| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tim Buxton
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 14/09/2002 20:56:18
Posts: 5231
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
|
 Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| MR_TiGGer wrote: | | Tim Buxton wrote: | | There is no fast lane. |
*sigh* It's a common term refering to the lane you go to to overtake the slower car, but you deserve a pat on the back for that obsevation :D |
No, that would be the centre lane on most motorways. It is an overtaking lane. Then there is often a second overtaking lane and sometimes even a third. I'm sorry you appear to find it tedious but the number of people who think that, because they are driving fast, they need to be in this mythical 'fast lane' is on the increase. These people actually cause bottlenecks which leads to frustration.
_________________
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PatC
Regular Visitor
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 179
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MR_TiGGer wrote: |
Does it not follow that if people drive too fast for thier own skill level, believing themselves to be invunrable due to major advances in car safety, then find themselves either having a major incident or worse still being the cause of one.
This can not be an accident can it? Is it not just reckless behaviour?
|
In most cases yes: reckless, dangerous, careless or without due care and attention. Even mechanical failures can often be put down to the vehicle not being maintained properly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatC
Regular Visitor
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 179
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tim Buxton wrote: | | No, that would be the centre lane on most motorways. It is an overtaking lane. Then there is often a second overtaking lane and sometimes even a third. I'm sorry you appear to find it tedious but the number of people who think that, because they are driving fast, they need to be in this mythical 'fast lane' is on the increase. These people actually cause bottlenecks which leads to frustration. |
And then there are the people who sit in the middle lane because they are doing 70 mph, with the view that you shouldn't want to be overtaking them anyway. Volvo drivers developed a reputation for this at one time, although I'm not sure it was entirely justified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatC
Regular Visitor
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 179
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 999tommo wrote: | | I believe there should be variable speed limits, like in France where the speed limit is reduced if it is raining. |
So do I. How is that implemented in France - variable speed signs? It's been a few years since I've driven there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crazylegs wrote: | | [whenever i see anyone driving with there mobile stuck to the side of there heads....I usually shout and wave my arms in the air at the intended idiot, |
At least they've got ONE hand on the wheel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
999tommo
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 616
Location: Midlothian
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PatC wrote: | | So do I. How is that implemented in France - variable speed signs? It's been a few years since I've driven there. |
It's just written into their highway code, which unlike ours is the law. There is generally a 20kph drop in the speed limit in adverse weather conditions. On motorways, the signs are displayed with two limits on them. 130kph is the speed limit and 110kph when in adverse weather.
| Crazylegs wrote: | | Why oh why do the police not come down on these individuals harder, its become antisocial to drink drive so why is it not anti-social to talk on the bl**dy phone and pay no attention to whats going on around you when you are at the wheel of a killing machine.. |
The Police I'm afraid are tied to the legislation available. You rightly state that the fine for using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving is a mere £30.00 and I agred this is not enough for the potential danger. There is talk of making it endorsable but that has not been ratified. In the meantime, if there are other circumstances, then the Police have the option to report for careless / dangerous driving.
_________________
Tommo...
Regularly absent, but still here in spirit ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomDavison
Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Posts: 384
Location: Bedford, England
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="PatC"] | MR_TiGGer wrote: |
And don't get me started on people with 'baby on board" signs in the back of their cars. If any such person is reading, kindly note that nobody gives a toss. Thank you. |
I thought like this until my daughter gave birth. The staff advised that she put a "baby on board" sticker in the window, so that in the event of a serious accident, the emergency services would search the car for the tiny object that was the child in the back, rather than assume that the single driver in the front was the only occupant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anita
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Mar 15, 2006
Posts: 3219
Location: Windlesham, Surrey
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
But did they also tell her to take the sticker out when the baby isn't in the car, so the emergency services don't waste time looking for a non-existant child?
_________________
Anita
TomTom VIA 135 - App 12.075
UK map 1125.12264
Samsung Galaxy S21 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nej
Frequent Visitor
Joined: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 454
Location: London, Ingerlund
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
People seem to think that calling something an "accident" somehow absolves them of all responsibility. This is crap, it's a child's argument. My 9-yr old daughter knocked an ashtray off a ledge and broke it the other week. She claimed it was an accident. There is no such thing as an accident (well, rarely), it is just somebody not being careful.
It may not have been intentional, but that is completely beside the point. If you are not paying attention or are driving recklessly then it is intentional as far as I'm concerned.
I've had two "accidents" in my life and will admit that it was my fault in both of them. The first was caused by inexperience and the second by tiredness (I thought the dozy old sod in the Volvo would pull out into 1/4 mile gap that had appeared, but he didn't and I didn't react in time). Both of these were not intentional, but had I been a better driver or more alert they would have been avoided.
Oh, and speed cameras would not have prevented either of them... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatC
Regular Visitor
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 179
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crazylegs wrote: | If i had my way it would be £200 on the spot or i confiscate the phone... 
|
I'd make it a 12 month ban offence as I don't see as being that different from drink driving. After all, making or taking a phone call isn't something you can accidentally do, like creeping over the speed limit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatC
Regular Visitor
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 179
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 999tommo wrote: | | In the meantime, if there are other circumstances, then the Police have the option to report for careless / dangerous driving. |
Surely using a phone whilst driving is, by definition, driving without due care and attention? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatC
Regular Visitor
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 179
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TomDavison wrote: | | I thought like this until my daughter gave birth. The staff advised that she put a "baby on board" sticker in the window, so that in the event of a serious accident, the emergency services would search the car for the tiny object that was the child in the back, rather than assume that the single driver in the front was the only occupant. |
OK, that's a fair point. I hadn't thought of that. But I would have thought that the emergency services should check anyway, in the event that someone simply hadn't bought a baby on board sign. And anyone who had thought to fit the sign would almost certainly have a child seat fitted, which would probably be visible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatC
Regular Visitor
Joined: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 179
Location: Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nej wrote: | | People seem to think that calling something an "accident" somehow absolves them of all responsibility. This is crap, it's a child's argument. |
Conversely, we are slowly working towards the US litigation model whereby if something happens to you it must be someone else's fault, and damages should be sought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skippy
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12
Posts: 2946
Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TomDavison wrote: | | in the event of a serious accident, the emergency services would search the car for the tiny object that was the child in the back |
My kids are always in a child seat so I don't think that would be a problem. 
_________________
Gone fishing! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomDavison
Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Posts: 384
Location: Bedford, England
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skippy wrote: | | TomDavison wrote: | | in the event of a serious accident, the emergency services would search the car for the tiny object that was the child in the back |
My kids are always in a child seat so I don't think that would be a problem. |
Same here, but there have been several instances of crushed cars where the only indication that there was an adult still in the wreck was a hand or foot visible. An infant in a car seat with the roof stove in may not be obvious at all.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
