Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    I didn't say he wasn't breaking the rules.

    I'm simply responding to all the people who are accusing him of being immoral, not of being unlawful (which are two extremely different things).

    Some people on this thread have actually said that he's the type of people who 'kills innocent children'. That kind of comment is so far removed from a judgment of lawfulness that I am completely right to challenge it.

    The OP did break the law. But he may or may not have done anything 'wrong' with respect to safe and moral driving.
    As much as this is a valid point, I don't think I've seen many 30 roads that would be safe to drive at more than say 45. I don't think it's too farfetched to say that at 62, he is probably driving unsafely. Not definitely, but very probably.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    As I have already said countless times, I am not saying he didn't break the law, and I'm not saying he shouldn't face consequences.

    I'm simply saying that the people who are accusing him of being immoral or unsafe are completely unfounded. You can call him unlawful all you like, the facts are there to prove that he was being unlawful. But whether or not he was being unsafe or immoral is something that nobody here has any way of deciding, and therefore anybody who makes that call is being an irrational, unfounded and discredited fool.

    Immoral - I'll agree with you.

    Unsafe - no, he categorically was unsafe.

    But now he'll have plenty of time to reflect on that as he gets his buses everywhere
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cconstant)
    yep, three point and £60 fine.
    Same I always cruise at 40 for some reason. Just seems to be the speed that feels right.
    Ahh that's bad lol :o: Can you give some details on how exactly he clocked you doing 40? Was he stationary or in the traffic?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbo3045)
    But majority of the time, it is 30 for a reason. Agree'd there are a few roads, with greater speed restrictions than you would expect, but usually this is due to bends in the road, or a high level of previous accidents, heeding this action.

    And after all, adhering to the speed restrictions - does it really cost us that much time? No.

    So why is it such a problem to you?
    I'm not going to explain myself a 3rd/4th/5th/whatever the hell number we're at now.

    And actually, yes, adhering to speed restrictions costs us quite a lot of time. If you have a 10 mile drive to work and back every morning on a perfectly good road that should be a 60 road is only a 40 road, then you will lose days and days, maybe weeks or months of your life over the course of a career to it driving on it longer than is necessary to be safe.

    And I don't really have a problem with most speed limits. What I do have a problem with is people assuming that because the government have labelled a road to be an x mph limit, that driving anything over x is immoral and unsafe. And that is what I have been responding to in this thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *Cough* Bribe the judge *Cough*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FXX)
    How can you even hit 60 on a 30 road?
    Easily :eek:

    How can you not hit 60 in a 30 zone?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Immoral - I'll agree with you.

    Unsafe - no, he categorically was unsafe.

    But now he'll have plenty of time to reflect on that as he gets his buses everywhere
    How the hell do you know he was being unsafe?

    You don't know. You haven't seen the road, you don't know what the conditions were at the time of his charge. You have absolutely no idea what the situation was so you have absolutely no right or basis for deciding that he was being UNSAFE.

    For all you know, this road is a wide straight road in the middle of an empty field many miles from any built up areas, and with a clear view of everything ahead of you.

    What information do you have to suggest otherwise? Nothing. So shut up and learn to build INFORMED opinions, rather than opinions based on thin air.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You don't desereve a way out of this. Even if the road was straight, clear and it was perfect driving conditions, there are no mitigating circumstances to be going that fast. And any excuse we try to give you to get you off would need to be backed up with an awful lot of evidence, which is lying, giving anyone who you involve with this the risk or getting done for perjury.

    Accept, and move on, and remember, when you get your license back, check the road's speed limit, and try to stick to it a little more. And you may need that bike for a few years, so you best choose a nice comfy saddle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hope you get the ban too
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SomeonecalledJohnny)
    Easily :eek:

    How can you not hit 60 in a 30 zone?
    Depends on your car and the type of road.

    My 1.1 litre Peugeot takes 14.9 seconds to reach 60 from 0, and the 30mph zone outside my house isn't anywhere near long or clear enough to get up to that.

    Although even my 1.1 litre Peugeot can comfortably, safely, morally, and without hazard do 60 on some unfairly labelled 30 roads.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    I didn't say he wasn't breaking the rules.

    I'm simply responding to all the people who are accusing him of being immoral, not of being unlawful (which are two extremely different things).

    Some people on this thread have actually said that he's the type of people who 'kills innocent children'. That kind of comment is so far removed from a judgment of lawfulness that I am completely right to challenge it.

    The OP did break the law. But he may or may not have done anything 'wrong' with respect to safe and moral driving.
    You're speaking utter garbage. To break the law is an immoral deed. Or is it ok for me to kill someone, as long as I have the right intentions?

    I also completely lambaste your view that speed regulation is inconsistent. Call me moronic as you will, but in my experience as a driver, I feel that speeding restrictions are mostly consistent and fair. It is simply your crave for speed, that you consider them unfair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elfen)
    You don't desereve a way out of this. Even if the road was straight, clear and it was perfect driving conditions, there are no mitigating circumstances to be going that fast. And any excuse we try to give you to get you off would need to be backed up with an awful lot of evidence, which is lying, giving anyone who you involve with this the risk or getting done for perjury.

    Accept, and move on, and remember, when you get your license back, check the road's speed limit, and try to stick to it a little more. And you may need that bike for a few years, so you best choose a nice comfy saddle.
    You don't know if there were mitigating circumstances or not.

    Also, there are no mitigating circumstances most of the time when we drive on motorways. So why don't we all sit at 30 on it? Because it's safe to do so. And since you have no information to show that the OP's road was not safe, then you have no reason whatsoever to judge him without being a hypocrite. Well, I suppose you wouldn't be a hypocrite if you were indeed the type of person who does 30 on the motorway. But in that case, you, too, should have your licence revoked.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dumbdumb)
    i asked 4 advice on how to get away with it
    I don't see how you are going to be able to :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Morally wrong lol, it's speeding he hasn't kill anyone, yet!

    (Homer Simpson, with his gun )

    There are lots of country roads that go 60 bam! 30 we didn't consider he didn't see the 30 sign after it being national speed limit for miles did we?

    So you could already be doing 60 as you enter a 30 limit and hence that's how easy it is to do 60 in a 30 zone!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    some superior crap

    As a motorist I have every right.


    He's more than 100% over the speed limit, travelling twice as fast as any other road user. He's quite clearly not paying attention - he didn't notice the copper who nicked him, that's your proof - and so would not have noticed any other user who might have been on the road at the same time. To travel that fast he would have veered [slightly] into the middle of the road offering no other road user the ability to pass safely.

    In the US they'd call it reckless endangerment, here we call it driving without due care and attention. Think what you want - anyone sane is going to call it what it is: stupid, moronic and unsafe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You deserve a ban for that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbo3045)
    Your speaking utter garbage. To break the law is an immoral deed. Or is it ok for me to kill someone, as long as I have the right intentions?

    I also completely lambaste your view that speed regulation is inconsistent. Call me moronic as you will, but in my experience as a driver, I feel that speeding restrictions are mostly consistent and fair. It is simply your crave for speed, that you consider them unfair.
    LOL.

    Citing murder is not a valid analogy to my statement. I never said that all laws failed to reflect morality. I said that some laws fair to reflect morality. And anybody who disagrees with that is an extremely weird person indeed.

    There are hundreds of laws still in place today that sicken most moral people. And to think that being lawful equates to being moral is nothing short of idiocy, narrow-mindedness and a 'everything is black and white' kind of life view.

    Secondly, I do not crave speed. I have never been done for speed, and I actually never speed. I am perfectly lawful when it comes to driving, but that does not mean that I am in agreeance with the laws and think that they reflect morality - they simply do not. Your assumption that I am some sort of speed-demon is completely unfounded.

    I am sickened by the level or irrationality in this thread. People who get righteous without evidence disgust me.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss_Scarlett)
    I don't see how you are going to be able to :confused:
    Nor how we'd want to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Depends on your car and the type of road.

    My 1.1 litre Peugeot takes 14.9 seconds to reach 60 from 0, and the 30mph zone outside my house isn't anywhere near long or clear enough to get up to that.

    Although even my 1.1 litre Peugeot can comfortably, safely, morally, and without hazard do 60 on some unfairly labelled 30 roads.
    It's annoying but unfairness doesn't really come into it. The speed limit is 30, not twice that. Ok we are all guilty of doing 35 here and there maybe 40 if you aren't concentrating, but 60 is just tomfoolery. You can't expect to get away with it being twice over the limit...the law of the land says it is what it is, and there isn't anything you nor I can do about it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    LOL.

    Citing murder is not a valid analogy to my statement. I never said that all laws failed to reflect morality. I said that some laws fair to reflect morality. And anybody who disagrees with that is an extremely weird person indeed.

    There are hundreds of laws still in place today that sicken most moral people. And to think that being lawful equates to being moral is nothing short of idiocy, narrow-mindedness and a 'everything is black and white' kind of life view.

    Secondly, I do not crave speed. I have never been done for speed, and I actually never speed. I am perfectly lawful when it comes to driving, but that does not mean that I am in agreeance with the laws and think that they reflect morality - they simply do not. Your assumption that I am some sort of speed-demon is completely unfounded.

    I am sickened by the level or irrationality in this thread. People who get righteous without evidence disgust me.

    And of course, with no evidence to suggest otherwise you're not being hypocritical at all :rolleyes:




    You know, the more this thread goes on the more I think this guy and the OP are the same person. As trolling tactics go, I guess it works.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.