| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Everything drifts to the left eventually, Stui. Even you, you'll see.  |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
hah. what's that quote about young and old people and political leanings?
I started out drifting left but had a wheel alignment. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| One morning, you'll wake up, look in the mirror and say to yourself "All property is theft". |
|
|
|
|
Bruce Gonsalves
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It used to be awkward using the old car phones with the spiral phone cord whilst driving. Darn cord would get caught on the gear stick and steering wheel. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | One morning, you'll wake up, look in the mirror and say to yourself "All property is theft". |
The morning you divest all your property and hand it over to the state for the use of all, I'll think about it.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | | David wrote: | | They can do this, but not an inbuilt breathalyser? Or an enforced upper speed limit tied to area restrictions? Come on, guys! If we're going to do this nanny state thing, let's do it right. |
I would bet that mobile phone use us a bigger contributor to road incidents than speeding or drink driving now.
A speed restrictive device would be just plain moronoic. Speed can be used to evade an incident and imagine trying to overtake?
Inbuilt breathtaking devices are mandatory for halfwits who don't get the messsge already David.
Mobile phones + driving = accident waiting to happen. I think it's a great idea.  |
I don't get the concept that you should need to speed to overtake – if the car in front is going the speed limit, why overtake them to begin with? In any case, I think a sensible rule would set it at about 5 kilometres or so over the speed limit to allow for a bit of leeway – the main purpose would be to stop people from doing absurd speeds.
Re: breathalysers, I'm aware that interlocks exist for drink-drivers, but my preferred option would be a non-locked system for everyone. Would reduce the number of drink-drivers massively, I reckon.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
luvdids 
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Boy that's loaded! |
Damn right it is
But how often have you seen through their rear car window, women turning their head to speak to someone else in the car and consequently have the car drift to the left? |
Seen plenty of men doing it too you know. |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Skids wrote: | | David wrote: | | They can do this, but not an inbuilt breathalyser? Or an enforced upper speed limit tied to area restrictions? Come on, guys! If we're going to do this nanny state thing, let's do it right. |
I would bet that mobile phone use us a bigger contributor to road incidents than speeding or drink driving now.
A speed restrictive device would be just plain moronoic. Speed can be used to evade an incident and imagine trying to overtake?
Inbuilt breathtaking devices are mandatory for halfwits who don't get the messsge already David.
Mobile phones + driving = accident waiting to happen. I think it's a great idea. |
I don't get the concept that you should need to speed to overtake – if the car in front is going the speed limit, why overtake them to begin with? In any case, I think a sensible rule would set it at about 5 kilometres or so over the speed limit to allow for a bit of leeway – the main purpose would be to stop people from doing absurd speeds.
Re: breathalysers, I'm aware that interlocks exist for drink-drivers, but my preferred option would be a non-locked system for everyone. Would reduce the number of drink-drivers massively, I reckon. |
You obviously haven't had to pass a road train doing 100km/h.
If you could only do the speed limit (110km/h) you'd need a lot if straight road.
And who said anything about overtaking a vehicle doing the speed limit?
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
But isn't the point here that you're not supposed to go over the speed limit when overtaking? If a cop car sees you do that, or if you pass a camera, then you'll get a fine. If it's against the law, why permit it?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
luvdids
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: |
A speed restrictive device would be just plain moronoic. Speed can be used to evade an incident and imagine trying to overtake? |
| Skids wrote: |
And who said anything about overtaking a vehicle doing the speed limit? |
What sort of incident would you need speed to evade?  |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A rampaging kangaroo, of course! 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| luvdids wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Boy that's loaded! |
Damn right it is
But how often have you seen through their rear car window, women turning their head to speak to someone else in the car and consequently have the car drift to the left? |
Seen plenty of men doing it too you know. |
That's because it's their wife/partner in the passenger seat yelling "look at me when you're talking to me"
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | But isn't the point here that you're not supposed to go over the speed limit when overtaking? If a cop car sees you do that, or if you pass a camera, then you'll get a fine. If it's against the law, why permit it? |
get up on country roads, 1 lane each way with the occasional overtaking lane that lasts less than 1km.
If you want to overtake a car that's doing 90 in a 100 zone, you're going to seriously struggle if you're speed limited to 100 or even 110 kmh. You just won't get past safely. I've had to hit speeds that would see me lose my licence on the spot if caught to get past convoys of rejects in the past, particularly on windy roads.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| luvdids wrote: | | Skids wrote: |
A speed restrictive device would be just plain moronoic. Speed can be used to evade an incident and imagine trying to overtake? |
| Skids wrote: |
And who said anything about overtaking a vehicle doing the speed limit? |
What sort of incident would you need speed to evade? |
I've been in a minibus that was rammed and knocked on it's side by a drunk who ran a stop sign.
I saw it coming but wasn't driving so could only just hang on. If you see something coming and an accident about to happen, you practically have 3 choices.
1. Just keep driving
2. Slam on the brakes
3. Put the foot down.
There's instances when, depending on the speed you're going, 1 and 2 are going to get you creamed so the safest option is to put the foot down hard. It's a calculation you do in your head in a split second.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | But isn't the point here that you're not supposed to go over the speed limit when overtaking? If a cop car sees you do that, or if you pass a camera, then you'll get a fine. If it's against the law, why permit it? |
get up on country roads, 1 lane each way with the occasional overtaking lane that lasts less than 1km.
If you want to overtake a car that's doing 90 in a 100 zone, you're going to seriously struggle if you're speed limited to 100 or even 110 kmh. You just won't get past safely. I've had to hit speeds that would see me lose my licence on the spot if caught to get past convoys of rejects in the past, particularly on windy roads. |
I think the cops would agree with me that you just shouldn't be overtaking in that scenario. Yeah, it's annoying, but more annoying to have a head-on collision because you were driving too fast (on the wrong side of the road, no less). I've been in a situation like that and I'm glad I didn't put my foot down as I probably would be dead now.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
