anyone who is actually too distracted by a phone conversation
to drive safely is a fucking retard that shouldn't be allowed cutlery unaided, let alone a licence to pilot a potentially lethal tonne of machinery at speed.

/LOLMGControversial
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:13, archived)

Speed limits are bollocks too.
I can go much faster than the speed limit.
( baldmonkey a frothy foul-smelling vaginal discharge, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:14, archived)

Speed limits were made ages ago when cars were much shitter than they are.
You can safely go 20 miles an hour faster that 70 on the motorway.
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:17, archived)

Oh, I agree
but sadly, Dumfies and Galloway Court didn't. So now I'm poor.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:19, archived)

This is true,
although any crash that does happen would be much worse. And fuel economy would be terrible.
The 55mph speed limits in the US were introduced during the fuel crisis, because that was the most economical speed to drive at.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:19, archived)

That's the main reason the limits won't be increased (the fuel, not the crashes)
Crashes would be much worse, but apart from ones in trafic jams I'd assume that most accidents on motorways occur at higher speeds than 70mp/h already
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:21, archived)

they probably do,
but if the limit was 90, people would drive at 110.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:22, archived)

I don't think so.
People drive at over 70 miles an hour because they feel safe doing so. I'm not sure how many people's cars would feel safe when in excess of 100 miles an hour so I don't think many people would do it.
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:24, archived)

People drive at over 70 because they're impatient.
Besides, plenty of people have cars that can cope with going over 100 these days, all the fancy BMWs and stuff that's on the road these days. Maybe not your family hatchbacks, but having two classes of cars that go at different speeds would introduce dangers of its own. And we've already got the lorries and coaches that can't really go much faster.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:28, archived)

I already do.

( baldmonkey a frothy foul-smelling vaginal discharge, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:39, archived)

what about sending a text?

( well, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:15, archived)

If we're being serious, I'd think that's too much, as you need to look at the screen to do that.
I find it quite interesting though, my phone is my satnav. So by the letter of the law, I can legally program that whilst driving but not use it as a phone. Even though it amounts to doing the same thing.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:17, archived)

Controversial: maybe.
True: yes.

Unless phoning for an ambulance. But then that's what speakerphone/handsfree is for.
(theneet began to cut her hair and long for balls, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:15, archived)

Or the side of the road
while stationary.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:20, archived)

Precisely
As surely if you're phoning for an ambulance it'll be either for you, your passenger, or someone at the side of the road.

If the ambulance is for you then you shouldn't even be driving.
(theneet began to cut her hair and long for balls, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:23, archived)

I'm disappointed, Flappers
no fucker is arguing with me. What's the point of posting something borderline ridiculous if people aren't going to get shouty?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:24, archived)

I'm officially one of those safety nazis
so I'm prevented by the terms of my job contract from disagreeing with even the most hysterical pro-driving-safety viewpoint
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:38, archived)

The problem is there are just too many laws governing what we can & can't do
people aren't stupid, just poorly trained.
Driving lessons should include speeding whilst on the phone & smoking with a can of Tennants Super between your legs. If they are a recreational drug user they should also be on their drug of choice.
Once they can do this with no problems they pass their test & we can get rid of all these silly laws.
( broadsword, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:19, archived)

You forgot the other trick
Driving with your bare feet while changing a shirt after a four-hour drive from Cardiff.
(theneet began to cut her hair and long for balls, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:20, archived)

I reckon you should have to do more advanced stuff,
like how to control a skid. What you learn in driving lessons as they are is all well and good as long as nothing goes wrong.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:21, archived)

Yup, can't argue with that

( broadsword, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:25, archived)

yeah
but if anything useful about car control was actually taught, then loads of mouth-breathers would never pass their tests. And then oh fucking christ, what would we do, all people have the RIGHT to drive their fat arses everywhere and screw the safety of the rest of the population.

I know people who struggle to tie their shoelaces but have driving licences. Terrifying.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:27, archived)

I disagree on the "stupid" thing.
if you need to be trained to drive properly, you aren't cut out to drive. It should be second nature. You should be able to have a million distractions going on and still notice the bike coming down the inside out of the corner of your eye, but it should be subconscious, not learned. Bar the actual "how to operate a motor vehicle" part of driving lessons, anyone that needs training should simply be banned from driving. Cuts accidents and congestion at a stroke.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:23, archived)

Age old debate here...
But what's the age at which you have to re-take a driving test? Is it over 75?
(theneet began to cut her hair and long for balls, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:25, archived)

It should be 30.
seeing how anyone over that age is old.

Although, in all seriousness, I think that people who took their tests a significant time ago (ie when roads were less crowded and cars were less technologically advanced) should have to take a stripped down test.
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:27, archived)

Agreed
I was about to say something along those lines; not because older people are incapable drivers or anything, but because factors change such as car prowess and brake reaction distance as one ages.

My grandad's 73 and hasn't had a re-test yet, he's in the pinnacle of health but his driving definitely isn't what it used to be.
(theneet began to cut her hair and long for balls, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:29, archived)

that's nonsense,
nobody ever gets really good at anything without training and a lot of practice.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:25, archived)

You might have noticed I'm not being entirely serious here.
but, for the purposes of following through with it

training and practice for car control, yes, I agree. If you need training and practice to spot other road users, or rapidly process the number of possible scenarios involving these other users, and take appropriate action, then driving isn't something you should be doing. i.e., if you need to consciously think at all, even for a millisecond, to be able to drive safely, then you shouldn't be doing it. It doesn't need to be taught.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:31, archived)

I don't know how you do teach that sort of thing, to be honest,
but it's like a sort of habitual thought. Practice can get you into the habit, and then it becomes second nature.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:33, archived)

It's what the hazard perception test is supposed to be there for.

( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:33, archived)

I saw a bad accident yesterday involving 3 cars* and a tractor
How anyone can not see a tractor is beyond me.

*It might have just been 2 cars and the third was there to help before the police came.
( Pickle Fairy is clumsily dancing away this fear, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:26, archived)

What had happened
Had both cars hit the tractor, or had one car hit the tractor then the other car gone into the back of the first?
(theneet began to cut her hair and long for balls, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:35, archived)

YEAH
Stop training atheletes because their athletisism is second nature. Musicians should never study as it is second nature.
( broadsword, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:29, archived)

ician lim
( Master Of Turnips. Only gays and morons believe in ghosts., Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:30, archived)

for the purposes of argument
apart from the fact than I'm not arguing this seriously, separate driving into two parts: Car control, which of course you must learn and practice, and inate common sense, which if you have to practice or train then you shouldn't drive.

Does that make more sense? In the same way that you train as a musician in order to "control" the instrument, but you can't train your natural ability to know what sounds good and what doesn't.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 13:35, archived)