Officer Ross’s actions are horrific, but what’s terrifying, what looks like fascism, is that the Trump administration are just flat out denying there’s a problem. They’re not saying, oh, he's innocent until proven guilty, but we’ll do an investigation. No. She was, they state, a “domestic terrorist”. Reality is whatever they say it is.
A key learning point from history - cf. the book I recommended above - is that to control a society you need both control of key political positions and a bunch of deniable thugs (deniable in the sense that you can credibly argue they aren’t under your control) who can act beyond the law, but within your protection, to enforce through fear the things you cant achieve directly through legislation or by state management.
Trump and his cronies are currently engaged in a Sopranos-style exercise of going around the world threatening both domestic and international opponents with the equivalent of “wouldn’t it be a shame if someone burnt your business down?” - way too many sensible folk are arguing about whether it would ever be practicable for anyone to set light to so many business premises at once. Hint/clue - the mafia almost never needs to actually set light to anyone’s premises.
Officer Ross’s actions are horrific, but what’s terrifying, what looks like fascism, is that the Trump administration are just flat out denying there’s a problem. They’re not saying, oh, he's innocent until proven guilty, but we’ll do an investigation. No. She was, they state, a “domestic terrorist”. Reality is whatever they say it is.
Yes, the reaction of the regime is the part which tips this over into fascism. Disregard the evidence of your eyes and ears and listen to what we are telling you actually took place. Anyone who disagrees with us is a violent terrorist at best, a seditious traitor at worst.
Things are now sliding downhill fast. They do not look like a regime planning to voluntarily face defeat.
That's what's so concerning. Just look at the Trump crowd. Can you imagine these people, who have all signed up to the big Jan 6 lie, whose hands are metaphorically dipped in blood, simply giving up power voluntarily? It's a gangster regime. The law is for their enemies.
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"
Does it make Musk money? Perhaps it does if it's a subscriber-only feature.
Otherwise, the only explanation that makes sense is the "you're not my dad/mum, you can't tell me what to do" thing that most boys grow out of at age 16.
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.
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
"Stormtrooper" normally refers to the SA street thugs, not to the Einsatzgruppen. A reasonable analogy, although as far as I know the SA weren't paid by the Reich.
An analogy which doesn't then equate to ICE as the SA were a political organisation not a government organisation.
Not to mention that the SA were themselves purged and disbanded soon after Hitler entered government.
Yes it's inexact, although not as inexact as your assumption that Stormtrooper referred to Einsatzgruppen. And while they may be on the government payroll, they are certainly being used for intimidation of political opponents. There seems to be other elements of a private militia too, such as the fact that they don't seem to deploy in proper uniforms or have professional equipment such as bodycams. Ross's demeanor was completely unprofessional.
A better analogy for the SA would be the people from Jan 6, but they don't seem to have been deployed again. Maybe we will see them at the midterms.
I like many have made the SA comparison. It is inexact, but it was never going to exact because this isn't Nazi Germany.
Stormtroopers yes. Armed and violent yes. Politically motivated in their actions yes. Committing acts of political violence yes. With the open support of the regime yes.
Europe is, as usual, a bit off the pace. "Turns hostile?"
There's a lot of denial about it. Ok, no one wants to overreact, but at a point you have to accept that the USA means what it says through its leaders, and 45-50% of its voters are fully behind that. That means Europe cannot act as though things have not changed, that the contempt or even aggression from the current administration is just 'trolling, or that it will all be ok when (if) the administration ever changes.
The UK is in an even trickier position due to be more closely entwined with the USA, yet held in just as much contempt.
Indeed, it may turn out to be fortunate for the EU USA that the UK did leave.
FTFY
Seems to me that the USA is making its own 'luck' regardless of anything happening elsewhere.
The emerging big question of the so-called ‘west’, pending the midterms, is whether the rest of the democratic world can or will step up and confront Trump’s crude, idiotic American self-obsession. So far it appears that no-one is particularly eager to be the first in line to stand up to the putative bully-of-the-world. Yet the lesson, from Hollywood films at least, is that those brave enough to head the queue against authoritarianism are guaranteed a leading actor to play their life story to the entertainment of audiences long after their life’s struggle has been and gone.
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!
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"
Does it make Musk money? Perhaps it does if it's a subscriber-only feature.
Otherwise, the only explanation that makes sense is the "you're not my dad/mum, you can't tell me what to do" thing that most boys grow out of at age 16.
It will not have escaped Musk's notice that many of the people who want to block X for AI-edited nudes are often those who would block X on political grounds.
Musk needs to bear in mind politicians are not the only players in the game. Advertisers and consumers also matter. And it wasn't the regulators who cleaned up porn aggregation sites, it was credit card companies blocking them.
Whether any of this matters, who knows? Remember Musk bought X by mistake. It is not his life's work or the source of his wealth.
You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, is good general advice.
When I was doing my motorcycle training this point was hammered home repeatedly. You always need to be able to stop within the visible distance, no exceptions.
Driving instructors don't really seem to place the same importance on this, unfortunately.
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"
Does it make Musk money? Perhaps it does if it's a subscriber-only feature.
Otherwise, the only explanation that makes sense is the "you're not my dad/mum, you can't tell me what to do" thing that most boys grow out of at age 16.
It will not have escaped Musk's notice that many of the people who want to block X for AI-edited nudes are often those who would block X on political grounds.
Musk needs to bear in mind politicians are not the only players in the game. Advertisers and consumers also matter. And it wasn't the regulators who cleaned up porn aggregation sites, it was credit card companies blocking them.
Whether any of this matters, who knows? Remember Musk bought X by mistake. It is not his life's work or the source of his wealth.
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
"Stormtrooper" normally refers to the SA street thugs, not to the Einsatzgruppen. A reasonable analogy, although as far as I know the SA weren't paid by the Reich.
An analogy which doesn't then equate to ICE as the SA were a political organisation not a government organisation.
Not to mention that the SA were themselves purged and disbanded soon after Hitler entered government.
The SA were a government organisation while the Nazis were in office as they were part of the Party and after 1934 there was no distinction between the party and the government.
They were not disbanded until 1945 and were used primarily for harassing the Nazis' political opponents and particularly the Jews.
You seem to be confusing their disbandment with the Night of the Long Knives of 1934, when most of their senior leaders were shot as Rohm had wanted the SA to officially take over the German Army.
The parallel seems an absolutely fair one frankly.
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
1) ICE are not police. They cannot arrest anyone, or detain anyone, or order anyone to leave an area, unless they believe that person is an illegal immigrant;
2) Therefore this officer and his friends were acting illegally even *before* the shooting happened;
3) That makes the rest of 'self defence' or 'domestic terrorism' pretty much moot.
There is absolutely nothing that can excuse the killing of Ms Good
This comment piece by Sky's US correspondent provides some insight
An Independent enquiry should be launched but that simply will not happen in Trump's US
As I said yesterday, the ICE officer seemed to panic and lost it which by any definition is unacceptable and possibly speaks to the lack of training
Martha Kelner - US correspondent - Sky News
'This video is only 47 seconds long, a close-up perspective, but it has unlocked even more questions about how and why Renee Nicole Good died.
It is tragic in the sense that it shows the face and demeanour of a 37-year-old woman in the moments before she dies, filmed by the person who shot her.
But I don’t think the footage provides any certainty about those crucial final few seconds, during which Good puts her car into drive, turns her wheel, accelerates and is then shot at three times by the officer.
What is clear is that there is dialogue between the pair in the run-up. Good seems to be relatively calm, when she says "that's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you".
Another woman, who appears to be Good's wife, seems to take a mocking tone with the officer when she says "go get lunch, big boy".
The audio from the phone camera is distorted at the key moment. There is a sound that could indicate a collision between the car and the officer but, again, that is not certain.
He definitely remains on his feet and at the end, appears to say "f***ing bitch".
The reaction to this video shows how entrenched views are on both sides of the political aisle. The vice president says it proves the officer's "life was endangered". Democrats continue to maintain she was "murdered".
In this country there is no time to wait for a full investigation in the rush to reach a conclusion and it could be very dangerous.
At this point, the agent exclaims in shock and shoots multiple times.
As Ms Good's car careers down the road before crashing into parked cars, the agent appears to mutter "f***ing bitch".
Sky News has chosen not to air the swear words in the video.'
Big G, a moment after the passenger says "go get lunch, big boy" is when he unholsters his side arm. The only dispute regarding "did she drive at him?" arises from the distant grainy footage from some considerable way behind the maroon Honda Pilot. All other footage confirms she drove at 1 or 2 mph, right hand down, away from Officer Ross, If he is brushed by the car it is after he has shot her three times and she has released the steering wheel because she is dead and the car accelerates because dead people can't regulate the speed on an automatic car.
In some respects what happens next is even more chilling.
The whole thing is chilling, but you can see why the case should be tried in court but is that going to happen ?
Not in Trump's US I expect
Trump will most likely commend him.
I've watched the video footage from Ross' cellphone several times, and there is nothing in it that exonerates him. There is a crucial gap, between her starting to move forward, and then her car crashing. We hear several bangs, one of which might be the car hitting him, but could as easily be a gunshot.
She certainly did not sound like she was spoiling for a fight.
At best, it was a tragic accident, and Ross panicked. At worst, Ross decided to shoot down a woman who had pissed him off. The fact he called her "a fucking bitch", was shown, in other video footage, walking about just fine, and the other agents refused to let a doctor examine her, points to the latter.
Imagine if his wife or girlfriend answers him back in response to a fit of pique. She's gonna get a right royal slapping isn't she?
If a 12 year old runs a local garden maintenance business, what is the tax regimen?
There is a £1000 allowance for self employment so as to exclude hobbies, newspaper rounds, and the such like.
If over this there is obviously the £12570 personal allowance.
If over this tax is payable and I am impressed that a 12 year old managed that.
He's close to or over the £1000. That would be the same £1000 as profits from Ebay or Vinted?
He's the son of my smaller handymen, who does small jobs on the weekend for me occasionally - and does not hit me with £100 just to attend.
He's always been a mini-dad sidekick with construction toys, and now has his own kit up to and including his own jetwasher. There's one neighbour he'll be doing things for during this year who will be severalm hundred just for the one client.
He's making comments about my snow repairs which are better than I would get from a lay adult.
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
"Stormtrooper" normally refers to the SA street thugs, not to the Einsatzgruppen. A reasonable analogy, although as far as I know the SA weren't paid by the Reich.
An analogy which doesn't then equate to ICE as the SA were a political organisation not a government organisation.
Not to mention that the SA were themselves purged and disbanded soon after Hitler entered government.
The SA were a government organisation while the Nazis were in office as they were part of the Party and after 1934 there was no distinction between the party and the government.
They were not disbanded until 1945 and were used primarily for harassing the Nazis' political opponents and particularly the Jews.
You seem to be confusing their disbandment with the Night of the Long Knives of 1934, when most of their senior leaders were shot as Rohm had wanted the SA to officially take over the German Army.
The parallel seems an absolutely fair one frankly.
Are you saying that there isn't much Rohm for MAGA apologists to wriggle out of the comparison?
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?
They were having a calm exchange until Renee's wife told him to "got get yourself some lunch, big boy", which so antagonised him he had no choice but to make her a widow.
Summary execution of a woman is the only reasonable reaction when that woman's spouse is slightly rude to you. It's you or her, the only way it could have gone down.
The crazy thing is that people genuinely make that sort of argument.
You shouldn't be rude to a policeman. You shouldn't bump into a policeman. You shouldn't run from a policeman. You shouldn't startle a policeman. If you do any of those things, he's allowed to kill you.
People make that argument all the time now.
The US is done for, even if Trump was to kick the bucket today the rot in American culture has taken hold.
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
"Stormtrooper" normally refers to the SA street thugs, not to the Einsatzgruppen. A reasonable analogy, although as far as I know the SA weren't paid by the Reich.
An analogy which doesn't then equate to ICE as the SA were a political organisation not a government organisation.
Not to mention that the SA were themselves purged and disbanded soon after Hitler entered government.
The SA were a government organisation while the Nazis were in office as they were part of the Party and after 1934 there was no distinction between the party and the government.
They were not disbanded until 1945 and were used primarily for harassing the Nazis' political opponents and particularly the Jews.
You seem to be confusing their disbandment with the Night of the Long Knives of 1934, when most of their senior leaders were shot as Rohm had wanted the SA to officially take over the German Army.
The parallel seems an absolutely fair one frankly.
Are you saying that there isn't much Rohm for MAGA apologists to wriggle out of the comparison?
Rachel Reeves faces tax rise dilemma over immigration forecast. Chancellor could be forced to make up for a shortfall of billions of pounds as figures predict a collapse in net migration would have consequences for the economy
The OBR have included possibly overestimated immigration numbers in their fiscal forecast. If immigration does drop it will lead to a relative underperformance of the economy and a possible £20 billion hole in public finances.
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
"Stormtrooper" normally refers to the SA street thugs, not to the Einsatzgruppen. A reasonable analogy, although as far as I know the SA weren't paid by the Reich.
An analogy which doesn't then equate to ICE as the SA were a political organisation not a government organisation.
Not to mention that the SA were themselves purged and disbanded soon after Hitler entered government.
What's going on in Iran right now, where hundreds are being summarily shot and executed to repress protests, is much more apt.
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.
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
"Stormtrooper" normally refers to the SA street thugs, not to the Einsatzgruppen. A reasonable analogy, although as far as I know the SA weren't paid by the Reich.
An analogy which doesn't then equate to ICE as the SA were a political organisation not a government organisation.
Not to mention that the SA were themselves purged and disbanded soon after Hitler entered government.
What's going on in Iran right now, where hundreds are being summarily shot and executed to repress protests, is much more apt.
I don't think that's very apt, actually. Trump hasn't gone quite that far yet although Vance and Noem could conceivably do so.
They were having a calm exchange until Renee's wife told him to "got get yourself some lunch, big boy", which so antagonised him he had no choice but to make her a widow.
Summary execution of a woman is the only reasonable reaction when that woman's spouse is slightly rude to you. It's you or her, the only way it could have gone down.
The crazy thing is that people genuinely make that sort of argument.
You shouldn't be rude to a policeman. You shouldn't bump into a policeman. You shouldn't run from a policeman. You shouldn't startle a policeman. If you do any of those things, he's allowed to kill you.
People make that argument all the time now.
The US is done for, even if Trump was to kick the bucket today the rot in American culture has taken hold.
This is particularly shocking because we watched Renee Good die on the whim of the USA's oxymoronic notion of law enforcement. But she was probably only one of a handful or two of people who have died at the hand of a cop since the beginning of the year.
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.
'Experience and rules of thumb' Totally subjective, dependent entirely on the experience of the driver. Not all drivers will be able to even work out six car lengths road on the average road let alone know to stop that far unless it is clearly set out in the highway code unlike that.
Slow down how far? To 50, 40, 30 even 20mph? How is the average driver supposed to know? The law on rural roads, on driving in poor weather conditions and approaching bends on any road and the appropriate speed limit is totally unclear at present as is the highway code
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?
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.
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.
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 ahead and then moved so that is slightly different
They were having a calm exchange until Renee's wife told him to "got get yourself some lunch, big boy", which so antagonised him he had no choice but to make her a widow.
Summary execution of a woman is the only reasonable reaction when that woman's spouse is slightly rude to you. It's you or her, the only way it could have gone down.
The crazy thing is that people genuinely make that sort of argument.
You shouldn't be rude to a policeman. You shouldn't bump into a policeman. You shouldn't run from a policeman. You shouldn't startle a policeman. If you do any of those things, he's allowed to kill you.
People make that argument all the time now.
The US is done for, even if Trump was to kick the bucket today the rot in American culture has taken hold.
This is particularly shocking because we watched Renee Good die on the whim of the USA's oxymoronic notion of law enforcement. But she was probably only one of a handful or two of people who have died at the hand of a cop since the beginning of the year.
The average seems to be about 3 a day, so it is probably over 30 by now
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.
They were having a calm exchange until Renee's wife told him to "got get yourself some lunch, big boy", which so antagonised him he had no choice but to make her a widow.
Summary execution of a woman is the only reasonable reaction when that woman's spouse is slightly rude to you. It's you or her, the only way it could have gone down.
The crazy thing is that people genuinely make that sort of argument.
You shouldn't be rude to a policeman. You shouldn't bump into a policeman. You shouldn't run from a policeman. You shouldn't startle a policeman. If you do any of those things, he's allowed to kill you.
People make that argument all the time now.
The US is done for, even if Trump was to kick the bucket today the rot in American culture has taken hold.
This is particularly shocking because we watched Renee Good die on the whim of the USA's oxymoronic notion of law enforcement. But she was probably only one of a handful or two of people who have died at the hand of a cop since the beginning of the year.
25 people so far this year according to Wikipedia. Averaging just over 3 people a day for the last 5 years.
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.
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.
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
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
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 roads are 60mph limits
Proves my point really. At the end of the day, dangerous driving is really simple and up to a jury to decide. It makes no reference to speed limits.
The offence of dangerous driving is when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver
Alternatively, The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) is committed when your driving falls below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver
The Highway Code provides the guidance which drivers are expected to follow to ensure that minimum standard. I'd have convicted that driver.
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 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
He killed three people, so it was clearly dangerous.
I can't remember much of the case, but I believe the jury placed too much responsibility on the cyclists to ride defensively and to warn each other of the passing car
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
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.
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.
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.
But should it be? As a non-expert it sounds like a possible tool, not previously easy to do. But I am prepared for an actual expert to say “no, we’ve studied that and it’s bloody dangerous”.
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.
No. It’s to legalise (and tax) almost every drug, and supply advice on their use a controls around things like driving under the influence, like we do with booze.
By doing that, you cut off funds to organised crime and terrorists; and you can do something about mistreatment in the supply chain as legitimate business takes over.
Doesn’t this rely on the countries who grow and produce to not only legalise it but ensure that organised crime (who have decades of investment, control, interest and experience) move out of the growing and production of coke? What if the South American countries say they won’t legalise it due to its corruption etc - us legalising it just means that the users here benefit and the poor sods in Peru still suffer and the bad guys get wealthy.
Cocaine is a fairly simple crop, followed by simple chemistry.
Years back the Economist did some investigation - a legal supply chain would provide coke at 10% of the cost of criminal operations. Think big agriculture with all the modern practise, followed by a modern chemical plant.
Criminals can’t do things cheaper. This is why, for example, they gave up on booze the moment Prohibition ended in America.
You can grow almost anywhere. Probably need poly tunnels in the uk.
The important bit is legalising the whole supply chain and the finances. Otherwise you will just make things worse.
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?
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
Have you quoted that from Google because that is standard driving practice
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?
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 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
He killed three people, so it was clearly dangerous.
Naughty naughty, isolating the word "dangerous", which is an observation of fact, from the term "dangerous driving", which is/requires a legally defined level of culpability.
There is absolutely nothing that can excuse the killing of Ms Good
This comment piece by Sky's US correspondent provides some insight
An Independent enquiry should be launched but that simply will not happen in Trump's US
As I said yesterday, the ICE officer seemed to panic and lost it which by any definition is unacceptable and possibly speaks to the lack of training
Martha Kelner - US correspondent - Sky News
'This video is only 47 seconds long, a close-up perspective, but it has unlocked even more questions about how and why Renee Nicole Good died.
It is tragic in the sense that it shows the face and demeanour of a 37-year-old woman in the moments before she dies, filmed by the person who shot her.
But I don’t think the footage provides any certainty about those crucial final few seconds, during which Good puts her car into drive, turns her wheel, accelerates and is then shot at three times by the officer.
What is clear is that there is dialogue between the pair in the run-up. Good seems to be relatively calm, when she says "that's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you".
Another woman, who appears to be Good's wife, seems to take a mocking tone with the officer when she says "go get lunch, big boy".
The audio from the phone camera is distorted at the key moment. There is a sound that could indicate a collision between the car and the officer but, again, that is not certain.
He definitely remains on his feet and at the end, appears to say "f***ing bitch".
The reaction to this video shows how entrenched views are on both sides of the political aisle. The vice president says it proves the officer's "life was endangered". Democrats continue to maintain she was "murdered".
In this country there is no time to wait for a full investigation in the rush to reach a conclusion and it could be very dangerous.
At this point, the agent exclaims in shock and shoots multiple times.
As Ms Good's car careers down the road before crashing into parked cars, the agent appears to mutter "f***ing bitch".
Sky News has chosen not to air the swear words in the video.'
So it's fine to show someone shot dead for irritating an ICE thug, but we draw the line at airing a swear word expressing his contempt his victims ?
Interesting choices.
Kurtz: We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene.
Less than 24 hours after I declare Macclesfield my “First Town of the North”, they pull off the greatest FA Cup giant killing of all time. Just while I’m having my lunch break near the Ridgeway
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 roads are 60mph limits
Proves my point really. At the end of the day, dangerous driving is really simple and up to a jury to decide. It makes no reference to speed limits.
The offence of dangerous driving is when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver
Alternatively, The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) is committed when your driving falls below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver
The Highway Code provides the guidance which drivers are expected to follow to ensure that minimum standard. I'd have convicted that driver.
No, had he been doing 65mph say he would likely have been convicted of dangerous driving and certainly of careless driving as it would have been over the speed limit and he should have slowed on the narrow track road.
However as he slowed to 30mph at the narrow track road he was acquitted of even careless driving causing death by the jury, they decided he had not fallen below the standard of a competent driver in their experience and understanding
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 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
He killed three people, so it was clearly dangerous.
I can't remember much of the case, but I believe the jury placed too much responsibility on the cyclists to ride defensively and to warn each other of the passing car
No, he killed one person and the jury found him not guilty of death by careless driving.
Death, even of multiple people, does not mean a driver is guilty of dangerous driving either. Had a driver killed 3 motorcylists doing over 100mph each in a 40mph road for example and the driver had been at the speed limit, not on his phone and not over the limit he would have been acquitted
Less than 24 hours after I declare Macclesfield my “First Town of the North”, they pull off the greatest FA Cup giant killing of all time. Just while I’m having my lunch break near the Ridgeway
Less than 24 hours after I declare Macclesfield my “First Town of the North”, they pull off the greatest FA Cup giant killing of all time. Just while I’m having my lunch break near the Ridgeway
Not helpful for Glasner hope of taking over at Man Utd
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.
Until you missed and killed a cyclist or motorcyclist overtaking as you didn't slow enough to triple check
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
Have you quoted that from Google because that is standard driving practice
Indeed have you ever passed driving tesr
I’m glad I don’t drive anywhere near Brentwood or Epping any more. They weren’t my favourite places to drive anyway.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
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.
There are loads of these idiots round my way. They beetle along at 25 on country roads with a 60 limit, randomly braking, clearly with marginal ability to drive a car. Another party tick is pulling out of junctions super slowly because they don't have the clarity of vision to actually see any oncoming traffic.
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.
They were having a calm exchange until Renee's wife told him to "got get yourself some lunch, big boy", which so antagonised him he had no choice but to make her a widow.
Yes, that is the moment Mr Ross decided someone was going to die, hence the phone being exchanged from his right to his left hand. At that point he probably hadn't decided who.
Police in all forms hate being mocked, and often respond aggressively when people do so. Even if people simply challenge them they hate it, you see that with British police as well Americans ones, and no doubt in many other places. Even when the officers are totally incorrect, or give contradictory commands, police despise being corrected.
When both citizen and police officer may (or almost certainly are, in the latter case) be armed it's almost inevitable that situations are going to escalate unnecessarily in such scenarios.
In the 90s, as a student, I was involved in helping organise student demos.
This involved working with the police. The Met no less.
It was clear that losing your temper was seen as a fail. You’d hear people say “smile at the bastards” etc.
The emphasis was not so much “deescalation” as “not starting stuff” - be boring, no drama.
And yes, Tomlinson. Where a policeman lost his temper.
@HYUFD I have just read the thread having been away. I responded to the first post I came to but can't be bothered to post to all the other errors you have made, but two points are very relevant.
a) As @BartholomewRoberts points out the speed limit is not a target, so to keep repeating it regarding country lanes is nonsense. Most of the time that would be excessive speed. You drive in accordance to the circumstances present. Your speed should be such that you can stop at what is known as the 'limit point'. See the Police Roadcraft book for details.
b) You said you should always stop at give way signs. You should not. If your exit is clear you should not stop. You would fail an advanced driving test for doing so. There is an acronym called TUG (Take, Use, Give) regarding information you take and give to other drivers while driving. To stop at a Give Way sign when you exit is clear gives all the wrong messages and can cause an accident. Similar rules apply to the use of signals (when and when not to use them).
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.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
@HYUFD I have just read the thread having been away. I responded to the first post I came to but can't be bothered to post to all the other errors you have made, but two points are very relevant.
a) As @BartholomewRoberts points out the speed limit is not a target, so to keep repeating it regarding country lanes is nonsense. Most of the time that would be excessive speed. You drive in accordance to the circumstances present. Your speed should be such that you can stop at what is known as the 'limit point'. See the Police Roadcraft book for details.
b) You said you should always stop at give way signs. You should not. If your exit is clear you should not stop. You would fail an advanced driving test for doing so. There is an acronym called TUG (Take, Use, Give) regarding information you take and give to other drivers while driving. To stop at a Give Way sign when you exit is clear gives all the wrong messages and can cause an accident. Similar rules apply to the use of signals (when and when not to use them).
A) Fine you have to slow down on a 60mph limit in poor weather conditions or approaching a bend. Slow down how far then? One lawyer will argue to 50mph would be fine, another would say to 25mph would be required, it is a legal minefield!
You should at minimum slow down significantly at a roundabout even if your exit is clear, otherwise you won't have checked enough and might hit a cyclist or overtaking motorcyclist for example
@HYUFD I have just read the thread having been away. I responded to the first post I came to but can't be bothered to post to all the other errors you have made, but two points are very relevant.
a) As @BartholomewRoberts points out the speed limit is not a target, so to keep repeating it regarding country lanes is nonsense. Most of the time that would be excessive speed. You drive in accordance to the circumstances present. Your speed should be such that you can stop at what is known as the 'limit point'. See the Police Roadcraft book for details.
b) You said you should always stop at give way signs. You should not. If your exit is clear you should not stop. You would fail an advanced driving test for doing so. There is an acronym called TUG (Take, Use, Give) regarding information you take and give to other drivers while driving. To stop at a Give Way sign when you exit is clear gives all the wrong messages and can cause an accident. Similar rules apply to the use of signals (when and when not to use them).
On signals, I understand the next edition of the Highway Code is going to better reflect modern driving by giving clear indication when it is better to give the finger or the contemptuous rotating hand instead.
Less than 24 hours after I declare Macclesfield my “First Town of the North”, they pull off the greatest FA Cup giant killing of all time. Just while I’m having my lunch break near the Ridgeway
Less than 24 hours after I declare Macclesfield my “First Town of the North”, they pull off the greatest FA Cup giant killing of all time. Just while I’m having my lunch break near the Ridgeway
My mate's mum is a season ticket holder there. She's on her last legs - less than six months to live. I don't want to overstate the importance of football, but - well, I'm dead pleased for them.
But I'd say Congleton is the first town of the north (or last, depending on which way you're heading). Not least because it sits underneath Bosley Cloud, which is the first proper hil you get on the train from London to Manchester.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You shouldn’t be driving at all if you do not know stopping distances
Indeed modern cars provide audible warnings if you are too close
I mean this gently but you do not give me any confidence that you really know what you are talking about
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You shouldn’t be driving at all if you do not know stopping distances
Indeed modern cars provide audible warnings if you are too close
I mean this gently but you do not give me any confidence that you really know what you are talking about
Have you passed a driving test ?
Even the Highway Code recommended stopping distances vary if poor weather conditions or on the car condition or on the road surface, so again too vague. More clarity needed for those circumstances as well
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You shouldn’t be driving at all if you do not know stopping distances
Indeed modern cars provide audible warnings if you are too close
I mean this gently but you do not give me any confidence that you really know what you are talking about
Have you passed a driving test ?
Even the Highway Code recommended stopping distances vary if poor weather conditions or on the car condition or on the road surface, so again too vague. More clarity needed for those circumstances as well
I ask again, have you passed a driving test or are you just googling this stuff ?
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You shouldn’t be driving at all if you do not know stopping distances
Indeed modern cars provide audible warnings if you are too close
I mean this gently but you do not give me any confidence that you really know what you are talking about
Have you passed a driving test ?
Even the Highway Code recommended stopping distances vary if poor weather conditions or on the car condition or on the road surface, so again too vague. More clarity needed for those circumstances as well
I ask again, have you passed a driving test or are you just googling this stuff ?
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You shouldn’t be driving at all if you do not know stopping distances
Indeed modern cars provide audible warnings if you are too close
I mean this gently but you do not give me any confidence that you really know what you are talking about
Have you passed a driving test ?
Even the Highway Code recommended stopping distances vary if poor weather conditions or on the car condition or on the road surface, so again too vague. More clarity needed for those circumstances as well
I ask again, have you passed a driving test or are you just googling this stuff ?
I have and passed the theory too
Then you should have more sense than largely the nonsense you have posted on this
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
There does not need to be clarity, a skilled driver can figure that out for themselves depending upon circumstances.
If you can't, you should not be driving.
You want everything written down to the letter and number. Life does not and should not work that way.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
It depends on how tight the bend is, how far you can see round it and how wide the road is. And for a left hand bend, if you have been able to approach it to the right. Plus other conditions like rain and sun.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
These days I rarely drive on anything but country roads, and that's my experience too. It would be madness to do otherwise.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
There does not need to be clarity, a skilled driver can figure that out for themselves depending upon circumstances.
If you can't, you should not be driving.
You want everything written down to the letter and number. Life does not and should not work that way.
There does, lawyers otherwise will thrive on no clarity.
If an accident occurs with another vehicle or passengers are injured when a driver is doing say 30 or 40mph on a 60mph limit road approaching a bend or say doing 25 or 30mph in poor weather conditions then whether they are convicted or not will be a matter of lawyers argument to decide. The outcome could not be decided beforehand and the driver may well be acquitted or found not liable with a good lawyer
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
It depends on how tight the bend is, how far you can see round it and how wide the road is. And for a left hand bend, if you have been able to approach it to the right. Plus other conditions like rain and sun.
Also if you are in a BMW, Mercedes or Audi, you get the bonus of being allowed to exit the blind corner in the middle of the road and leave it to the other vehicle/cyclist/pedestrian to somehow squeeze past.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
It depends on how tight the bend is, how far you can see round it and how wide the road is. And for a left hand bend, if you have been able to approach it to the right. Plus other conditions like rain and sun.
So again, totally unclear as dependent on a wide range of conditions and a lawyers field day if an accident
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
There does not need to be clarity, a skilled driver can figure that out for themselves depending upon circumstances.
If you can't, you should not be driving.
You want everything written down to the letter and number. Life does not and should not work that way.
There does, lawyers otherwise will thrive on no clarity.
If an accident occurs with another vehicle or passengers are injured when a driver is doing say 30 or 40mph on a 60mph limit road approaching a bend or say doing 25 or 30mph in poor weather conditions then whether they are convicted or not will be a matter of lawyers argument to decide. The outcome could not be decided beforehand and the driver may well be acquitted or found not liable with a good lawyer
If it’s needed, how have we survived without it since cars have existed?
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
There does not need to be clarity, a skilled driver can figure that out for themselves depending upon circumstances.
If you can't, you should not be driving.
You want everything written down to the letter and number. Life does not and should not work that way.
There does, lawyers otherwise will thrive on no clarity.
If an accident occurs when a driver is doing say 30 or 35mph on a 60mph limit road approaching a bend or say doing 25 or 35mph in poor weather conditions then whether they are convicted or not will be a matter of lawyers argument to decide. The outcome could not be decided beforehand and the driver may well be acquitted or found not liable with a good lawyer
You are making up hypothetical bullshit to argue against the law as it is today. Which is bullshit.
People already today do make their own judgements, as they rightly should.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
These days I rarely drive on anything but country roads, and that's my experience too. It would be madness to do otherwise.
Country roads serve as footpaths, bridleways, cycle lanes, tractor access and everything in the way. You can tell the difference between someone who grew up in the countryside and those who didn't by the space and time they provide to those not in a car.
It shouldn't need to be written down, but it's there in the Code anyway.
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.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
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.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
At no point did I say you should be driving down a country lane at 60mph. On the contrary I said you should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions and that will rarely be anything like 60 mph. You are fixated on this. 60 mph is not a target. On many country lanes if you did this you would definitely be dangerous driving and deserve to get banned and no a lawyer will not get you off if you take a chevron bend at 55 mph and kill someone coming the other way because you couldn't take the bend.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
PS The IAM will give you a free trial drive if you want. You get 60 - 90 minutes behind the wheel and they will give you a free evaluation of your driving.
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.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
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.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
At no point did I say you should be driving down a country lane at 60mph. On the contrary I said you should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions and that will rarely be anything like 60 mph. You are fixated on this. 60 mph is not a target. On many country lanes if you did this you would definitely be dangerous driving and deserve to get banned and no a lawyer will not get you off if you take a chevron bend at 55 mph and kill someone coming the other way because you couldn't take the bend.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
You’re both wrong.
The appropriate response is to pull over, get out, pull a mask on, mag dump a Glock into the driver. Then drive off.
I saw this on the new as the approved Police technique.
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
#fritlf prize for Saturday. Congrats.
It would be much easier to join the PB chorus.
Altogether now:
Joe's always been absent minded, Hunter's a victim of a witch hunt, Vance shags furniture, Nazi Stormtroopers.
Manichaen groupthink.
You are the only one talking about the first three.
They are also all very domestic US talking points. That our UK discussions get clogged up with this sort of thing, including blanket coverage every time a US uniformed thug does what US uniformed thugs always do, is thanks to our force-fed American social media diet.
Twitter is the goose farm and we’re the geese, there for the delectation of a handful of billionaires who like gorging on our foie gras.
I was thinking that while this ICE shooting story is important and it's right that we're talking about it, we do seem to be going a bit excessive on the coverage.
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
#fritlf prize for Saturday. Congrats.
It would be much easier to join the PB chorus.
Altogether now:
Joe's always been absent minded, Hunter's a victim of a witch hunt, Vance shags furniture, Nazi Stormtroopers.
Manichaen groupthink.
You are the only one talking about the first three.
They are also all very domestic US talking points. That our UK discussions get clogged up with this sort of thing, including blanket coverage every time a US uniformed thug does what US uniformed thugs always do, is thanks to our force-fed American social media diet.
Twitter is the goose farm and we’re the geese, there for the delectation of a handful of billionaires who like gorging on our foie gras.
I was thinking that while this ICE shooting story is important and it's right that we're talking about it, we do seem to be going a bit excessive on the coverage.
It's the reaction from the US government that gives it salience. This might be that moment in history.
It's the same with the Iran protests - plenty of those in the past but this just might be the one that is seismic. Very difficult to judge how important it is, except in hindsight.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
It depends on how tight the bend is, how far you can see round it and how wide the road is. And for a left hand bend, if you have been able to approach it to the right. Plus other conditions like rain and sun.
So again, totally unclear as dependent on a wide range of conditions and a lawyers field day if an accident
If only you could spare us all this pontification from someone who has from all appearances never driven (or even been driven) down a country lane.
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
These days I rarely drive on anything but country roads, and that's my experience too. It would be madness to do otherwise.
Country roads serve as footpaths, bridleways, cycle lanes, tractor access and everything in the way. You can tell the difference between someone who grew up in the countryside and those who didn't by the space and time they provide to those not in a car.
It shouldn't need to be written down, but it's there in the Code anyway.
It isn't, it says to give space of 1.5m to cyclists at 30mph for instance but is not clear how much extra to give at speeds above that
Trump said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Turns out his masked Nazi Stormtroopers can shoot somebody 3 times in the face while recording it on their phone and he wouldn't lose any voters, OK?
His behaviour is becoming more extreme. In part that might be he has to keep escalating to stop the press from having enough time to analyse anything he does (assuming they still want to) and in part because he really does believe he is a God Emperor with no constraints other than the limits of his desires (there are very few limits)
So what's your prediction as to how many Trump's Einsatzgruppen will kill this year ?
Hitler's lot managed 65k in Poland in 1939 alone.
Given that ICE has many more people and has a much bigger population to work in you must be expecting millions of killings.
Or perhaps 'Nazi Stormtroopers' is the sort of imbecilic, manichean terminology which is damaging the USA so badly.
#fritlf prize for Saturday. Congrats.
It would be much easier to join the PB chorus.
Altogether now:
Joe's always been absent minded, Hunter's a victim of a witch hunt, Vance shags furniture, Nazi Stormtroopers.
Manichaen groupthink.
You are the only one talking about the first three.
They are also all very domestic US talking points. That our UK discussions get clogged up with this sort of thing, including blanket coverage every time a US uniformed thug does what US uniformed thugs always do, is thanks to our force-fed American social media diet.
Twitter is the goose farm and we’re the geese, there for the delectation of a handful of billionaires who like gorging on our foie gras.
I was thinking that while this ICE shooting story is important and it's right that we're talking about it, we do seem to be going a bit excessive on the coverage.
I was thinking it's very PB that we're actually talking about the various forms dangerous driving can take instead...
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
There does not need to be clarity, a skilled driver can figure that out for themselves depending upon circumstances.
If you can't, you should not be driving.
You want everything written down to the letter and number. Life does not and should not work that way.
There does, lawyers otherwise will thrive on no clarity.
If an accident occurs with another vehicle or passengers are injured when a driver is doing say 30 or 40mph on a 60mph limit road approaching a bend or say doing 25 or 30mph in poor weather conditions then whether they are convicted or not will be a matter of lawyers argument to decide. The outcome could not be decided beforehand and the driver may well be acquitted or found not liable with a good lawyer
If it’s needed, how have we survived without it since cars have existed?
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
There does not need to be clarity, a skilled driver can figure that out for themselves depending upon circumstances.
If you can't, you should not be driving.
You want everything written down to the letter and number. Life does not and should not work that way.
There does, lawyers otherwise will thrive on no clarity.
If an accident occurs when a driver is doing say 30 or 35mph on a 60mph limit road approaching a bend or say doing 25 or 35mph in poor weather conditions then whether they are convicted or not will be a matter of lawyers argument to decide. The outcome could not be decided beforehand and the driver may well be acquitted or found not liable with a good lawyer
You are making up hypothetical bullshit to argue against the law as it is today. Which is bullshit.
People already today do make their own judgements, as they rightly should.
Hardly, indeed under the law as it is today as mentioned earlier a driver was acquitted of killing a cyclist at 30mph on a single track 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?
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
These days I rarely drive on anything but country roads, and that's my experience too. It would be madness to do otherwise.
Country roads serve as footpaths, bridleways, cycle lanes, tractor access and everything in the way. You can tell the difference between someone who grew up in the countryside and those who didn't by the space and time they provide to those not in a car.
It shouldn't need to be written down, but it's there in the Code anyway.
It isn't, it says to give space of 1.5m to cyclists at 30mph for instance but is not clear how much extra to give at speeds above that
Do you have to be told everything
If you cannot drive in accordance with road conditions and anticipate situations you should not drive at all
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.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
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.
Why? In law it is completely subjective as the law is the law and if only a 60mph limit applies any lawyer could argue 20mph is appropriate or 55mph appropriate in slightly poor conditions for example.
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
At no point did I say you should be driving down a country lane at 60mph. On the contrary I said you should be driving at a speed appropriate for the road, car and conditions and that will rarely be anything like 60 mph. You are fixated on this. 60 mph is not a target. On many country lanes if you did this you would definitely be dangerous driving and deserve to get banned and no a lawyer will not get you off if you take a chevron bend at 55 mph and kill someone coming the other way because you couldn't take the bend.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
PS The IAM will give you a free trial drive if you want. You get 60 - 90 minutes behind the wheel and they will give you a free evaluation of your driving.
Yes, 60mph is not a target, agreed. On a bend you should certainly slow down well below that so below 55mph too, agreed.
Yet what is the speed to slow down to at a bend, 40mph, 30mph, even 20mph? Lawyers disagree and the Highway Code is unclear.
Yes you should drive at the speed limit if clear and good conditions and no bend generally but you have just said you should not be driving down a country lane at 60mph. So what is too slow? 40mph? 50mph? 20mph?
Even if your exit is clear you at least have to check ahead and right before moving at a roundabout even if you don't stop completely
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.
I would guess over half the drivers on the road cannot estimate the exact stopping distance they should be doing on every road.
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
You clearly never drive on country lanes, because around here I have never seen people approach blind bends on country lanes at 60mph.
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
No and of course the highway code says to slow down on approach to a bend on country lanes.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
It depends on how tight the bend is, how far you can see round it and how wide the road is. And for a left hand bend, if you have been able to approach it to the right. Plus other conditions like rain and sun.
So again, totally unclear as dependent on a wide range of conditions and a lawyers field day if an accident
If only you could spare us all this pontification from someone who has from all appearances never driven (or even been driven) down a country lane.
Comments
Trump and his cronies are currently engaged in a Sopranos-style exercise of going around the world threatening both domestic and international opponents with the equivalent of “wouldn’t it be a shame if someone burnt your business down?” - way too many sensible folk are arguing about whether it would ever be practicable for anyone to set light to so many business premises at once. Hint/clue - the mafia almost never needs to actually set light to anyone’s premises.
Otherwise, the only explanation that makes sense is the "you're not my dad/mum, you can't tell me what to do" thing that most boys grow out of at age 16.
Stormtroopers yes. Armed and violent yes. Politically motivated in their actions yes. Committing acts of political violence yes. With the open support of the regime yes.
Musk needs to bear in mind politicians are not the only players in the game. Advertisers and consumers also matter. And it wasn't the regulators who cleaned up porn aggregation sites, it was credit card companies blocking them.
Whether any of this matters, who knows? Remember Musk bought X by mistake. It is not his life's work or the source of his wealth.
Driving instructors don't really seem to place the same importance on this, unfortunately.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/x-paywall-ai-image-grok-app-bikini-allows-sexual-deepfakes-rcna252647
They were not disbanded until 1945 and were used primarily for harassing the Nazis' political opponents and particularly the Jews.
You seem to be confusing their disbandment with the Night of the Long Knives of 1934, when most of their senior leaders were shot as Rohm had wanted the SA to officially take over the German Army.
The parallel seems an absolutely fair one frankly.
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
1) ICE are not police. They cannot arrest anyone, or detain anyone, or order anyone to leave an area, unless they believe that person is an illegal immigrant;
2) Therefore this officer and his friends were acting illegally even *before* the shooting happened;
3) That makes the rest of 'self defence' or 'domestic terrorism' pretty much moot.
He's the son of my smaller handymen, who does small jobs on the weekend for me occasionally - and does not hit me with £100 just to attend.
He's always been a mini-dad sidekick with construction toys, and now has his own kit up to and including his own jetwasher. There's one neighbour he'll be doing things for during this year who will be severalm hundred just for the one client.
He's making comments about my snow repairs which are better than I would get from a lay adult.
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?
https://www.amazon.com/Light-That-Failed-Losing-Democracy/dp/1643133691
You shouldn't be rude to a policeman. You shouldn't bump into a policeman. You shouldn't run from a policeman. You shouldn't startle a policeman. If you do any of those things, he's allowed to kill you.
People make that argument all the time now.
The US is done for, even if Trump was to kick the bucket today the rot in American culture has taken hold.
Slow down how far? To 50, 40, 30 even 20mph? How is the average driver supposed to know? The law on rural roads, on driving in poor weather conditions and approaching bends on any road and the appropriate speed limit is totally unclear at present as is the highway code
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?
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.
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 ahead and then moved so that is slightly different
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.
Have you ever taken a driving test?
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
The offence of dangerous driving is when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver
Alternatively, The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) is committed when your driving falls below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver
The Highway Code provides the guidance which drivers are expected to follow to ensure that minimum standard. I'd have convicted that driver.
I can't remember much of the case, but I believe the jury placed too much responsibility on the cyclists to ride defensively and to warn each other of the passing car
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.
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.
Years back the Economist did some investigation - a legal supply chain would provide coke at 10% of the cost of criminal operations. Think big agriculture with all the modern practise, followed by a modern chemical plant.
Criminals can’t do things cheaper. This is why, for example, they gave up on booze the moment Prohibition ended in America.
You can grow almost anywhere. Probably need poly tunnels in the uk.
The important bit is legalising the whole supply chain and the finances. Otherwise you will just make things worse.
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.
Indeed have you ever passed driving tesr
Kurtz: We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene.
However as he slowed to 30mph at the narrow track road he was acquitted of even careless driving causing death by the jury, they decided he had not fallen below the standard of a competent driver in their experience and understanding
Death, even of multiple people, does not mean a driver is guilty of dangerous driving either. Had a driver killed 3 motorcylists doing over 100mph each in a 40mph road for example and the driver had been at the speed limit, not on his phone and not over the limit he would have been acquitted
They only know to go at the speed limit and slow down a bit at a bend or in poor weather. However again it is completely unclear how far to slow down at corners etc.
The Highway Code is very vague and unclear on that
This involved working with the police. The Met no less.
It was clear that losing your temper was seen as a fail. You’d hear people say “smile at the bastards” etc.
The emphasis was not so much “deescalation” as “not starting stuff” - be boring, no drama.
And yes, Tomlinson. Where a policeman lost his temper.
a) As @BartholomewRoberts points out the speed limit is not a target, so to keep repeating it regarding country lanes is nonsense. Most of the time that would be excessive speed. You drive in accordance to the circumstances present. Your speed should be such that you can stop at what is known as the 'limit point'. See the Police Roadcraft book for details.
b) You said you should always stop at give way signs. You should not. If your exit is clear you should not stop. You would fail an advanced driving test for doing so. There is an acronym called TUG (Take, Use, Give) regarding information you take and give to other drivers while driving. To stop at a Give Way sign when you exit is clear gives all the wrong messages and can cause an accident. Similar rules apply to the use of signals (when and when not to use them).
It would certainly not be dangerous driving in either case and a good lawyer could ensure they are acquitted even of careless driving.
Too slowly for a country lane? So they should be driving at 60mph unless heavy rain or snow? Certainly not approaching a bend. Again confusing one size fits all advice.
You should stop at a roundabout in most cases to fully check for cyclists, as I said earlier.
But I'd say Congleton is the first town of the north (or last, depending on which way you're heading). Not least because it sits underneath Bosley Cloud, which is the first proper hil you get on the train from London to Manchester.
Indeed modern cars provide audible warnings if you are too close
I mean this gently but you do not give me any confidence that you really know what you are talking about
Have you passed a driving test ?
Cars doing less than the speed limit in suitable conditions is the norm, not the exception.
Precisely because competent people do know that and do not stick to the speed target limit.
"On Wednesday, January 7th, we stopped to support our neighbors. We had whistles. They had guns."
Words just fail me.
Though to what? 50, 40, 30, 20mph? Again no clarity and again a field day for lawyers to argue on what was the correct speed to slow down to if an accident occurred
If you can't, you should not be driving.
You want everything written down to the letter and number. Life does not and should not work that way.
If an accident occurs with another vehicle or passengers are injured when a driver is doing say 30 or 40mph on a 60mph limit road approaching a bend or say doing 25 or 30mph in poor weather conditions then whether they are convicted or not will be a matter of lawyers argument to decide. The outcome could not be decided beforehand and the driver may well be acquitted or found not liable with a good lawyer
People already today do make their own judgements, as they rightly should.
It shouldn't need to be written down, but it's there in the Code anyway.
You can of course also drive too slow for a road and can also be done for dangerous driving for doing so. Just look it up.
In a nut shell. if you exceed the speed limit you are breaking the law, but if you are below the speed limit you can also be breaking the law for driving too slowly or too fast.
Finally re stopping at roundabouts; when your exit is clear as mentioned before, this would be a fail on an Advanced Driving Test (it might be on the standard test, I don't know) and a policeman who was having a very bad morning might do you for careless driving. To do so causes utter confusion to cars behind and other drivers waiting to enter the roundabout from other junctions.
I am assuming you don't drive and I repeat again I suggest you read Roadcraft the Police Drivers Handbook.
PS The IAM will give you a free trial drive if you want. You get 60 - 90 minutes behind the wheel and they will give you a free evaluation of your driving.
The appropriate response is to pull over, get out, pull a mask on, mag dump a Glock into the driver. Then drive off.
I saw this on the new as the approved Police technique.
It's the same with the Iran protests - plenty of those in the past but this just might be the one that is seismic. Very difficult to judge how important it is, except in hindsight.
But I don't suppose you can help yourself.
"How close is too close ? 10m ? 5m ? 1m ?"
"Sorry, what ? Use your common sense"
[HYUFD bursts into flames]
If you cannot drive in accordance with road conditions and anticipate situations you should not drive at all
Yet what is the speed to slow down to at a bend, 40mph, 30mph, even 20mph? Lawyers disagree and the Highway Code is unclear.
Yes you should drive at the speed limit if clear and good conditions and no bend generally but you have just said you should not be driving down a country lane at 60mph. So what is too slow? 40mph? 50mph? 20mph?
Even if your exit is clear you at least have to check ahead and right before moving at a roundabout even if you don't stop completely
Let me consult my almanac of recommended speeds for every single corner of the British road network, cross-checked against current weather conditions.