I have had cause in the past to call 999 when I have seen something dramatic on the motorway that needs a fast response (huge round hay bale falling off lorry in middle lane, big sheet of corrogated metal lifting off pick-up in lane 3 for example) but I was at a loss yesterday.
But what should you do when you see something illegal and potentially dangerous happening that some might not consider worth dialling 999 for? I have crimestoppers telephone number programmed into my phone, but I would think that is more to report a burglary / mugging isn't it?
Yesterday I was stuck in a queue of traffic on the outside of Eastbourne on a dual carriageway section. My daughter points out a car beside us with at least 8 people in it. It was a small Megane Scenic with the pop up seats in the boot. Two adults in the front, two in the rear with another older child and two in the seats in the boot, but with another child just sat loose on a lap. Only two people were wearing seatbelts one being the adult in the rear, but she had a toddler on her lap (the belt not arround them) and no one else was restrained.
And the previous day on the M3 I overtook a car with two children stood up in the rear of a car looking out of the same side window, clearly not strapped in with the parents chatting away in the front.
I cannot beleive these epicly stupid people have never seen those safety films showing what happens to a kid unrestrained in the event of an accident, and I get very angry that are putting their kids at risk and potentially the lives of anyone that hits them in an accident. The lifetimes trauma of killing someone in an accident would probably never be offset by someone saying, "well it was their own fault for their parent/s not strapping them in".
Who and how would you people report this? Or do you do what I did yesterday, which was absolutely nothing, but to teach my daughter to think how dangerous / stupid some people can be.
A few weeks ago I saw a new 2 seat Merc SLK pull up to a paper shop, driver got out and I then saw the well dressed lady in the passenger seat had an unrestrained toddler (3-4 years old) stood on her lap whilst hubby got the paper. They were about 50 yards from a Police station so I nipped up there and they sent someone down the road to see if they could witness them trying to drive off, but they got there too late, although I gave them the reg number.
The police have limited resources and I am sure if they saw any of the above incidents they would have dealt with it harshly, but they can't be everywhere all the time.
I would be interested in your comments / views.
|
It's extremely common, and you would really like to credit people with more sense, but unfortunately some people out there don't seem to have the brains they were born with. Adults taking risks is one thing, but to do so with kids who aren't old enough to make an informed judgement for themselves is completely unacceptable. I normally stop short of reporting them for the simple fact that unless they can be caught in the act, it comes down to my word against theirs, but I do fully understand why people do (SWMBO is one of them).
The one and only time I have ever reported another driver to the police was a woman careering down lane one of the M40 near Wycombe breastfeeding a baby on her lap. That was a "999" job on the (handsfree) mobile. I hope she got the book thrown at her.
Some people are just catastrophically stupid, unfortunately. I feel sorry for their kids.
|
I once reported a very poor Subaru driver on the M8 going into Edinburgh in rush hour. Weaving in and out, using the hard shoulder a few times.
I phoned 999, explained what was happening and gave his reg number and basically said to them if they happen to have anyone nearby then good, if not don't waste time trying to send someone over.
Came off at Hermiston Gait just in time to see the Subarau being pulled by a traffic car.
I would make the same suggestion to you, phone 999 explain the situation, if they have anyone nearby then good, if not then not much point in doing anything about it.
|
I had a good one yesterday, I'm in lane 3 of the M25, queue of traffic doing roughly indicated 70mph when a Nissan Primera undertakes at speed in lane 2.
What made it worse is that he did this one handed while the other one was holding the mobile phone he was talking on!
Chris.
Last edited by: Chris White on Mon 16 Aug 10 at 13:54
|
>> I had a good one yesterday, I'm in lane 3 of the M25, queue of
>> traffic doing roughly indicated 70mph when a Nissan Primera undertakes at speed in lane 2.
What's your problem with this?
|
>> What's your problem with this?
I do hope you're kidding???
So, somone undertakes doing an indicated 80-85mph one handed while on a mobile phone and that's not a problem?
|
Where are the police when you need them -
(July 2009) A1 M a Merc doing must have been doing 120+ had to brake hardish when I was overtaking in lane 2 - going through sheffield!!!! this was last summer
(15th August) 2010) A Vauxhall Corsa hurtled towards me (doing 75) in lane 1 of the A1 south of Washington and had to pull in front of another car just about to over take me in lane 2 narrowly missing taking his front end off
A Mercedes SLK and a Vauxhall Corsa (10 Registred) where racing each other @ 100 mph + down the A19 Saturday (15th August)
They must have been doing that speed becasue they were not in lane 2 when I indicated and pulled out to overtake a car joining the carrigeway, and had to brake hardish to avoid hitting me
When I pulled back into lane 1 the passenger of the following SLK lent his head out of the window and hurled abuse at me becasue I was "holding them up"
M180 Twice (July/August 2010) I have moved out to over take someone and twice I have been bullied out of the way by Audi Q7 and a big Chrysler thing going so fast they are nowhere to be seen when you check your mirrors and then have to slam their brakes on to avoid hitting me up the back of the car.
I will not be bullied out of the way but why are people getting away driving like this. Im so shocked at the time that I cannot make a mental note of reg plates but i think i will try harder to in the future.
do people have no common sense, and are so stupid that as a result of their actions they can kill someone! how are people awarded licences these days - its so infuratiating!!!!
Last edited by: Redviper on Mon 16 Aug 10 at 14:27
|
>> somone undertakes doing an indicated 80-85mph
I imagine he was made impatient by the long line of mimsers driving below the limit in the overtaking lane, leaving the middle one - the laughably-named 'fast lane' - empty, or empty enough to undertake in anyway.
The British on the whole are lousy motorway drivers, obsessed with speed limits and their own prerogatives. Very few simply get on with it while staying out of the way of faster traffic. Yes, my beloved compatriots: you are motorway rubbish.
|
Redviper describes two or three occasions on which he has caused faster traffic to brake sharply by pulling into its path. He suggests that because he claims not to have seen them coming they must have been going very very fast.
I don't go very very fast these days even on motorways, but people constantly pull out into my path, without signalling or signalling only as they begin the manoeuvre, sometimes causing me to brake and very often to lift off. I don't bother to remonstrate with them though. Life's too short.
They do it either because they never look in their mirrors or because they think they can get away with it and are damned if they are going to be bullied or intimidated into waiting until the next lane is clear before pulling out to overtake.
Can Redviper swear, believably, hand on heart, that he isn't one of these? Because it looks to me as if he may be. They are the main reason why I think we as a nation are motorway garbage.
|
Yes I can swear how dare you assume that I just pull out without taking into account my surroundings
I always check mirrors and Indicate, if you have not driven with me then you cannot assume that I just pull out willy nilly infront of people
Each time I have moved out to overtake someone non of the aforementioned "idiots" that are treating the uk's motorways like a race track where anywhere near me - i can 100% guarantee that they cone stonking up behind me (while i am doing slightly over the limit ) while im trying to complete my manouvre.
|
OK Redviper, if you swear it you swear it, and I accept your word.
But stonking or not, how can these people be on your rump in a trice from over the horizon without being noticed?
Perhaps your overtaking manoeuvres are too prolonged, the two lorries syndrome. That's the only explanation that occurs to me. If your speed differential with the vehicle you are passing is very small, and you don't increase your speed as you pass, then there may be time for someone doing a perfectly reasonable speedometer 80 or 90 to catch you up and become irritated.
Some of them may well be idiots, but they aren't the idiots in this scenario the way it sounds to me.
|
Secondly I would like to point out
The Idiot south of Washington I was already in lane 1, not overtaking anyone he was using the A1 like a racetrack he came up behind me so fast he had to pull out into lane two nearly taking off the front of the person already in there
The Idiot in the Mercedes, this was over the Tinsley flyover again its not a race track for doing over 100mph+
The idiots in the Corsa and the SLK very obviously using the A19 southbound – just north of peterlee as a race track that road has various sections where people cross that road from middle what part of driving like that on the A19 is sensible???
I promise you that they and the merc where going so fast they where not in my in mirrors and nowhere near me, when I executed my manoeuvre
I do not purposely hold people up, Im not perfect but I like to exercise standards in my driving because that makes me the better person but I’m sorry there is no excuse in using the public roads like a race track which all of my scenarios are examples off, and for people like that I will not back down to their bullying.
No one can accuse me of pulling out infront of them and holding them up on purpose, if they are driving properly they will not be held up.
|
You seem to think people are idiots just because they go fast Rv. This is an area where we differ radically.
Good drivers get on with it and don't get in the way of faster traffic. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But when the same thing happens again and again, they should ask themselves whether they might not be a tiny bit involved, as the constant. I think your allegation that cars constantly appear out of nowhere on your tail is dubious to put it mildly. How often and how hard do you look in your mirror?
The other thing you seem to think about far too much is the speed others are doing. It's none of your business really. They aren't really bullying you, they are just trying to get a move on. It is common courtesy, and commonsense, to let them do it, and stay out of their way. Then they won't bawl and give you the finger as they pass.
|
>> You seem to think people are idiots just because they go fast Rv. This is
>> an area where we differ radically.
Going fast when overtaking is one thing - people generally watch out for people coming past on the right. Going fast when undertaking (ie. a lot faster than the vehicle(s) being undertaken) is an accident waiting to happen, and probably worth reporting.
Last edited by: Focus on Mon 16 Aug 10 at 16:01
|
Im sorry but I really disagree
before I pull out I check rear, then drivers side door mirror everytime! not forgetting to indicate
All the people in my senario where treating the roads like a race track, the A19 North of peterlee is a dangerous place to be
The Merc driver was going nearly flat out (proabably) over the tinsly bypass, again not a race track
The person in the Lane 1 south of Washington was undertaking everyone else in lane 2 and going so fast that he had to pull out into lane 2 cutting up someone else
I do not accept that you are assuming that I just pull out without due car and attention and if someone hurls abuse at me becasue got in the way of them racing? well lets wait until they have wiped someone out and then we will see who is the better driver shall we?
Your also saying that im in the wrong becasue im iterupting someone who thinks its ok to drive flat out when there are lots over other drivers around im sorry but its not in my book
Im not perfect but i try my damn hardest to obey the law that is put down for me and my passengers saftey.
And I take great offence to anyone who suggests that i pull out just to hold people up when i dont!
|
"before I pull out I check rear, then drivers side door mirror everytime! not forgetting to indicate"
What is often not emphasised is the need for vigilance front and back at all times - not just when performing a manoeuvre.
Only by so doing will cars not appear "out of nowhere".
|
>> Your also saying that im in the wrong
RV, I am not saying you are in the wrong. I'm just suggesting as gently as possible that you just possibly may be a bit in the wrong. But I may be wrong too. Don't take it as an arrogant attack because it isn't one.
You may well be a careful and competent driver. But you suggest you aren't by using mimserspeak all the time: accusing drivers who go faster than you of 'using the roads as a race track', often being surprised when overtaken, suspecting that other drivers are trying to bully and intimidate you.
Perhaps you are misrepresenting yourself. Perhaps you are just incredibly unlucky. Anyway I have nothing against you or your driving, never having seen it. I am just responding to your discourse.
|
Me>> >> What's your problem with this?
>>
Chris White>> I do hope you're kidding???
>>
>> So, somone undertakes doing an indicated 80-85mph one handed while on a mobile phone and
>> that's not a problem?
But that's not what you said. You wrote that somebody had undertaken you doing 80-85 when the outside lane was doing 70. What is your problem with that.
Only in a subsequent sentence did you say that he was making a handed telephone call - which is obviously illegal - BUT the fact remains that undertaking is not illegal. And in fact is perfectly permissable when in lanes of traffic moving at different speeds.
And then Redviper. Twice in one day he is nearly killed. He is clearly very unlucky. It's funny how the angrier posters on here are the ones who are the victims of being cut up/poor driving, whereas I cannot recall the last time - if it has *ever* happened - that I pulled out into the outside lane of a motorway and made somebody brake hard.
Certainly some people to whom this happens frequently are mimsers who needs an eye test.
You make your own bad luck, I believe the saying goes.
Just for the record, I tend to cruise at 70mph (indicated) and 80 (indicated) if I have a journey of more than a couple of hours.
|
>> BUT the fact remains that undertaking is not
>> illegal. And in fact is perfectly permissable when in lanes of traffic moving at different
>> speeds.
Well, not quite, MM.
'Undertaking' is permissible when traffic is travelling in queues - but what constitutes a 'queue' could, I suppose, be open to interpretation :-)
For me, it remains a bit of a 'grey' area.
|
>>
>> >> BUT the fact remains that undertaking is not
>> Well, not quite, MM.
>>
>> 'Undertaking' is permissible when traffic is travelling in queues - but what constitutes a 'queue'
>> could, I suppose, be open to interpretation :-)
I don't know where you get the "queue" bit from. The Highway Code refers to congestion. The law itself does not prohibit undertaking.
242. Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 16 Aug 10 at 17:15
|
Queues certainly used to be mentioned in the HC's explanation. MM's quote suggests the wording has been updated. I read the new words to suggest a looser definition of what's acceptable that probably permits it at higher speeds, whereas 'queues' implies crawling. On the other hand, it does still require that both drivers' speed is limited by the vehicle in front.
Nor does it sanction the imaginary-lane technique beloved of motorcyclists on the M4, but that's another thread.
|
>> Certainly some people to whom this happens frequently are mimsers who needs an eye test.
As ive said in my posts all of the senarios, they where clearly racing
How is undertaking everyone in lane 2, and then pulling out of lane 1 into 2 narrowly taking of the person attempting to over take me acceptable driving?
How is clearly two cars nearly bumper to bumper doing at least 90 - 100 mph down the A19 on a busy saturday afternoon Acceptable?
Last edited by: Redviper on Mon 16 Aug 10 at 16:48
|
>> How is clearly two cars nearly bumper to bumper doing at least 90 - 100 mph down the A19 on a busy saturday afternoon Acceptable?
Perhaps it isn't Rv. But it's certainly something to stay out of the way of, not so? If you let them past, and they are going to cause a crash, then you won't be in it.
|
|
RV, One wonders why it happens to you a lot, all these fast cars suddenly appearing on your bumper after you change lanes.
|
>> RV, One wonders why it happens to you a lot, all these fast cars suddenly
>> appearing on your bumper after you change lanes.
>>
Not sure, but that's 3 events in the last year I'm on a motorway everyday.
Didn't realise my comments would create so much upset but everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's fair enough a Healthy debate helps the world go round.
|
I think Mapmakers point is "what were you doing in lane 3 when lanes 1 & 2 were (apparently) empty enough for someone to undertake in?"
It is a common problem with the widened M25 that drivers in lane 3 refuse to consider pulling into lanes 1 or 2. Rather defeats the whole point of spending £billions widening it!
|
>> I had a good one yesterday, I'm in lane 3 of the M25, queue of
>> traffic doing roughly indicated 70mph when a Nissan Primera undertakes at speed in lane 2.
>>
If there was enough room in lane 2 for you to be undertaken at speed why wern't you in lane 2 ?
|
>>
>> If there was enough room in lane 2 for you to be undertaken at speed
>> why wern't you in lane 2 ?
>>
Because I was in lane 3, keeping up with traffic and we were approaching slower moving vehicles in lane 2 that we were going to overtake (why else would I be in lane 3)
I would guess that the guy who decided to undertake thought that his journey was more important than everybody elses and he was going to try and get a few cars ahead by undertaking in lane 2 and pushing his way into lane 3 once he reached the slower moving vehicles (all one handed while talking on his phone............)
Last edited by: Chris White on Mon 16 Aug 10 at 17:45
|
Undertaking, if it's going to be done, should always be done 'at speed and without hesitation'.
Pat
|
>>>I would be interested in your comments / views.<<<
Let Darwinian selection take its course?
|
>>Let Darwinian selection take its course?<<
Ditto I'm afraid, there's just too many of em, and not enough BiB.
|
>> no one else was restrained.
In very few multiple-occupancy cars you'll find that 100% of passengers are properly restrained.
Also taxis are exempted from child seats! Sometimes minicabs remove their over the roof license plates to avoid air drag.
You will run out of pages if you decide to list all those cases!
Authorities think erecting speed cameras are enough to correct this.
|
All it goes to prove is that Darwinism is alive and well...
|
|
Me too - I don't know how we all survived being driven around in the back of Dad's estate car.
|
...I don't know how we all survived being driven around in the back of Dad's estate car...
Me and two brothers survived many thousands of miles in the back and front of various Cortinas.
As the youngest, I wasn't allowed in the front until I was about 11 or 12 years - I was deemed too small before that.
I don't like to see 15 children stuffed into a Toyota Carina, but as BP's post suggests, we forget how quickly attitudes - and laws - change.
|
we forget how quickly attitudes - and laws - change.
I can remember as a teenager riding pillion without a crash helmet on my cousin's motorbike in the early seventies.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 16 Aug 10 at 16:04
|
|
We drove every year from Manchester to Cornwall with me perched on the edge of the front passenger seat, chin and fingers on the dash board.
|
|
In answer to the OP, if it's not affecting my life, I would do absolutely nothing and let them get on with their lives (or deaths). There are too many "he shouldn't be doing that" type people about, ranting about other people doing things that don't even affect them, I used to think in a similar way once, but then I got ulcers and had to chill. I resigned myself to only saying or doing anything if it was affecting me in a big way.
|
Interesting comments, and a lively debate!!
Of course we have to accept that there are a number of cretins, and a number of very poor drivers, it is understanding what the Police would like us to do, what is the right course of action. I beleive we have a traffic officer who contributes here, perhaps he could pass comment?
Natural selection is the way I tend to think about it now. I had not listed the example of the purple MkII Mondeo, barrelling past me on the M4 at roughly 100mph, weaving with the rear door not shut properly and at least 6 people in the rear seat. That I did dial 999 for as I was certain that ambulances and other emergency services would have been needed a junction or two further up. I was taking the next exit so don't know what else happened.
On another occasion I saw a BMW near Bristol with windows smashed in and a couple of likely lads driving it, I reported it via 999 as it looked like it had been stoled with force and we were asked if we could stay close to it whilst they got officers nearby. We eventually had to take our exit and got a call later to advise that they had been pulled over but were legit. Had had the car vandalised whist out with friends. Asked the police to thasnk us for raising suspicions because if their car had have been stolen they would have been grateful someone thought to report it.
It is these other incidences that I originally posted where now I think, 'what an idiot!' but I am not about to tempt a Kenneth Noye response by advising the moron in person.
Maybe I will just have to think 'natural selection' and hope I never have one of their children spread all over my bonnet. At least if I did I will be fairly sure they will wipe out their parent on the way to the windscreen. Not nice to think abouyt is it?
I don't get massivly agravated by it, just sad to see how poor other peoples driving is.
Maybe they in turn criticise me for doing 85 in a 70 limit when all is clear and dry. I think I am safe and they think they are?
As for people 'racing' if I am doing said 85 indicated and a car pulls right in front of me doing 71mph to overtake a 70mph car then I also think they are idiots, but I no longer toot and gesticulate, and drive up their chuff. I still think they are idiots though.......... :)
|
Why have we all become so judgemental?
What do we think qualifies us to judge what is safe and what isn't?
Surely if it didn't result in an accident it wasn't as risky as it appeared to be to the one making the judgement?
I drive in a manner that complies with my standards and don't worry too much about anyone else either behind or in front of me, until they get too close.
I then move or slow down to be out of their way as I don't intend to be involved in an accident waiting to happen. I like to push on a tad too, if possible!
I think we should all be like Sammy Safespeed who we saw join the M11 at Harlow last week:)
Straight out of the slip road at 45MPH with not a backward glance, then straight into the centre lane, still at 45MPH, totally oblivious to the chaos he'd caused.
Of course, it couldn't be his fault because he was safe, he was driving UNDER the speed limit.
Pat
|
I drive taking note of others and want to arrive alive and calm.
Worrying about other idiots and how they drive is not for me. As for people racing up behind me, even if I am in 3 lanes of traffic and lane 3, I pull over. Idiots are safer miles in front of me than on my back bumper.
I think it is great people can express their annoyance on here but I would be terrified of my state of mind if after getting out of a car, I felt as some obviously do...
Let darwinism take them I say..
(and funnily enough, I don't see people suddenly appearing in my rear view mirror so I don't get upset about it..
|
Today's motoring environment is very unforgiving - a bit like internet forums.
High traffic volumes means there's always someone who will be effected - adversely or otherwise - by what you do.
Not so many years ago, I might have 'got away' with daydreaming in lane two or three for a minute or two.
These days there is someone behind you in seconds.
|
Timely thread this, not about general driving cos we all have different perceptions of whats right and good or bad and dangerous.
It's been years since i've seen little uns loose in the car and i noticed one today, perfectly placed guided missile standing on the floor leaning between the front seats beside his doting or is that dotty parents.
Sometimes people need a good slap with a wet kipper.
|
i mimsed today 33mph in a 40 and before i knew it i had passed a discreetly hidden speed camerad copper on double time crouched in the back of his van (will he be able to cite bad back and go on permanent sick leave some time in the future for his good deads?)
anyways its good to mimse sometimes especially when i saw the corsa overtake a car coming the other way and then a tractor and trailer pulled out of a field right in front of him
made me laugh that did as i viewed his emergency braking manouvre in my rear view mirror
oh yes original question
just think that if those people do kill their kids they will probably just drop a few more in the next few years so no real harm done.........
|
When I was taught to drive, I was told that when pulling out on the motorway I should be aware that not everybody likes to stick to the speed limits, and that it was quite likely a car could be coming up from behind at 120mph+. I always drive with this in mind.
What would RV do if it was a marked, lit up police car travelling at twice the speed limit whom he baulked? (I have seen this done!)
|
>> What would RV do if it was a marked, lit up police car travelling at
>> twice the speed limit whom he baulked? (I have seen this done!)
>>
Probably carped myself and then embarisingly moved out of the way. I've never said I'm perfect infact in most things I'm far from it.
Last edited by: Redviper on Mon 16 Aug 10 at 20:08
|
Kids not strapped in is one of my pet hates.
Just been looking through some retro adds on you tube and found this one
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1odNZBna_Yg
|
I am 56 years old. I spent most of my childhood driving days, leaning over the front seats, kneeling on the rear seats, sat on my mums lap or sat on the bench front seat. Seats belts? most cars never had them let alone use them.
All of my generation, and those before and those after did the same.
I know of none who ended up killed or damaged due to lack of seats belts.
So before we reach for our mobile and punch 999, lets just remember, a: its not a major crime, and b: its got sod all to do with you what others do.
|
|
Quite right Z, send your grandson up to Northants will you when he's born, my chimney needs a good clean out.
|
|
No chance, he will be dipping tourists pockets in London.
|
>> I am 56 years old. I spent most of my childhood driving days, leaning over
>> the front seats, kneeling on the rear seats, sat on my mums lap or sat
>> on the bench front seat. Seats belts? most cars never had them let alone use
>> them.
>>
>> All of my generation, and those before and those after did the same.
>>
>> I know of none who ended up killed or damaged due to lack of seats
>> belts.
>>
I am just a few years behind you.
My father was a policeman for 30 years, had to clean up the mess left when people did not wear seat belts - clean up is the right phrase. One reason why I don't understand people who run classic cars - too dangerous in an accident.
I do agree that seat belts should be the user's concern, and you should not be ale to claim ANY damages for injury if you were not wearing one. Same as crash helments. My father disagrees - somehting about not wanting anyone to have to pick up bits of body off the road.
|
>> One reason why I don't understand people who run classic cars - too dangerous in an accident.
Calculated risk, sure my Commer is not as safe as a modern vehicle but, like the vast majority of classic vehicle owners - I don't have accidents and for the occasions when it is someone else's fault it is far safer than a motorcycle and nobody suggests banning that.
Life is a risk every day - get used to it.
|
I can remember in 1970 when I lived in Edinburgh , one fine Sunday morning watching an open 41/4 supercharged open Bentley driving along the road (memory may be false .. could have been a 3 litre .. but I doubt it).
Four people in car enjoying sunshine..
Next day, front page news... same Bentley involved in crash at least one fatality and all thrown from car and injured as a minimum.
I used to drive a Rover 16 with suicide doors and no seatbelts.
In my view anyone driving any vehicle without seatbelts is grossly irresponsible and should have no passengers as they are endangering them.. Especially open cars.
And the crashworthiness ? Far more dangerous than any bike as they are prone to overturn... You can live with a bike on top of you... NOT a two tonne car...
Commerdriver's statements are - in my view - just plain wrong.. And it's that kind of attitude " others have accidents not us classic car drivers" that is even worse. Complacency...
Having seen it and driven my Rover as a daily driver (!) - I would never ever drive one again. Roads too crowded... When I had a 1973 Lotus ELan I was hit by the unprintable idiot behind me who was gawping at my lovely red sports car. and did not stop at the lights when I did.
You cannot legislate for idiots with no sense. Death traps on wheels..Not because of their drivers but because there appear to be a sizeable number of drivers who have excrement for brains.
Last edited by: madf on Tue 17 Aug 10 at 11:11
|
|
Plenty of us with a couple of decades on Zero spent plenty of time travelling in cars with no seatbelts, standing up, or travelling in the boot. I remember a friend's parents who thought nothing of shoving four of us in the boot of his Volvo estate, plus four on the back seat.
|
I'll drive absolutely anything, with or without seatbelts, with or without doors. I don't expect to crash, and if I do I expect to survive.
Whippersnappers today, and some older people, have an unhealthy respect for their own little pink bums if you ask me. No spirit of adventure. No fun.
|
>> Commerdriver's statements are - in my view - just plain wrong.. And it's that kind
>> of attitude " others have accidents not us classic car drivers" that is even worse.
>> Complacency...
Nobody is being complacent life isn't safe there are thousands of vehicles on the road every day without seatbelts, they are called buses.
Life isn't 100% safe there is no more reason why people should not drive classic cars than there is why people should not ride motorbikes, go mountaineering, or any other activity with a risk attached.
I can't quote official figures but I would bet more people survive accidents in classic cars, most of which (including mine) have seatbelts than survive motorcycling accidents.
And I would also bet that mile for mile there are far less accidents in classic cars than in any other group of vehicles, look at the insurance premiums.
Keep your health and safety attitude where it belongs, if I or anyone else wants to drive or ride something which does not surround me with 25 airbags and crumple zones wherever I go then that is my choice.
|
Its a bit like smoking innit, if someone wants to smoke, good luck to em is what I says,
If an idiot parent wants to let their cherished child stand unsecured in a fast moving vehicle on a busy road,
whats that got to do with an overweight CEO or anyone else.
No wonder peops have blacked out windows.
Live! ... and let live.
|
I don't care if they maim themselves for life (welll, I do) . BUT I object strongly paying for the results of their stupidity.
If all you people who say "live and let live" want to pay my share of the A&E bills and the benefits bills for these idiots.. go right ahead,
But as I pay for them and cannot avoid it, I say "obey the rules".
Of course, if you are advocating them losing their rights to NHS care...
And it's not like smoking. Passive smoking kills and costs us £billions... Us taxpayesr that is...
Last edited by: madf on Tue 17 Aug 10 at 13:30
|
>>But as I pay for them and cannot avoid it, I say "obey the rules".<<
The NHS is far from being ideal but it seems to more or less work, in a funny ole sort of way,
If someone like the Essex woman who gorged herself to 45 stone needs help, it is there for her,
If someone smokes from their teens onward and requires help in their 70's, it is there for them,
We all pay for that, whether we like it or nay, lets just hope that we never need the NHS ourselves one day.
|
>> obey the rules
that's just the point someone driving and old vehicle, riding a motorbike, smoking, being overweight, eating red meat.... isn't breaking any rules or laws.
The only "rule" they seem to be breaking is to want to do something you don't want to do and therefore disapprove of.
You are perfectly within your rights to think of me or others who drive old vehicles or the other things I have mentioned as stupid or complacent or whatever.
I choose to disagree and take what I consider to be a tiny risk.
Passive smoking (I am not a smoker and never have been) is now a tiny risk having been reduced by laws on where you can or can't smoke.
I suspect pretty well everyone on this forum pays taxes so please lets avoid phrases like "Us Taxpayers" it really is best left to a certain well known and often referred to daily newspaper.
|
"Disapprove of" suggests I want to do something about it..
If people want to kill themselves or take risks,it's their own life.
They can do what they like.. Just don't risk others' lives.. eg passengers...
|
>> Live! ... and let live.
Should it not be 'Live! ... and let die' ?
|
of course under our new generals in power the nhs is going to get even more seriously eroded towards paid for care this is why the pctrusts are being done away with and hospitals and dsoctors are going to be encouraged to do more paid for work
the nhs wont be as we know it in 10 years............. tops
|
>>the nhs wont be as we know it in 10 years
I hope so.
The welfare state, and various nannying bits of legislation have tried to hide from us the truth - that everything we do in our lives has risk associated with it, and consequences. The experiment of having the nanny state on hand to put right every unpleasantness has been tested to destruction in the generations since the war, and the blunt truth is we can't afford it and its inversion of any remaining work ethic any more. We all simply have to grow up, and face a fairly harsh reaility.
|
"We all simply have to grow up, and face a fairly harsh reaility."
You mean like stopping wars whose sole effect has been - apart from enriching thieves and fraudsters and killing lots of people - is protect the UK's supply of illegal drugs.. which we will not decriminalise for fear of...the effect it ill have on drug suppliers?
Or like lettinga few cities collapse into ghost twons like parts of Detroit as no-one will start businesses there? eg like pit villages.
And letting Northern Irealnd go quietly bust? And Wales?
I'll be dead before it happens and I plan to live at least 3 more decades :-)
Last edited by: madf on Tue 17 Aug 10 at 15:06
|
>>You mean like stopping wars ...
Yes, I'm not sure I fully understand why we are there. I'm a bit worried about what would happen if we simply left, but, I do agree that the money would be far better spent here.
>>Or like lettinga few cities collapse into ghost twons like parts of Detroit as no-one will start businesses there? eg like pit villages.
Oh yes!, definitely! Just because a settlement exists today doesn't give it any special right to continue to exist - just as life doesn't owe any of us a living. Norman Tebbit was quite right when he spoke about bicycles.
Just how much good did Linwood do for the Rootes Group? That sort of expensive centrist planning simply doesn't work.
|
>> >>Let Darwinian selection take its course?<<
>>
>> Ditto I'm afraid, there's just too many of em, and not enough BiB.
>>
I think there have to be a lot of them otherwise Darwinian selection doesn't work?
It's no good if just the occasional brightly coloured butterfly gets eaten, is it? The process has to ensure that virtually all of them do, leaving the field clear for the sooty ones that blend into the bark?
|
>>I think there have to be a lot of them otherwise Darwinian selection doesn't work?
It's no good if just the occasional brightly coloured butterfly gets eaten, is it? The process has to ensure that virtually all of them do, leaving the field clear for the sooty ones that blend into the bark?<<
Beautifully put comrade Clifford, you are a credit to Cymru :)
|
I cordially disagree with Cliff. Mutations are happening all the time and most of them are deleterious - it's not often that you hit a watch with a hammer and get a better watch. So the fruit fly whose wings come out curly can't get about and starves. That's selection at work on an individual level.
But every so often, something useful happens. A cell arises that can tell the difference between light and dark, so that mutation survives. Then another mutation puts that cell in a depression, which gives directionality. Successive mutations deepen the depression, until it closes in on itself and forms a pinhole camera, also known as an eye. Each mutation survives because it's a little more useful than the previous form. There's no goal to any of this - that's the point the 'design' crowd miss - just an incremental increase in fitness for the task of survival. But a genuinely useful change can become established very quickly: Richard Dawkins calculates that the vertebrate eye could evolve from scratch in half a million years - the blink of an evolutionary, erm, eye.
Fortunately or otherwise, there is no selective agent strong enough to eliminate the tendency to take silly risks.
|
>> Richard Dawkins calculates that the vertebrate eye could evolve from scratch in half a million years
Oh he does, does he? From scratch, eh?
Like to see the calculations.
|
>> Like to see the calculations.
when your evolutionary eye has developed he will show you. - in about half a million years.
|
|
Not sure what your point is, AC, but you can read his explanation of the computer model he used in Climbing Mount Improbable. Great title, and a chewy but accessible read.
|
I wouldnt bother AC ive just clicked on a link to see what he looks like and i see he is a typical guardian reader so i promptly fell asleep
zzzzzzz
|
>> >> Richard Dawkins calculates that the vertebrate eye could evolve from scratch in half a
>> million years
>>
>> Oh he does, does he? From scratch, eh?
>>
>> Like to see the calculations.
>>
Dawkins relied on Prof. Dan-E. Nilsson and Susan Pelger
Nilsson, D.E. and Pelger, S., 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 256:53–58
David Berlinski tried to demolish that calculation, and was met with a rare reply from the author
www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
|
|
Ah, Suppose, the inimitable voice of reason with citations! This site has needed somebody like you.
|
|
Some interesting comments on here. Surely the point about unrestrained children in cars is that the child is not able to make an informed choice. I doubt whether the parent has explained the risks to the child and let he/she decide. And as for those of us that rode around in our childhood years unrestrained without accident, so what? The dead aren't posting on here are they? that's no more relevant than saying you've been undertaking some other risky activity for x amount of years without dying. Well, that's patently obvious if you're contributing here, but somewhat pointless as it tells us nothing about how many people may have died or been seriously injured in that activity. Survival doesn't make the activity safe.
|
But survival proves the releative harmlessness (in statistical terms) of leaving the little dahlings unprotected.
Anyway, Parents who fill the car with unrestrained prodigy, are hardly likely to instill great social values in those under their care are they. In fact they are more likely to be growing up stealing your car keys and vandalising your car.
So if I were you, if you see a car full of unrestrained brats, I would advise you keep your trap shut, and smile inwardly at the hope they may end up as pavement jam, and unable to polute our planetary gene stock.
|
It is tactless and bad taste - but realistic - to look at the accident rates for children and see that they are worst in the large urban areas where people are dependent on benefits and least where people are better off..
www.clickliverpool.com/news/national-news/1210314-liverpool-second-most-dangerous-place-in-uk-for-child-road-accidents.html
|
Madness, but how would I report it? - DP
