Clive ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

And as for the speed-vs-danger thing: yes, Adrian, you're quite right
that it's dangerous driving that causes accidents, not speed per se.

Surely it high time we had unmarked police cars patrolling the roads and
motorways?

Marked cars would be more use, as a deterrent. Unmarked are no use
whatsoever for that.

Tom Anderson ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

It strikes me that it probably would, actually. Bad driving isn't
exactly a sporadic problem - it's an epidemic.

Yes, it is.

Now.

It didn't used to be.

So what changed?

Oh, yes - we got rid of the traffic police, in favour of cameras.

On 26 Sep 2005 16:42:32 GMT, Adrian wrote:

You're confusing speeding with dangerous driving.

For somebody to be guilty ONLY of speeding, they *must* be driving safely.
Because if they aren't, they're guilty of a more serious offence.

No. It's entirely possible for their driving to be excessively risky,
without necessarily going so far as to warrant or meet the criteria
for a (successful) prosecution for dangerous driving.

There are different levels of risk, something which you seem
completely incapable of understanding.

asdf ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

You're confusing speeding with dangerous driving.

For somebody to be guilty ONLY of speeding, they *must* be driving
safely. Because if they aren't, they're guilty of a more serious
offence.

No. It's entirely possible for their driving to be excessively risky,
without necessarily going so far as to warrant or meet the criteria
for a (successful) prosecution for dangerous driving.

DWDC&A, then.

Of course, that "riskiness" is equally likely at a speed BELOW the limit.

There are different levels of risk, something which you seem
completely incapable of understanding.

Not at all - I understand it perfectly. You're the one confusing it with
mere velocity.

On 25 Sep 2005 20:28:44 GMT, Adrian said:

A big bloke, used to a few beers, would be far more competent whilst
over the limit than somebody smaller and unused to alcohol who may be
way under it.

I'm a big bloke. I'm used to a few beers. I am not at all competent
to drive when over the limit. Not at all competent. Therefore I can
not be more competent than anyone else.

In fact I am not at all competent to drive when I've had a couple of
beers and am still *under* the limit.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

On 26 Sep 2005 06:55:17 GMT, Adrian said:

So if I didn't have a licence, got ****ed up and drive a car that is
unknown to DVLA (and there's plenty) with no insurance, no MOT through a
speed camera, I'd get prosecuted for all of those serious offences?

You make an excellent point. The solution is, obviously, to mount
RPGs on the GATSOs and do away with those tiresome fines and courts.

As a side note - speed limits are *not* rigourously enforced. If they
were I would be a lot poorer than I am.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

David Cantrell ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

A big bloke, used to a few beers, would be far more competent whilst
over the limit than somebody smaller and unused to alcohol who may be
way under it.

I'm a big bloke. I'm used to a few beers. I am not at all competent
to drive when over the limit. Not at all competent. Therefore I can
not be more competent than anyone else.

In fact I am not at all competent to drive when I've had a couple of
beers and am still *under* the limit.

How do you *know* when you're under/over the limit? I don't have a clue
where the limit is - because I've never in my life blown into a
breathtester.

Adrian wrote:
Why are speed limits enforced in such a black-and-white fashion?
Because they can be. If the limit is 30 and you are caught doing 47,
then there's nothing to debate.

A big bloke, used to a few beers, would be far more competent whilst
over the limit than somebody smaller and unused to alcohol
This is precisely the "logic" that causes people to die on the roads.
The more familiar one is with alcohol, the less one has the capacity to
judge how competent one is. Those who are most familiar with it of all
have IME only passing contact with reality, and even when they haven't
had a drink for days, they may be very dangerous indeed in a car.

Being a big bloke makes no difference. The limit is measured
independently of body mass.

In message , Chris Tolley
writes
A big bloke, used to a few beers, would be far more competent whilst
over the limit than somebody smaller and unused to alcohol
This is precisely the "logic" that causes people to die on the roads.
The more familiar one is with alcohol, the less one has the capacity to
judge how competent one is. Those who are most familiar with it of all
have IME only passing contact with reality, and even when they haven't
had a drink for days, they may be very dangerous indeed in a car.

Being a big bloke makes no difference. The limit is measured
independently of body mass.
That has to be rubbish. Surely an eight stone woman will have half the
level of alcohol to get to the same limit as a 16 stone man. Simply by
the greater dilution of body mass and fluids.
--
Clive

Chris Tolley ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Why are speed limits enforced in such a black-and-white fashion?

Because they can be. If the limit is 30 and you are caught doing 47,
then there's nothing to debate.

And you don't find it relevant that 47mph may well be perfectly safe in
those circumstances, whilst 28mph in a different 30mph zone may be
ludicrously lethal?

A big bloke, used to a few beers, would be far more competent whilst
over the limit than somebody smaller and unused to alcohol

This is precisely the "logic" that causes people to die on the roads.
The more familiar one is with alcohol, the less one has the capacity to
judge how competent one is. Those who are most familiar with it of all
have IME only passing contact with reality, and even when they haven't
had a drink for days, they may be very dangerous indeed in a car.

Being a big bloke makes no difference.

Of course it does.

Find a big hairy-arsed builder, and a skinny little granny, for example.

Perform a set of coordination and awareness tests, then give them
sufficient alcohol to get them both to an equal blood/alcohol level - let's
say, the legal driving limit. Perform the same tests again.

You really think both will have the same degree of change?

The limit is measured independently of body mass.

Exactly.