Drive the M4?

[iranu]

I'm too enraged to comment.

I shall go and have a nice cup of calming peppermint tea and a lie down......

[bledd]

you should be FORCED to retake some sort of driving test every two years imo, would filter out the **** drivers, and speed limits should be set per engine range -eg, bad cars~65, then 80 for mid range cars and 90 for higher end cars, then 120 for integra's and evos

[zhenboy]

i onced drove at 120mph from heathrow to bristol...

[Allen]

What, without knowing the circumstances? Not everything is so black and white.

If he drove down somebodies residential street at 52mph then yes, bannage please. Right now.

But there are 30 limits in all sorts of barking mad places. There is a long, straight, wide tarmac'd road with no houses or buildings either side in Plymouth, then as you get towards the end it gets much narrow and becomes very twisty.

Speed limit? 30mph, but once you reach the narrow twisty section, 60mph.

You'd ban him for 52mph there?

Quite simply, yes. If you think it's OK to kick the living **** out of someone, do you go ahead and do it anyway, no matter what the law says? I agree, some limits are weird in certain areas, but at the end of the day the law is the law whether you like it or not. If you don't adhere to it you can get punished.

I would have banned him without a second though. 52 in a 30 zone is ridiculous if you ask me and goes to show how bad our drivers are these days.

i onced drove at 120mph from heathrow to bristol...

And why do you think it's necessary to make comments like that on a forum? Just looking to start a flame war or something? Grow up you idiot. Next time I hope they ban you or you have an accident. Maybe you can consider the speed you were doing when lying in a hospital bed or looking at the gravestone of someone you could easily kill at that speed.

[Howard]

Can we merge these two threads together?

[dkmech]

I respect your opinion Allen, but when you go and say that you want someone to have an accident, even if you propose it as an educational experience I lose that respect for you.

Hoping they get banned - fine, thats fair enough, 120mph is stupid. But wishing for someone to die is no better than the person doing the speeding.

[Butuz]

Next time I hope they ban you or you have an accident. Maybe you can consider the speed you were doing when lying in a hospital bed or looking at the gravestone of someone you could easily kill at that speed.

Your just pathetic mate.

Butuz

[Knoxville]

If someone runs into the middle of the motorway they are going to end up dead at 70mph or 120mph, either way if they are stupid enough to do it then its their own fault.

[Butuz]

If someone runs into the middle of the motorway they are going to end up dead at 70mph or 120mph, either way if they are stupid enough to do it then its their own fault.

But where theres blame theres a clame boyo!

"You ran me over and i want compo!!! What do you mean i was "completeley RSOD" walking down the wrong way of a dual caridgeway whilst playing chicken with my imaginary friend "eggbert the daredevil"?? Whats that got do do with anything! You ran me over and its your fault! "

Butuz

[dkmech]

Ok, here's a little (well, 9mb) video i took this morning that demonstrates that not all speed limits are sensible. This is a bit of road I take every day. It also explains the rubbish economy i get. Watch it and then highlight the rest of the post to see the white text:
Did you notice the 30 sign at the end of the video? On the back of it there is a NSL sign. Yes, my dear readers. 60 MPH! And yet every day I see drivers excercising their judgement and not going 60mph. Who would've thunk it. Here's an invitation to floor it and yet they don't. I guess my point is, that sometimes what is legal is not safe. And i will try to film the bit of road that shows that whats safe isn't alway legal (although i see why the limit there is 30).
By the way, just listen to the mighty engine roar!

[schmunk]

If someone runs into the middle of the motorway they are going to end up dead at 70mph or 120mph, either way if they are stupid enough to do it then its their own fault.

No, the problem comes when somebody, perfectly acceptably, pulls into the outside lane at 70 mph to pass a lorry (passing another lorry) and somebody steams up behind them at a relative 50mph - The subsequent heavy braking is VERY likely to cause an accident behind.

[Jiff Lemon]

What, without knowing the circumstances? Not everything is so black and white.

If he drove down somebodies residential street at 52mph then yes, bannage please. Right now.

Very true, however back home in Manchester I could name at least 5 road that were national speed limit roads that we're dropped to 30mph roads by the council. 3 weeks after the limit was lowered, the camera vans were out in force.

There's a similar debat raging here in Milton Keynes, where the crazy council wish to drop the grid limits from NSL to 40mph. DON'T get me started on this one......

[Allen]

I respect your opinion Allen, but when you go and say that you want someone to have an accident, even if you propose it as an educational experience I lose that respect for you.

Hoping they get banned - fine, thats fair enough, 120mph is stupid. But wishing for someone to die is no better than the person doing the speeding.

Talk about mince my words. Please quote where I wished ANYONE to die??

Your just pathetic mate.

That's a valid point to this discussion, well done.

[dkmech]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if an accident were to occur at 120 mph the outcome would quite possible be fatal. Which is one of the points you are trying to push. And which i agree with. Yes the higher the speed the more damage would be caused by the accident (at least statistically). Maybe I extrapolated your exact words a little? But aren't you extrapolating what people, who say that they creep up over 30 every now and then, mean?

Theres a bit of road where after a junction the road is wide, straight, lit, has a pavement which is clearly visible and 99% of the time empty. The limit there is 30. And I can see why. The distance between the junction and the next set of houses is not long enough to raise limit to say 40 and then lower it to 30 again. However that doesn't mean that its not safe to do over 30 (within reason) there. Say 35. Just after that set of houses the road becomes a bit more twisty, there is also a brow of a hill there and a couple of gates from farms. This bit however is 60. It took me about 5-10 times to gradually gain confidence in that road and start driving it at 50. If you looked at the 60 bit and the straight 30 bit out of context (without knowing about the junction and the houses that appear later) you'd say someone messed up the signs. People rutinely drive 35 on that 30 bit, i try not to, but i find it uncomfortable doing 30 with cars close behind me obviously expecting 35.

[Allen]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if an accident were to occur at 120 mph the outcome would quite possible be fatal. Which is one of the points you are trying to push. And which i agree with. Yes the higher the speed the more damage would be caused by the accident (at least statistically). Maybe I extrapolated your exact words a little? But aren't you extrapolating what people, who say that they creep up over 30 every now and then, mean?

That's pretty much what I mean, yes. More speed = more damage = unsafe and illegal. Not sure what you mean by that last sentance, but I do firmly believe that 30 zones are there for a reason, and that reason is that there isn't always just vehicles using the road therefore you need to be more careful.

Theres a bit of road where after a junction the road is wide, straight, lit, has a pavement which is clearly visible and 99% of the time empty. The limit there is 30. And I can see why. The distance between the junction and the next set of houses is not long enough to raise limit to say 40 and then lower it to 30 again. However that doesn't mean that its not safe to do over 30 (within reason) there. Say 35. Just after that set of houses the road becomes a bit more twisty, there is also a brow of a hill there and a couple of gates from farms. This bit however is 60. It took me about 5-10 times to gradually gain confidence in that road and start driving it at 50. If you looked at the 60 bit and the straight 30 bit out of context (without knowing about the junction and the houses that appear later) you'd say someone messed up the signs. People rutinely drive 35 on that 30 bit, i try not to, but i find it uncomfortable doing 30 with cars close behind me obviously expecting 35.

I can't comment on that as I don't know the area and it's very hard to visualise it from text. But your last sentance brings up a big problem we have, we seem to just do the same speed as the person in front, or speed up if someone behind comes up behind you much faster than you.

[Zak33]

Ok, here's a little (well, 9mb) video i took this morning that demonstrates that not all speed limits are sensible. This is a bit of road I take every day. It also explains the rubbish economy i get. Watch it and then highlight the rest of the post to see the white text:
Did you notice the 30 sign at the end of the video? On the back of it there is a NSL sign. Yes, my dear readers. 60 MPH! And yet every day I see drivers excercising their judgement and not going 60mph. Who would've thunk it. Here's an invitation to floor it and yet they don't. I guess my point is, that sometimes what is legal is not safe. And i will try to film the bit of road that shows that whats safe isn't alway legal (although i see why the limit there is 30).
By the way, just listen to the mighty engine roar!

superb. superb.I was watching it before reading your hidden bit, thinking to myself "no lamps posts, no speed limit signs, its a 60 all right, but its not relevent. Still the law states 60 would be acceptable in the rain at night"

People DO whats right most of the time. Proof. Don't need robots telling them off.