|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 27, 2019 18:20:24 GMT
Brilliant, so you can’t argue against what i have said with any nuance or logic so instead you try insulting me. Or are you one of those dicks who drives at 40 outside schools and puts the lives of children at risk? I am perfectly capable of arguing my points, I just preferred to insult you. Whether or not you "need" something is irrelevant, "wanting" something is a perfectly good reason to own anything, including any vehicle that is capable of driving over any legal limit. Allowing ownership of possessions based on one's need for such items is not only grossly contrary to any notion of freedom and liberty of markets or society as a whole, it also gets us into very hazy territory about who gets to act as arbiter over who is allowed to own anything. So the same logic applies to ownership of, say, child pornography? Chemical weapons? Handguns? People as slaves? Sure, nobody “needs” any of them, but if people “want” them then that is a perfectly good reason to have them, otherwise we don’t live in a free society, right? And we get into the hazy territory you described.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 27, 2019 18:21:43 GMT
Oh here we go again, how did I know you'd be here? Whenever there is a boot that needs licking, an authoritarian to need validating, a low to be stooping to, The Ogster will be there. Always. Brilliant, so you can’t argue against what i have said with any nuance or logic so instead you try insulting me. Or are you one of those dicks who drives at 40 outside schools and puts the lives of children at risk? ........ only when he's late for school
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 27, 2019 18:28:01 GMT
I am perfectly capable of arguing my points, I just preferred to insult you. Whether or not you "need" something is irrelevant, "wanting" something is a perfectly good reason to own anything, including any vehicle that is capable of driving over any legal limit. Allowing ownership of possessions based on one's need for such items is not only grossly contrary to any notion of freedom and liberty of markets or society as a whole, it also gets us into very hazy territory about who gets to act as arbiter over who is allowed to own anything. So the same logic applies to ownership of, say, child pornography? Chemical weapons? Handguns? People as slaves? Sure, nobody “needs” any of them, but if people “want” them then that is a perfectly good reason to have them, otherwise we don’t live in a free society, right? And we get into the hazy territory you described. No, the logic does not extend that far for child pornography and slaves because there are victims to these possessions, these intrinsically require a victim. They cannot exist without a negative impact on another human being. Fast cars, handguns and chemical weapons do not actually harm anyone in and of themselves. There are no victims to their existence. I can have a fast car and a gun and a chemical weapon without ever hurting a single person; if I then choose to use them in an offensive way, then I have committed a criminal act anyway, which renders the original illegality of possessing these items moot in the first place. Edit- Obviously I wouldn't necessarily advocate for the legalisation for chemical weapons as they serve no function other than to kill indiscriminately, but for the purposes of highlighting inconsistencies in your generalisations, the point stands.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Mar 27, 2019 19:00:57 GMT
Perhaps we should bring in minimum speed limits and if a car drops below that speed it self-destructs.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 27, 2019 20:02:21 GMT
So the same logic applies to ownership of, say, child pornography? Chemical weapons? Handguns? People as slaves? Sure, nobody “needs” any of them, but if people “want” them then that is a perfectly good reason to have them, otherwise we don’t live in a free society, right? And we get into the hazy territory you described. No, the logic does not extend that far for child pornography and slaves because there are victims to these possessions, these intrinsically require a victim. They cannot exist without a negative impact on another human being. Fast cars, handguns and chemical weapons do not actually harm anyone in and of themselves. There are no victims to their existence. I can have a fast car and a gun and a chemical weapon without ever hurting a single person; if I then choose to use them in an offensive way, then I have committed a criminal act anyway, which renders the original illegality of possessing these items moot in the first place. Edit- Obviously I wouldn't necessarily advocate for the legalisation for chemical weapons as they serve no function other than to kill indiscriminately, but for the purposes of highlighting inconsistencies in your generalisations, the point stands. I don’t doubt that most people choosing to speed think there will be no victim. It doesn’t make it right and there are (I would guess) more victims of fast cars than handguns, child pornography and chemical weapons put together in this country. We seem to disagree on a fundamental point. You advocate everything being legal (save for chemical weapons or other things with the sole purpose of harming people). I believe certain things shouldn’t be allowed, such as handguns being the perfect example. Just look at the gun crime stats in America. Going back to cars, it makes perfect sense to limit cars to the maximum speed limit when on public roads. An argument to the contrary will always be flawed because it is illegal to go faster than the speed limit. A better argument would be what Yeokel said which is increase the national speed limit. Ultimately I reckon if you crash at 70 or 80, you are most likely fucked either way.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Mar 27, 2019 20:27:29 GMT
I've tried to point this out several times, but hopefully this link we'll help explain it a bit more. The EU aren't the rule maker everyone believes them to be. In many cases they adopt standards set at a global level and write them into their own law. * This is a technical standard set by UNECE of which the U.K. are members in our own right. So even if we leave the EU (or weren't even a member of it) we'd adopt this standard ourselves and write it into our own law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cl541e9jv6gt/european-commission* See also bendy bananas.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 28, 2019 7:15:29 GMT
I've tried to point this out several times, but hopefully this link we'll help explain it a bit more. The EU aren't the rule maker everyone believes them to be. In many cases they adopt standards set at a global level and write them into their own law. * This is a technical standard set by UNECE of which the U.K. are members in our own right. So even if we leave the EU (or weren't even a member of it) we'd adopt this standard ourselves and write it into our own law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cl541e9jv6gt/european-commission* See also bendy bananas. Dave First of all I'm not sure that this " speed limiter" is quite what people think it is. I was listening to an explanation on Irish radio yesterday and it can be over ridden. For me as an ex Policeman I can recall going to a number of accidents in which I believe that speed was a ( contributory) factor and even if some people say they the bigger issue is bad driving , a lower speed gives more time for evasive action and mitigates effects. So I am not against these measures ( as I so far understand them).....on a simple level I wouldn't mind a " simple bleep" to indicate that I'd gone over the limit, perhaps a more urgent bleep if I was 10% over...if only to prevent a speeding fine. So I'm not and never have argued that all EU law is bad.,...I'm against the supremacy of EU law, the requirement for us to obey all regulations and directives( A258 and 260). The EU most definitely are the rule maker.I don't like top down , dictatorial , remote , unchallengeable politics. If the UK would , as you argue, have probably incorporated this rule irrespective of the EU ( and I'm not arguing against this), my argument is that we don't need the EU AND the UK system....we can make our own decisions without interference from "others". Our argument is not about the merits of the law, any law, nor about whether we should/ should not adopt it... it's about the route, the means by which any law is introduced into the UK. We should make our own laws. Full stop....by that I mean without any reference to the EU....a bit like Australia....who now have more international standing and independence than we do. For me it's not about the merits of the laws but about democracy and sovereignty.....and now it goes further....it's about our self confidence and identity as a country
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 28, 2019 7:20:43 GMT
I've tried to point this out several times, but hopefully this link we'll help explain it a bit more. The EU aren't the rule maker everyone believes them to be. In many cases they adopt standards set at a global level and write them into their own law. * This is a technical standard set by UNECE of which the U.K. are members in our own right. So even if we leave the EU (or weren't even a member of it) we'd adopt this standard ourselves and write it into our own law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cl541e9jv6gt/european-commission* See also bendy bananas. Presumably they have a choice whether to adopt or not and then force these rules on to a group of differing nations. Wouldn't it be better to make these rules in the UK based on our own circumstances using our own judgement to suit ourselves? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 28, 2019 7:57:01 GMT
I've tried to point this out several times, but hopefully this link we'll help explain it a bit more. The EU aren't the rule maker everyone believes them to be. In many cases they adopt standards set at a global level and write them into their own law. * This is a technical standard set by UNECE of which the U.K. are members in our own right. So even if we leave the EU (or weren't even a member of it) we'd adopt this standard ourselves and write it into our own law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cl541e9jv6gt/european-commission* See also bendy bananas. Presumably they have a choice whether to adopt or not and then force these rules on to a group of differing nations. Wouldn't it be better to make these rules in the UK based on our own circumstances using our own judgement to suit ourselves? Just a thought. Also Felonious, it's worth considering .... what is the role of the EU in this....how do they see themselves.....as a body entitled to impose/ tell/ force/"other word"( that amounts to the same) rules on 28 countries ( sorry we are reduced to " member states")... quite simply ...it's not about trade deals AND they conduct themselves as a single European" country".....( For those who keep their eye on the European parliament there is more and more talk about the need for member states to give up more sovereignty, more talk about the European citizen, more talk about the need to have more central tax raising and spending powers.....oh, and I don't think that they even like the UK....it really does make alot of sense to join this club)
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 28, 2019 8:13:46 GMT
I've tried to point this out several times, but hopefully this link we'll help explain it a bit more. The EU aren't the rule maker everyone believes them to be. In many cases they adopt standards set at a global level and write them into their own law. * This is a technical standard set by UNECE of which the U.K. are members in our own right. So even if we leave the EU (or weren't even a member of it) we'd adopt this standard ourselves and write it into our own law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cl541e9jv6gt/european-commission* See also bendy bananas. Presumably they have a choice whether to adopt or not and then force these rules on to a group of differing nations. Wouldn't it be better to make these rules in the UK based on our own circumstances using our own judgement to suit ourselves? Just a thought. You put too much faith in our government to make these decisions ⚖️
|
|
|
Post by chigstoke on Mar 28, 2019 8:33:43 GMT
There is still nothing that will stop drivers being dick heads though where they shouldn't. You can put your foot down on the accelerator and the limit disappears till you drop back to the limited speed. Likewise they also envisage a switch to enable/disable the limiter anyway.
I think some people are more concerned about the fact that every car will have a black box in as part of that new law. Which means those who speed won't be able to get away with it even if they disable the limit by switch because the GPS will have a record of what speed you were travelling at before a crash. So they can't get away with being knobheads anymore which can only be a good thing.
Do I trust a signal and front facing camera to restrict me though? Not really, GPS can be a funny bastard as it is. As for now, I'll stick to myself being the best limiter of the accelerator.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Mar 28, 2019 8:42:40 GMT
I've tried to point this out several times, but hopefully this link we'll help explain it a bit more. The EU aren't the rule maker everyone believes them to be. In many cases they adopt standards set at a global level and write them into their own law. * This is a technical standard set by UNECE of which the U.K. are members in our own right. So even if we leave the EU (or weren't even a member of it) we'd adopt this standard ourselves and write it into our own law. www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cl541e9jv6gt/european-commission* See also bendy bananas. Presumably they have a choice whether to adopt or not and then force these rules on to a group of differing nations. Wouldn't it be better to make these rules in the UK based on our own circumstances using our own judgement to suit ourselves? Just a thought. What would be the point of nations having differing standards though? This isn't just about this standard, but every one that is decided and that all countries in the UN adopt. We know we can import vehicles from Japan, USA and the European continent with confidence and we know we can export as well. We'd find it very difficult to conduct international trade if we adopted a solely UK based standard system.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 28, 2019 8:45:02 GMT
No point in protesting the shit anymore. Its a warped, bubble wrapped world we are living in. Best just paint your hair bright blue and go with it with a dulux tester pot from B&Q ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 10:07:52 GMT
No point in protesting the shit anymore. Its a warped, bubble wrapped world we are living in. Best just paint your hair bright blue and go with it with a dulux tester pot from B&Q ? As long as its environment friendly
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Mar 28, 2019 11:35:07 GMT
I have always wondered why all cars for this country are not limited to 70mph when that is the maximum speed you are allowed to drive. I don’t see how any law abiding citizen can possibly be against this, unless they feel speed limits are too low. the speed limits are set too low they may have been relevant in the 50's when they came in but modern day cars are now full of safety features which means we should be able to go faster I would set the limit on motorways at 100 mph but I would also calmp down on "bad driving" which is the biggest problem on the roads today, tailgating,switching lanes without due care and attention, distractions such as mobile phones or pets, not keeping left when appropriate.i could go on.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 28, 2019 12:39:42 GMT
As per usual the decent law-abiding drivers will have restrictions placed on them whilst irresponsible dickheads will just ignore them. Those poor law-abiding citizens being punished with a restriction that makes them abide by the law
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on Mar 28, 2019 13:16:50 GMT
“The car industry is on its arse and dying rapidly, what can we do to save it?!”
“We can restrict all new cars to 70mph which means no cunt will want to buy one”
“Brilliant! That’ll work! We’re amazing! Go us and our rules that are akin to outright dictatorship rather than letting people live their lives and make their own choices!”
I fucking love my car, in fact I went out for a spirited drive on empty roads last night and it was glorious, the thought of people having the actual fun of driving their pride and joy stripped away from them is sickening.
My car is 19 years old, so not applicable to the proposals, however you just know they’ll try and weasel this into every poor buggers motor under the guise of some completely made up safety statistic, really pisses me off when they put forward such bollocks suggestions like this.
Let’s ban pubs, let’s ban smoking completely, let’s ban the internet, let’s ban sports outside, let’s ban people from having any kind of fun whatsoever, in fact build fucking gulags in every city and make us mine for salt wearing the skin of our executed loved ones.
Bollocks, the lot of it, cunts.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 28, 2019 14:38:39 GMT
“The car industry is on its arse and dying rapidly, what can we do to save it?!” “We can restrict all new cars to 70mph which means no cunt will want to buy one” “Brilliant! That’ll work! We’re amazing! Go us and our rules that are akin to outright dictatorship rather than letting people live their lives and make their own choices!” I fucking love my car, in fact I went out for a spirited drive on empty roads last night and it was glorious, the thought of people having the actual fun of driving their pride and joy stripped away from them is sickening. My car is 19 years old, so not applicable to the proposals, however you just know they’ll try and weasel this into every poor buggers motor under the guise of some completely made up safety statistic, really pisses me off when they put forward such bollocks suggestions like this. Let’s ban pubs, let’s ban smoking completely, let’s ban the internet, let’s ban sports outside, let’s ban people from having any kind of fun whatsoever, in fact build fucking gulags in every city and make us mine for salt wearing the skin of our executed loved ones. Bollocks, the lot of it, cunts. and breathe
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 28, 2019 14:47:00 GMT
“The car industry is on its arse and dying rapidly, what can we do to save it?!” “We can restrict all new cars to 70mph which means no cunt will want to buy one” “Brilliant! That’ll work! We’re amazing! Go us and our rules that are akin to outright dictatorship rather than letting people live their lives and make their own choices!” I fucking love my car, in fact I went out for a spirited drive on empty roads last night and it was glorious, the thought of people having the actual fun of driving their pride and joy stripped away from them is sickening. My car is 19 years old, so not applicable to the proposals, however you just know they’ll try and weasel this into every poor buggers motor under the guise of some completely made up safety statistic, really pisses me off when they put forward such bollocks suggestions like this. Let’s ban pubs, let’s ban smoking completely, let’s ban the internet, let’s ban sports outside, let’s ban people from having any kind of fun whatsoever, in fact build fucking gulags in every city and make us mine for salt wearing the skin of our executed loved ones. Bollocks, the lot of it, cunts. 😆
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 28, 2019 14:49:41 GMT
I have always wondered why all cars for this country are not limited to 70mph when that is the maximum speed you are allowed to drive. I don’t see how any law abiding citizen can possibly be against this, unless they feel speed limits are too low. the speed limits are set too low they may have been relevant in the 50's when they came in but modern day cars are now full of safety features which means we should be able to go faster I would set the limit on motorways at 100 mph but I would also calmp down on "bad driving" which is the biggest problem on the roads today, tailgating,switching lanes without due care and attention, distractions such as mobile phones or pets, not keeping left when appropriate.i could go on. There wasn’t any cars on the road in the 50/60/70’s. There’s loads now...
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Mar 28, 2019 15:29:08 GMT
Think I'll get another Triumph Herald and thrash the arse off it.
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Mar 29, 2019 11:51:56 GMT
the speed limits are set too low they may have been relevant in the 50's when they came in but modern day cars are now full of safety features which means we should be able to go faster I would set the limit on motorways at 100 mph but I would also calmp down on "bad driving" which is the biggest problem on the roads today, tailgating,switching lanes without due care and attention, distractions such as mobile phones or pets, not keeping left when appropriate.i could go on. There wasn’t any cars on the road in the 50/60/70’s. There’s loads now... no cars on the road in the 70's? really??
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 29, 2019 12:29:25 GMT
There wasn’t any cars on the road in the 50/60/70’s. There’s loads now... no cars on the road in the 70's? really?? Nothing in comparison to now & V few had two cars. Don’t you remember, how old are you...
|
|