Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Yeah.... it's been lovely. Nice day for a spin in the...... Ooooohhh, let's not go there eh? Lets not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Yes Minnie - it was a thread you started called "I'm sorry and I realise I'm just spouting cliches and that I'm wrong". Cliches you say? This is just knee-jerk, nanny state, airbag, ABS, DSC politicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 DtCB.. Subtle works better, it just isn't so obvious. Subtlety and irony don't seem to work anymore. I think everyone on these forums has had a ferric by-pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I think everyone on these forums has had a ferric by-pass. A what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Definition: \Fer"ric\, a. [L. ferrum iron: cf. F. ferrique. See {Ferrous}.] Pertaining to, derived from, or containing iron. Specifically (Chem.), denoting those compounds in which iron has a higher valence than in the ferrous compounds; as, ferric oxide; Perhaps lacking iron-y ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Definition: \Fer"ric\, a. [L. ferrum iron: cf. F. ferrique. See{Ferrous}.] Pertaining to, derived from, or containing iron. Specifically (Chem.), denoting those compounds in which iron has a higher valence than in the ferrous compounds; as, ferric oxide; Perhaps lacking iron-y ? Hey, I'm blonde, I can't help it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Nice day for a spin in the...... Ooooohhh, let's not go there eh? Where? The Country? May as well, even if they introduce a limit no-one will be around to tell you to stop. Except that member of someone's family walking down the road. Fair enough put a limit, as long as it can properly be enforced (like all the sensible people have already said). What about the other schemes like home zones? Ok, the general population of good drivers adhere to it, but you get the likes of them boy-racers (they seem a bit of a reoccuring theme in this thread...) hurtling through without a care in the world. Certainly not one of beady-eyed fuzz cars. I don't drive fast except where I feel comfortable donig so and without danger to anyone else, which rarely happens. However it would be nice to know I could do so in certain places where people shouldn't be in the road (pedestrians) and the road was built to take it (of which there are a few) without getting apprehended. I mean, I consider myself a good driver without any points on my license or crashes (except that one time in the van with the large iron forestry trailer - however I was gently rolling down a hill at 2mph at the time trying to figure out why there was a man pretending to direct traffic in the middle of the road). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 There are also plenty of middle-aged/old drivers as there are boyracers. The difference is, an old fella in a grey Rover isn't as significant as a noob in a bright green Vauxhall Nova with some crazy-ass exhaust. I've seen just as many arrogant, xxxx old drivers as I've seen immature, xxxx drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 The whole anti limit argument seems to center on the belief that there is nothing anyone can do to stop the excessive speeding which contributes a great deal to the annual carnage. Is it their suggestion that we do nothing but stand by and watch as more people are killed by reckless fools who arrogantly put the lives of not only themselves, but also the lives of innocent people at risk? Speed limits can be introduced and enforced. Why shouldn't that work? Speedsters will abandon the mountain road in favour of small country lanes? Why? There are speed traps and speed cameras which if visible to everyone would surely act as a reminder to anyone who may be tempted to overdo it. There are speed limits on the U.K. motorway network but it dosnt stop people using them, neither does it make them ride like lunatics around country lanes, so why should it happen here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I don't drive fast except where I feel comfortable donig so and without danger to anyone else, which rarely happens. However it would be nice to know I could do so in certain places where people shouldn't be in the road (pedestrians) and the road was built to take it (of which there are a few) without getting apprehended. There's danger everywhere, you don't know what's round the next corner so to say you'll only drive fast where there's no danger to anyone else is hardly a reasonable argument. People who drive too fast endanger others! Damn those bloody pedestrians getting in your way, how dare they venture near the roads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 A pedestrian is in no danger from me if they stay on the pavement, I after all am a pedestrian most of the time. As I tried to imply in my last post, I don't drive too fast (if fast at all). I wouldn't drive fast along roads with bends and tight corners. That's stupid. Speed limits can be introduced and enforced. Why shouldn't that work? Speedsters will abandon the mountain road in favour of small country lanes? Why? As long as they are enforced, and read Cret's epic post to see why. I don't want to sound like I approve of people driving fast, I'm just trying to reason out each argument. I think it's funny when I drive normally at the limit and impatient drivers overtake in their haste. I'm surprised no-one has uttered that timely Manx saying by now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 ] As long as they are enforced, and read Cret's epic post to see why. I read crets post, but assuming that the limit was enforced on all roads, be it with the aid of speed trap/cameras...whatever, why would the speed limit on the roads on the IOM be treated with anymore disregard than those in the U.K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 As long as they are enforced, and read Cret's epic post to see why. Well I'm not hugely biased either way about the whole thing just I've yet to see anyone explain A) How in real life a limit WILL actually improve things, and B) Why my comments about an increase in reckless driving would not be likely to become a dangerous reality. I'm all for an increase in safety on the roads, who in their right mind wouldn't be? And in an ideal world a limit would equate to safer roads but this isn't a theoretical world unfortunately. If good, coherent reasons are given by people to explain why a limit will directly result in safer roads, or someone can explain in a realistic way why my backroads driving armageddon theory won't possibly happen then great, I'm all ears, but so far I've yet to be convinced of the real life benefits that might be seen. Not trying to stir either 'camp' here, just am curious to see someone answer this question because I think it's a valid one. Feel free to argue what I've said but just hopefully in a civilised manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I read crets post, but assuming that the limit was enforced on all roads, be it with the aid of speed trap/cameras...whatever, why would the speed limit on the roads on the IOM be treated with anymore disregard than those in the U.K? Jay, I agree with what you're saying entirely but my point is that I think the problem here is that if/when a limit comes in, there will only be the police resource/budget for cameras etc to cover some of the main roads where people currently travel at the highest speeds. That makes it an open invitation as far as I can see for the dangerous drivers to try and avoid these measures by taking to the smaller backroads instead where there's an infinitely smaller chance of them getting done for it but a much greater chance of an accident happening. Sure eventually they might have cameras etc on the majority of the roads but I think that's unlikely to be honest and even if then a very long way off. It's the bit in between that heralds a country road menace though I think. Do you see what I mean? *edit* that cool smilie in my earlier post wasn't meant to be one by the way, it was a 'B' followed by a ')'. Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I'm not anti TT, in fact I enjoy the TT festival a lot. However, to allow the annual needless slaughter of people to continue is not acceptable by any countrys standards. I am not suggesting something as being the ideal solution, but it at least is a start in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.