the car they happen to drive or the activity they happen to be partaking in. Yes I occasionaly drive off road (well, actually, it's technically on road but let's not go there eh?) and get scowled at by cyclists, although to be honest now you are more much more likely to see me on my bike instead as it's far more enjoyable and better for everyone. Now if I'm on my bike I get scowled at by walkers and if I'm walking I'll get scowled at by fisherman or something, and of course if I happen to be driving my repmobile then most what I would term "enthusiast" 4x4 drivers will be looking down their nose at me...
It strikes me that anyone who has an interest in actually getting out and enjoying thier life a little rather than simply sitting in the pub or in front of the telly (and if that's what you like doing then good luck to you and I hope your team does well this year) needs to be a little more tolerant of everyone else!0 -
Iain C wrote:neeb wrote:You are one of the tiny percentage of 4x4 drivers that actually needs one then!
That's OK then. I don't actually "need" mine. I don't "need" to have a 14 year old Land Rover nor do I "need" to run it on primarily vegetable oil. I don't "need" to maintain it and service it myself using recycled parts whereever nesessary and make sure it keeps on going instead of subscribing to the "must have new" throwaway culture that the rest of the world seems to be loving so much.
Personally, I think that the current vendetta against 4x4s is completely misplaced, because the number of miles actually driven in these vehicles is so small in comparison to Mondeos and the like. A better target, if one were needed, would be the army of people who drive their kids to school in their Mondeo, when it's only half a mile away.
I own an old Jeep because I use it for my forestry work. It's the only car in our household. Our next-door neighbour has the same number of people, and they have five cars. They all drive everywhere, and this is not remotely unusual. My street is jammed with cars -- every front yard but mine has two or three on it, and others are parked on the pavements. I'd bet my pension that the contribution to environmental damage caused by my Jeep is simply insignificant in comparison to that lot.
But, to be fair, I suspect that what neeb was complaining about was the number of people who own over-sized off-road vehicles for no better reason than that they like the idea of owning an over-sized off-road vehicle.
But as this is a cycling forum, I suspect he's preaching to the choir a bit here. I doubt there are many people on this forum who are into `lifestyle motoring'.0 -
Ian C, my comments were not directed at you or anyone else specifically! It sounds like you also have good reasons for having the vehicle that you do and that it is far from typical.
I still think that most "4x4" are owned by urbanites who have bought them for fashion/attitude reasons, to run over speedbumps, and to be able to feel superior by being higher up than everyone else, at the expense of fuel economy and road safety.0 -
In any event, I don't think the environmental situation is as straightforward as that. The modern bicycle is an offshoot of the automotive industry. In fact, if you look at a full-suspension mtb with hydraulic disk brakes, it's basically a motorbike without the engine. What that means is if there were widespread de-motorization, there wouldn't actually be any bicycles more sophisticated than a penny-farthing. Nor in-line skates, neither Wink
And there'd soon be no viable roads to cycle on other than in urban areas. There will never be enough people who are even capable of cycling more than, say, 30 miles to make the maintenance of a large-scale road network economically feasible. In 50 years' time we'd be back to cart tracks.
I think we cyclists have a tendency to get on our high horses about environmental issues. But we have to remember that modern bicycles are inherently part of a sophisticated, industrialized society.
Well, the automotive industry was originally an offshoot of bicycle! And once we see through all of the fashion and marketing, the modern bicycle isn't that much more sophisticated than a penny farthing or "ordinary", certainly not than the slightly later saftey bicycle. Bikes might cost a little more without the automotive industry around to produce plastics and and chemicals, but I think we'd manage. But I wasn't suggesting the banning of cars in remoter areas, quite the opposite, so there would still be a car industry and road maintenance outside of cities.0 -
neeb wrote:I
I still think that most "4x4" are owned by urbanites who have bought them for fashion/attitude reasons, to run over speedbumps, and to be able to feel superior by being higher up than everyone else, at the expense of fuel economy and road safety.
If I drive my old Jeep over speed bumps it shakes the fillings out of my mouth.
I can see what you're getting at, but I think your argument would have more force if you could actually demonstrate that `urbanite' 4x4s really were run at the expense of fuel economy and safety. But I think that will be difficult.
Consider something like the Nssan X-trail 2.0, which I think of a typical `lifesyste' motor. It llooks absolutely enormous, but it gets 39.8mpg (combined). That's about 30% _better_ than a Mondeo 2.0i estate (30.1mpg, combined). In fact, even my Jeep beats the Mondeo. In fact, many of the off-road-style vehicles you see in Islington are actually small-engined and quite light. They'd be no good as working vehicles at all -- but that's all to the good where economy is concerned.
I concede that you do see some real monster 4x4s knocking about, and I imagine that it's hard to justify owning any car with a 5-litre engine unless you routinely tow trucks out of the mud. But I think the proportion of these vehicles on the road is vanishingly small.
If you've got real figures to back up your claims, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them.0 -
Neeb, it was'nt a shot back at you, far from it I guess as clearly you have the common sense to work out when a 4x4 is nesessary and when it isn't. More of a general rant at the ill-informed, ignorant, follow the flock anti 4x4 brigade. Like the "I did'nt warn the 4x4s about the speed trap" for example. Whether warning any cars was good or bad is not relevant, it's the "4x4s are different" bit. I guess the OP knows his cars as I hope that he did not warn any Subarus, Pandas, Jag X types or Audis either...because guess what they too have a system of gears and shafts which make the front wheels go round as well as the back that is also solely responsible for Percy the Polar Bear having to swim his daily commute now. :roll:
FWIW I do really struggle to see the point of something like a Cayenne or a Toureg or an M-Class that is so shiny that you would not dare use it properly off road or sling a muddy bike in the back for fear of causing ludicrous amounts of damage. As an urban car it's probably totally pointless, as an off roader it's pointless and as a motorway cruiser it's also probably flawed in many ways...yet I still beleive that people should have the right to drive them if they really want to...they might just have a damned good reason and let's face it they'll pay accordingly tax wise!
Anyway, rant and threadjack over, back to normal service... 0 -
Certainly in recent years some of the so-called 4x4s that have been sold have been designed specifically for the "fashion" market and are 4x4s only in the way they look - they are sheep in buffalo's clothing if you like. But of course if you compare a modern vehicle of this type to an out-of-date estate car like a mondeo you will get better mpg! The ford focus does 53-47mpg I believe. The point is that with the same technology and effort towards fuel economy in the design, a large, high, heavy, square, non-aerodynamic vehicle is always going to be less efficient that a smaller more streamlined one, even if it isn't a "real" 4x4. Of course some powerful saloon cars are also huge gas guzzlers, and I don't condone them either.I can see what you're getting at, but I think your argument would have more force if you could actually demonstrate that `urbanite' 4x4s really were run at the expense of fuel economy and safety. But I think that will be difficult.
Consider something like the Nssan X-trail 2.0, which I think of a typical `lifesyste' motor. It llooks absolutely enormous, but it gets 39.8mpg (combined). That's about 30% _better_ than a Mondeo 2.0i estate (30.1mpg, combined). In fact, even my Jeep beats the Mondeo. In fact, many of the off-road-style vehicles you see in Islington are actually small-engined and quite light. They'd be no good as working vehicles at all -- but that's all to the good where economy is concerned.
I concede that you do see some real monster 4x4s knocking about, and I imagine that it's hard to justify owning any car with a 5-litre engine unless you routinely tow trucks out of the mud. But I think the proportion of these vehicles on the road is vanishingly small.
The safety disadvantages of 4x4s in towns hardly need emphasising. If you are hit by a ford focus at 30mph you have a good chance of bouncing and rolling off the bonnet, but if it is a 4x4 you are either going to be underneath the wheels or receive the full force of the impact from the front end. The sheer size of 4x4s also makes them ridiculously impractical in towns, they clog up streets because you can't squeeze past them going in the opposite direction if there is an obstruction, they take a lot of space to park, and they are physically intimidating to pedestrians and cyclists.0 -
I seen an advert for a 4x4 on tv, and if I'm not mistaken it was advertising a 4x4 for the city :shock:, bit pathetic that I think.0
-
The thing I find funny is when Chelsea types who use these things mainly as urban vehicles try to justify it on the basis that they "live in the countryside", when in fact the only off-road driving they do is up the gravel driveway to the country pile in the home counties! Fair enough if you are actively managing a deer estate in Assynt. Having successfully driven off-road up the odd mountain in the tropics in a rented Renault Clio (don't tell Hertz) I am a little suspicious of some people's claims that they need a proper 4wd...FWIW I do really struggle to see the point of something like a Cayenne or a Toureg or an M-Class that is so shiny that you would not dare use it properly off road or sling a muddy bike in the back for fear of causing ludicrous amounts of damage. As an urban car it's probably totally pointless, as an off roader it's pointless and as a motorway cruiser it's also probably flawed in many ways...yet I still beleive that people should have the right to drive them if they really want to...they might just have a damned good reason and let's face it they'll pay accordingly tax wise! 0 -
Iain C wrote:neeb wrote:You are one of the tiny percentage of 4x4 drivers that actually needs one then!
That's OK then. I don't actually "need" mine. I don't "need" to have a 14 year old Land Rover nor do I "need" to run it on primarily vegetable oil. I don't "need" to maintain it and service it myself using recycled parts whereever neessary and make sure it keeps on going instead of subscribing to the "must have new" throwaway culture that the rest of the world seems to be loving so much. I don't "need" to be able to load it up with walking kit and bikes (locked securely inside) and put my boat (and that's a sailing dinghy) on the back and head off to the lakes etc for a week, I could always just fly somewhere instead? I could book a hotel instead of sleeping in it too. I don't "need" to be able to tow a boat up a slipway or a trailer across a muddy field.
Ha! Ditto.
Only my Landy's a bit older (1962 in fact). It's great for lugging bikes and kit around and you don't get stuck in muddy fields camping. Mine's not on cooking oil yet but I figure if you spread the emissions out (68000 miles over 46 years) and take into account the infrequency with which it is used today I reckon it comes in as pretty environmentally friendly.
Having said that, I really do struggle to understand why somebody would spend 40 grand on a massive Mercedes M class or one of those enormous Audis just for lugging the kids to school in traffic...0
