...I am sure he was in complete control of his vehicle at all times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6962448.stm

I thought you believed that "Speed Kills!" FW.

 

Are you saying you have changed your mind?

 

Are you confirming that he never lost control?

 

That he wasn't charged with dangerous driving, perhaps?

 

 

And would you like to describe the road to us?

 

Tell us how it's a long straight dual carriageway with restricted access!

 

Convicted of dangerous driving and going to jail. A sensible fate for all speeders.

So.

 

You don't want to tell us about the road.

 

After all.

 

Funny that!

 

That would be because the road is irrelevant. Only a complete imbecile would think that the nature of the road was in the least relevant when a motorist is convicted of driving at 172MPH on a public highway. And yet you do... hmmm.

and no insurance either. He really is almost as irresponsible as you.

172mph - this cannot be defended by any sane person.

Therefore I will write to the Nottingham Evening Post and defend it!

That would be because the road is irrelevant

So if it was a derestricted German autobahn that would have been irrelevant?

 

Only a complete imbecile would think that the nature of the road was in the least relevant

So if it was a derestricted German autobahn that would have been irrelevant?

 

When a motorist is convicted of driving at 172MPH on a public highway.

So why would it not be relevant if, say, he was on a road in a cutting with no access to cars or pedestrians except for polevaulters?

And he could see there was nothing on the road for much further than he would need to stop in.

 

And, note he was convicted of "driving" at that speed.

Not cruising at it.

 

That would most likely have been the speed he peaked at before slowing down.

Not the speed he was actually driving along at.

 

We're almost certainly not talking about someone "driving at 172MPH on a public highway".

But, perhaps, we could be discussing someone driving along at 60-65 on the less safe bits of a dual carriageway in a high performance car.

Approaching a stretch he knew was ultra safe and could see to be ultra clear.

Wondering what the cars acceleration and top speed where like.

And accelerating up to 172, and then coming back down to 65 before he ran out of ultra safe road.

 

And the problem with that is?

 

Apart from breaching an arbitrary, artificial number on a stick? 

 

and no insurance either. He really is almost as irresponsible as you.

 

Are you alleging that I drive at 172mph.

Don't have insurance.

And something else too?

 

No, far worse, BJ. You try and convince everyone to behave as irresponsibly as you. If you actually succeeded in this ludicrous venture, you would be responsible for far more deaths and serious injuries than the occasional speeding uninsured motorist. Fortunately, almost everyone sees through your nonsense, and we are left with only the occasional nutter who finds you a kindred spirit.

So you're saying that I, and those who find me a kindred spirit, are irresponsible nutters whose ludicrous "venture" of pointing out that:

Speed limits should be set at the maximum speed the majority of safe and competent, experienced and knowlegable drivers (rather than a politician or bureaucrat, who might not know the road, or even how to drive) think is safe for the road.

That the police should use the speed limits to facilitate the prosecution of those driving dangerously fast.

That they should police them with discretion, targetting those exceeding them dangerously, not those drifting safely over them by a few mph, or those going a little faster, but only when and where safe, and demonstrating their driving was perfectly safe.

That the police should police the roads, targetting dangerous drivers, whether speeding dangerously, driving dangerously fast for the conditions, or even dangerously slow dfor the conditions.

While arbitrarily and artificially lowering speed limits to below the speeds most drivers would drive a road, and enforcing those limits without discretion and in a draconian manner would lead to drivers diverting attention from selecting the appropriate speed and looking out for what should be the most important hazards, such as kids running out into the roads, would increase, and not decrease, danger on the road:

"would be responsible for far more deaths and serious injuries than the occasional speeding uninsured motorist".

 

Well, if you honestly believe that, FW, is there any point in trying to make you see sense?

 

Sorry, did you say so,ething? There was an annoying droning sound and I lost all interest. Oh that was your post. Sorry. Never mind. Perhaps if you ever have anything interesting or worthwhile to say that you haven't already repeated 73 times, you might generate a substantive response.

Sorry, but it's not my fault you are so sad you have to spend your evenings responding to posts you have no interest in.

 

I suppose this is the best place for saddos.

 

------------------

Is that what brought you here then George, Painter, that is?