Best Of

Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?

You've just said my job isn't important.

Investitgating financial crimes is very important.

Anything juicy recently?

Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.

In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.

Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.

If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.

MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.

Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.

Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.

Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?

I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.

Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?

This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.

Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?

I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?

It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.

We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre

Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?

Wait until they reach the next roundabout

This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:

It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.

Your suggestion is nuts.

You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.

Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.

The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.

'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.

And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!

On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.

Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion

How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.

The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?

Somebody driving at the speed limit should indeed be prosecuted if there is an accident, if they are driving too fast for the conditions. Ditto someone going round a corner too fast, even if they are driving well below the speed limit. I am sure that sometimes happens.

We have always expected drivers to make that sort of judgment.

How the hell do you ever approach a junction or roundabout if you are so unable to judge stopping distances?

Yet what is 'too fast for the conditions?' The CPS lawyer might argue 35mph for example is, the defence lawyer would argue it was not on a 60mph road even in heavy rain.

What is going round a corner too fast? The CPS might argue 30mph is, the defence lawyer would argue it definitely is not.

It is a legal minefield and a field day for lawyers if an accident causing death or injury occurs in such circumstances as the law on speed limits on rural roads and round bends is completely unclear beyond not going over 60mph and slowing down a bit at a bend.

You should have stopped completely when you reach a roundabout or junction and looked both ways and then moved so that is slightly different

Er no. You give way at roundabouts and junctions, and only have to stop where there is a Stop sign. Plenty of roundabouts on A roads have clear sight lines and you can go over just lifting off a bit on approach to allow time to make observation. On other occasions, a car might appear from the right and you have to stop. Or at least slow enough to allow it to pass.

Have you ever taken a driving test?

You should at least have slowed down near to a stop once you reach a roundabout or junction to check right and ahead before moving on and as you say where a Stop sign you must stop completely

No. Just no.

HYUFD is that one in a hundred people who slows almost to a halt on the approach to the wide sweeping open roundabout and who, if I fail to anticipate his irrational behaviour, and yes it will still be my fault if it happens, but he will be the one person I might actually crash into.....

Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?

You've just said my job isn't important.

Investitgating financial crimes is very important.

Anything juicy recently?

Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.

In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.

Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.

If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.

MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.

Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.

Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.

Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?

I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.

Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?

This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.

Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?

I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?

It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.

We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre

Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?

Wait until they reach the next roundabout

This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:

It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.

Your suggestion is nuts.

You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.

Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.

The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.

'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.

And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!

On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.

Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion

How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.

The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?

Driving is a skill.

If you're so incompetent you can't estimate your vehicles stopping distance, you should not be behind the wheel.

And yes, that means that driving slower than the speed limit is often appropriate, eg when approaching corners, or on rural roads.

It is a limit, not a target for a reason - and the Highway Code is very clear about that too.

You are being absurd and should not be behind the wheel if you can't drive safely.

Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?

You've just said my job isn't important.

Investitgating financial crimes is very important.

Anything juicy recently?

Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.

In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.

Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.

If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.

MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.

Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.

Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.

Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?

I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.

Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?

This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.

Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?

I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?

It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.

We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre

Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?

Wait until they reach the next roundabout

This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:

It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.

Your suggestion is nuts.

You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.

Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.

The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.

'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast

Driving to the speed appropriate to the road, car and conditions is subjective I agree. However it is not so subjective that it can be both 20mph for person A and 55 mph for person B. Never in a million years. Either one should not be on the road because they are not competent at driving or the other should not be on the road because they are using excessive speed. Whichever it will not be careless driving but dangerous driving. A sensible margin is more like 5 - 10 mph for the same car and same conditions not a difference of 35 mph.

And just to show how out of touch you are my instructor was an advanced police driver and I also had another advanced driver in the car who was training for his advanced instructor status (so already and advanced driver going to the next level). Both commented I was driving too slowly. It was a country lane.

Re the U turn on a country lane (which of course for a proper country lane is actually impossible) but other manoeuvres are of course you are nuts if you are saying I am taking a risk outside of the normal risk of driving. For a start going around a roundabout is far riskier for the cyclist (as a cyclist I know) so me waiting for a roundabout rather than carrying out the manoeuvre on the road in the appropriate place and taking care to look properly is the sensible thing to do for both me and the cyclist..

Can I suggest you do two things:

a) Buy Roadcraft. It is the police drivers handbook and used by the IAM. You might learn something about road safety
b) Get on a bike and see what scares you most. A driver doing a 3 point turn ahead of you or a driver passing you going around a roundabout.

Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?

You've just said my job isn't important.

Investitgating financial crimes is very important.

Anything juicy recently?

Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.

In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.

Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.

If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.

MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.

Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.

Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.

Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?

I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.

Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?

This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.

Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?

I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?

It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.

We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre

Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?

Wait until they reach the next roundabout

This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:

It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.

Your suggestion is nuts.

You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.

Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.

The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.

'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.

And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!

On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.

Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion

How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.

The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?

That's because you don't do the exact physics calculations, any more than cricketers do exact trajectory calculations to work out where the ball is going to go. But a combination of experience and rules of thumb mean that it is reasonable to know that the stopping distance at 30 mph is about 25 metres which is about six car lengths. And if you can't see that far ahead, watch out and slow down.

Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?

You've just said my job isn't important.

Investitgating financial crimes is very important.

Anything juicy recently?

Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.

In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.

Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.

If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.

MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.

Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.

Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.

Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?

I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.

Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?

This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.

Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?

I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?

It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.

We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre

Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?

Wait until they reach the next roundabout

This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:

It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.

Your suggestion is nuts.

You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.

Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.

The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.

'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.

And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!

On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.

Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion

How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.

The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?

Somebody driving at the speed limit should indeed be prosecuted if there is an accident, if they are driving too fast for the conditions. Ditto someone going round a corner too fast, even if they are driving well below the speed limit. I am sure that sometimes happens.

We have always expected drivers to make that sort of judgment.

How the hell do you ever approach a junction or roundabout if you are so unable to judge stopping distances?

I think HYUFD is correct in principle - speed limits are an unrefined method of risk balancing. They are an absolute maximum, not an optimal speed. He's also uniquely rigid and literal, incapable of digesting something like the Highway Code like most people do.

A good example was that man who killed those oncoming cyclists on a single track road, doing 30mph in a 60mph limit and giving them less than 1m room. That's clearly dangerous driving, contrary to the Highway Code, yet half the speed limit.

I think self-driving cars will fix this issue by automatically achieving the optimal driving style. They would probably slow to a halt in that scenario given the exceptionally high degree of risk. A £10 million fine for the car manufacturers for each fatality they are involved in (not directly caused) would align the incentives.

No driving at half the speed limit was NOT dangerous driving and not even careless driving causing death as the jury acquitted that man even of that.

Now that is as the law stands, there may be a case to make single track roads 20mph maximum limits to protect cyclists like the unfortunate cyclist killed in that case but that is NOT the law now, even single track rural roads are 60mph limits. The room to be given to cyclists is not also clearly set out in metres in the Highway Code either.

Self driving cars may help but only if they have stopping distances and rural road and bend limits in speed inputted into them with more clarity

I’d suggest that many of the people who drive along at half the speed limit, hoping this will compensate for infirmity or slowness of reaction that they are wanting to hide from the authorities, are probably some of the most dangerous people on the road.

Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?

You've just said my job isn't important.

Investitgating financial crimes is very important.

Anything juicy recently?

Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.

In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.

Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.

If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.

MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.

Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.

Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.

Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?

I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.

Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?

This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.

Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?

I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?

It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.

We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre

Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?

Wait until they reach the next roundabout

This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:

It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.

Your suggestion is nuts.

You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.

Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.

The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.

'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.

And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!

On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.

Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion

How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.

The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?

Somebody driving at the speed limit should indeed be prosecuted if there is an accident, if they are driving too fast for the conditions. Ditto someone going round a corner too fast, even if they are driving well below the speed limit. I am sure that sometimes happens.

We have always expected drivers to make that sort of judgment.

How the hell do you ever approach a junction or roundabout if you are so unable to judge stopping distances?

Yet what is 'too fast for the conditions?' The CPS lawyer might argue 35mph for example is, the defence lawyer would argue it was not on a 60mph road even in heavy rain.

What is going round a corner too fast? The CPS might argue 30mph is, the defence lawyer would argue it definitely is not.

It is a legal minefield and a field day for lawyers if an accident causing death or injury occurs in such circumstances as the law on speed limits on rural roads and round bends is completely unclear beyond not going over 60mph and slowing down a bit at a bend.

You should have stopped completely when you reach a roundabout or junction and looked both ways and then moved so that is slightly different

Er no. You give way at roundabouts and junctions, and only have to stop where there is a Stop sign. Plenty of roundabouts on A roads have clear sight lines and you can go over just lifting off a bit on approach to allow time to make observation. On other occasions, a car might appear from the right and you have to stop. Or at least slow enough to allow it to pass.

Have you ever taken a driving test?

Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?

You've just said my job isn't important.

Investitgating financial crimes is very important.

Anything juicy recently?

Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.

In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.

Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.

If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.

MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.

Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.

Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.

Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?

I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.

Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?

This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.

Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?

I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?

It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.

We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre

Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?

Wait until they reach the next roundabout

This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:

It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.

Your suggestion is nuts.

You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.

Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.

The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.

'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.

And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!

On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.

Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion

How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.

The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?

Somebody driving at the speed limit should indeed be prosecuted if there is an accident, if they are driving too fast for the conditions. Ditto someone going round a corner too fast, even if they are driving well below the speed limit. I am sure that sometimes happens.

We have always expected drivers to make that sort of judgment.

How the hell do you ever approach a junction or roundabout if you are so unable to judge stopping distances?

Yet what is 'too fast for the conditions?' The CPS lawyer might argue 35mph for example is, the defence lawyer would argue it was not on a 60mph road even in heavy rain.

What is going round a corner too fast? The CPS might argue 30mph is, the defence lawyer would argue it definitely is not.

It is a legal minefield and a field day for lawyers if an accident causing death or injury occurs in such circumstances as the law on speed limits on rural roads and round bends is completely unclear beyond not going over 60mph and slowing down a bit at a bend.

You should have stopped completely when you reach a roundabout or junction and looked both ways and then moved so that is slightly different

Er no. You give way at roundabouts and junctions, and only have to stop where there is a Stop sign. Plenty of roundabouts on A roads have clear sight lines and you can go over just lifting off a bit on approach to allow time to make observation. On other occasions, a car might appear from the right and you have to stop. Or at least slow enough to allow it to pass.

Have you ever taken a driving test?

You should at least have slowed down near to a stop once you reach a roundabout or junction to check right and ahead before moving on and as you say where a Stop sign you must stop completely

Please stop embarrassing yourself on this subject.

The first roundabout I reach on my commute is a 150m diameter massive thing under the local dual carriageway, with perfect line of sight. Can safely be entered at about 30mph.

Elon says that turning off his exploitative porn generator (formerly known as Twitter) would be unjustified censorship

"I disapprove of people generating abusive porn featuring unconsenting adults and children at the push of a button but I will defend to the death their right to do so ... if it makes me money"

I think there are a couple of interesting conversations to be had about this:

1) Where we are talking about an image of adult, it is not the adult; so why is it worse than drawing a picture of the woman (I suspect it will always be women). One can make a case it should not be a crime.

2) Where kids are concerned, you don’t want those images circulating, and they should be taken down if there is a real child for their sake. BUT surely there’s a place to use artificial child images (so long as that child never lived and it wasn’t trained on abuse images) as a form of “treatment” for paedophiles? Doing so could prevent abuse.

But Musk is clearly a #### and not interested in those sorts of ideas.

Giving paedophiles artificial CSAM images is not a standard treatment. See https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-psychiatry/article/whats-new-on-the-treatment-of-pedophilia-and-hebephilia/DA6C7CE81541A866C14B1160D27F9044

Firstly, I don't really care (but that might be because it's Sultana and Your Party, which is as insignificant as it is amusing) and, secondly, really? Don't the police have better things to be spending their time on?

You've just said my job isn't important.

Investitgating financial crimes is very important.

Anything juicy recently?

Nope, my investigations have mostly centred on cocaine and unsolicited & solicited dick pics.

In my OH's last company, she was asked to ignore the cocaine misuse as the company wouldn't have a sales team left. Your lot must have higher standards.

Just to point out that this is an everyday example of the ridiculous state of affairs where wholesalers in this product are getting 20-25 year sentences while the product is regarded by millions as quotidian and normal.

If demand ceased, so would supply. Either decriminalise or make the user the real criminal, not the hard working trader.

MPs and television presenters have been cancelled over dodgy bants or porn but politics and the media are fuelled by actually illegal drugs. And this illustrates a real problem – the growing gulf between what is acceptable and what is legal.

Coke is now such a naff drug - it’s being hoovered up noses in pubs up and down the country by every man jack and off kitchen counters by bored mums.

Is the answer to be massively illiberal on coke - 1 year in prison, no suspended sentences or anything for possession. Announce it from the rooftops - you are caught with coke, or driving under the influence and you are going to prison for a year so say goodbye to your mid level management job, your kids, your bed. Prepare to be unable to cover your mortgage and lose your home, have a nightmare with a drugs offence when opening accounts or travelling.

Would something this severe smash the casual use? These people aren’t thinking of the chain of poor fuckers down the line working in grim conditions to harvest and produce, those getting killed in the trade so why have any sympathy for the end users?

I’m not sure how I feel about the above but would be an interesting experiment.

Where do you plan to build the extra 3,000 prisons?

This misses the point. The function of mandatory prison sentences is not in order to fill extra prisons but to deter certain actions. I am neutral as between decriminalisation and, OTOH, rational drug law enforcement. What is irrational is to deter traders with 25 year sentences but not deter use in any significant way.

Would not a few dozen otherwise impeccable living middling sorts with wives, children and careers in auto finance and geography teaching going to prison for drug use be enough?

I wonder how many of us are a little more careful about driving now that mere careless driving, if it chances to have certain outcomes, can lead straight to prison?

It can but even if careless driving leads to death or serious injury in most cases the sentence will be a community order or suspended sentence. Only if the driver killed under the influence of drink of drugs would an immediate prison sentence be likely.

We also should be considering changing highway laws to reduce speed limits on rural roads, narrow tracks and at bends or banning u turns or 3 point turns except in quiet residential streets as a lot of what would be mere careless driving could still be doing a currently legal manoeuvre

Just how are people supposed to turn round if they miss a junction or take a wrong turn?

Wait until they reach the next roundabout

This is nuts. I live in rural Surrey, but let's be honest Surrey is also pretty built up so I imagine most of the countryside is worse for roundabouts than where I live, but lets just take the lane I live on:

It has a roundabout at one end so let's assume we are going in the other direction. It is 2 miles long. It then reaches a cross roads. To the left you have to drive about 4 miles to a roundabout (which you may not know is there). Straight on is a narrow lane of about a mile with a T junction at the end. At that junction you can turn left or right. If you turn left you have about 5 miles to another T junction. At that junction you can turn left and eventually come to a roundabout in a mile. If you turn right I can't even think where there is a roundabout. Going back to the last junction if you turn right you come to another junction after about 2 miles. You can turn right and come to a roundabout after 3 miles. If you turn left after 2 miles you come to another junction. The next roundabout is about 7 miles away. Finally going back to the first junction if you turn right after 2 miles there is a junction. I can't think of where there is another roundabout either left or right on that road.

Your suggestion is nuts.

You are also wrong on speed limits for country lanes. You should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions. I am currently taking my Advanced Driving lessons for IAM. They are really hot on not exceeding the speed limits, but also hot on not progressing and I was told I was driving too slow for the conditions on my last lesson. People driving too slow for the conditions are also very dangerous.

Fine, then take the risk of being done for death or serious injury by careless driving if you do said u turn on a rural road and won't wait until the next roundabout or village.

The speed limit on country lanes is 60mph.

'Driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions' is a totally subjective term. One man's 'appropriate speed' may be 55mph, another 20mph on the same road and same conditions, even if approaching a bend it is completely vague guidance. As you say you can be accused of going too slow as well as too fast

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.

And how is the average man on the road of average intelligence let alone those of below supposed to be able to calculate how long it will take them to stop where they see is clear ahead? They can follow the speed limit, they can't do stopping distance calculations every road they take!

On the contrary, you can and do. Just as you judge other distances, like how far behind the car in front to drive, in different conditions.

Glad you live the other side of London, I'm unlikely to meet you coming round a corner. Perhaps you should hand back your licence, I'm beginning to think that wasn't such an uncharitable suggestion

How? The average driver on the road is NOT a statistician who can calculate stopping distances. You drive behind a car so you can always see its back and license plate in full, that is NOT the same as doing constant stopping distance calculations.

The speed limit on rural roads is 60mph, either we reduce that to 40mph and say 20-30mph max around bends and when wet or snowing and 20mph on single tracks or legally there must be real debate on whether someone driving at the speed limit should be prosecuted even if an accident?

That's because you don't do the exact physics calculations, any more than cricketers do exact trajectory calculations to work out where the ball is going to go. But a combination of experience and rules of thumb mean that it is reasonable to know that the stopping distance at 30 mph is about 25 metres which is about six car lengths. And if you can't see that far ahead, watch out and slow down.

I frequently see drivers hammering into a sharp bend in the confident expectation that the road must be clear on the other side. Most of the time they're right, and sometimes they're wrong. But for one reason or another they're rarely wrong more than once.