h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Happy or not the law is the law even if you don't happen to agree with it and the law says 70 if the law said 80 people like you would still be breaking it an wingeing about people getting in the way, the motorway system was designed to be safe at 90 but if that was the limit you would ume it was safe at 100. There is no excuse. and no answer, consideration for others works both ways, you ume because you are driving everyone else should get out of your way. if everyone obeyed the law I'm fairly confident there would be fewer pileups, just as if everyone obeyed instructions about lane closures the transition from 2 lanes to 3 lanes would be smoother (not having to allow those people who drove up the outside of queing traffic in ahead of you and there by delaying everyone behind you,) but I digress. I concede the point that if there is no one in sight on the left lane the polite thing to do would be to move over and let the person behind by, even if he is a habitual criminal with no respect for the rule of law, he may have a , its only a law after all. that doesn't make it right to impose some arbitrary rule of your own devising and label anyone who disobeys you inconsiderate. Speed does excessive speed is responsible for the pileups on motorways, you can't react or stop in time so you hit the guy in front who had the same philosophy and hit the guy in front. you are right I'm sure you could bend my ear for hours on the issue trying to justify your lawbreaking, but that would not make you either right or considerate,.

the word ume was supposed to begin with 3 letters starting with A that presumable is rejected by the system to prevent obscenity
interesting glitch.

Have you also noticed that these middle lane pootlers also seem to think that their right indicator is somehow conntected to your brake? If I'm in the outside lane doing a nice steady 80, these guys give one flash of the indicator and then pull over at say 60 mph irresepctive of how close you are to them (usually 10 feet). Causes my car to go from 80 to 60 in less than a second.

Why do they do that? They obviously don't want to drop from 60 to 50 behind that lorry and wait the couple of seconds it would have taken me to get past, but they want me to drop from 80 to 60. They don't even make any attempt to accelerate. They just sit in lane 3 gradually building up speed to pass the vehicle and then give me hand gestures because I am so close.

Tossers.

the law also says that lanes 2 and 3 are for overtaking only, so get over into that inside lane mate.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the lawmaker cares about you and your safety. This is woefully incorrect.

Do you know why we have a 70mph speed limit on our motorways? Let me tell you.

Not long after the M1 one opened about 40 years ago, when there were much less cars than there are now, a racing driver took his prototype Le Mans car for a test run, and clocked speeds in excess of 130mph on this lovely straight stretch of virgin road. The government of the time, furious that an enterprising individual could get this sort of testing ground for nothing, immediately slapped a 70mph speed restriction on the motorway to prevent others from playing with their new toy.

Please feel free to check back any major newspaper you trust to validate this statement.

As to your comments about habitual lawbreakers, I can only shake my head in a pitying way. Just because someone makes a law, does not make it automatically just. Do you know that Christmas was outlawed? That the Scots were forbidden their bagpipes?

Speed limits have their place, on the 30, 40, 50 and 60 routes, and I respect those. They do not belong on the motorway. There would be less of these pileups if the rest of you lot would learn to drive properly and be in the lane you were supposed to be in, and didn't pull out willy nilly without looking.

Remember, and indicator does not confer right of way.

I would like to refer you to an earlier post in which I quoted the exact highway code law, which is open to interpretation. I continue to believe that if you are speeding, which you admit you do habitually, then to quote the legality of my position is odd to say the least.
slow down chum.

I agree laws can be unjust, but putting motorway speed limits in the same bracket as the oppression of the Scots and the outlawing of Christmas (did anyone ever die from a speeding bagpipe or a runaway Christmas carol?)
Disagreeing with a law does not make it unjust, it may be conservative but then in the case of motorways conservative seems reasonable to me, I will not bother to research the facts of your statement. I will debate the interpretation of it. If I was in charge of road safety and discovered that people would use public highways for the testing of race cars I would legislate immediately to prevent it. not out of sour grapes as you seem to imply but because anyone who does 130 on a public highway is a lunatic and needs to be stopped. People like you are the reason the limit is 70, if it was 130 you would still break it if you could and winge about all the low performance cars that have the temerity to use your motorway. You may even grudgingly allow them the use of the slow lane as long as they didn't try to get out into your racing lanes and slow you down.
You have obviously worked long and hard rationalising that breaking the law is safer than obeying it, (doesn't that sound a little strange when you read it)
You feel that the rules don't apply to you. the motorway is toy to be played with and anyone who obeys the speed limit is a bad driver have I summarised fairly?
you have moved from complaining about people hogging the centre lane to admitting you habitually cruise it at 80 and are irritated by people pulling out ahead of you to overtake slower moving traffic. and say you were brought up to be considerate. Definitely sounds it to me.
Other road users can be irritating. But they have as much right to use the motorway system as you do (perhaps more, they obey the laws.)
I don't like people doing 60 in the middle lane any more than you do. They should accelerate when overtaking, but when you are doing 80 you are going to catch up with slow moving traffic much faster than if you are doing 70. Chill out, relax, leave a little earlier, take the train whatever, most of all stop complaining, you are as inconsiderate as they are and there is no point deluding yourself that you are on some great mission to fix an injustice.

I am having difficulty determining who you are referring to in your statements, me or the sherrif.

For myself 130 would be far more than adequate, considering I don't often go above 80 in my normal driving style. I doubt I would be clamouring for it to be raised if it was set at that level. You seem to be setting speed up with carelessness and stupidity, and tieing that in with your propoganda fed "speed kills" mentality.

A speeding car does not kill someone. A car that is not being driven responsably kills someone. There is a marked difference. I drive cars fast, but I also drive responsably. I never drive faster than it is safe to do so, and I do not pull out with out checking, and I indicate where necessary. How many "slower" drivers can say the same? Precious few.

To say that because I speed that I am dangerous is ludicrous, but I will not argue that there are people out there who are dangerous and they speed, but their are an equal number of drivers out there who are just plain dangerous.

I know all about driving safely and car control, (you do not qualify for a racing licence if you do not), and if I need to "go mad" or show off, then I do so on the track, not the public roads.

my first post was for the first reply (sherrif)
the second was for the second (shade) seems logical enough I'll try to keep it that way in future.
130 is not more than adequate it's maniacal I used it as an example as you seem by you reference to think it is reasonable.
I don't generally go for propaganda I prefer to deal in logic. a car travelling at 80 is more likely not to be able to stop in any given situation than one travelling at 70 as we need to set an arbitrary limit in any case, one that is within the design parameters of the motorway 70 seems reasonable, as going by your logic it's ok to do 10% over the limit in order to ensure that you are not, heaven forbid, going under it. do I believe "speed kills". yes. One way or another speed is responsible for some of the deathss on the road. you can waffle all you like at 80 any problem is going to be harder to deal with than at 70.

A speeding car is by definition being driven irresponsibly, I don't care how skillful you are. you are putting others at risk.
You never drive faster than you think is safe and thankfully have not been proved wrong yet. (you've had some close calls though I'd be willing to bet, though of course those were all due to other people driving poorly.)
I would like to think that most drivers indicate where necessary (by the way, do you mean that, or do you mean where you think it is necessary?)
the fact that there are drivers who are dangerous when not speeding is a problem with the system. is that a justification for speeding?
I'm glad you know all about driving safely, when you decide to try it let me know. Having a racing licence and a track to go play has very little to do with safety, (ask Ayrton Senna to name but one)
You say you get your speed madness and exhibitionism out of you system on the track yet you are unable to obey a simple speed law on the road. stay on the track and let the grownups have the road
we seem to have got on to a debate about speed, that may have been my fault at least partially.
Let me clarify my position, I am not against speed per se I am against people telling me that I should get out of their way because they want to pass me at an illegal speed. I'm sorry but I'll move over when I'm good and ready. if you want to convince me that you are right, you first have to BE right.
what bothers me most is your absolute certainty that you have the right to do whatever you feel is safe on the road, its not up to you to make that decision, the world is full of lunatics. you may not be one, but you support them. there are people who feel it's safe to back up because the miss their exit, are they justified?

You have an opinion, but you know little of what you are talking about. I found your Ayrton Senna comment to be in etremley poor taste, and I no longer wish to discuss this issue with you.

I had great respect for Ayrton Senna he was a magnificent driver, THAT was my point. no matter how good you are you can come unstuck. if you want to see that as in poor taste that's your problem not mine. considering the discussion, getting humpty at me for talking about someone who is dead seems silly but then you have exposed yourself as a fairly silly person. Sorry you can't think of anything constructive to say. If you do. I'll come back and pick on you some more.
TTFN drive safely (if you can)