Jump to content

HeliX

Regulars
  • Content Count

    5,326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by HeliX

  1. driving past a line of 4 or 6 cars is not safe, cannot be. You cannot tell what may happen on the nearside, even if you can see ahead. Of course the cars should be far enough apart to allow overtaking one at a time and that is what you should do.

    It worries me that you hold this belief and (presumably) have an opinion in court. There are numerous places on the island where you can pass 6 cars safely, especially if they are travelling slowly and you have a car with some decent punt.

     

    I can see both sides of the coin, I have overtook 2-3 cars before now (whist overtaking a slow driver on a straight stretch I might add) and a car infront of me didn't check his mirrors and just pulled out, no indication or anything, its one of the situations whether you either try and accelerate out or brake hard and pull back in. If this happened whilst overtaking 6 cars (even if I calculated the distance accurately ) it could possibly leave me with nowhere to go, there isn't enough room for error over here, once you start overtaking 9 times out of 10 your committed and that's it. Its not a question of ability (car or driver) but that of other road users.

     

    Indeed, but you could hit that same problem any time, regardless of what you're doing yourself. All you need is some idiot misjudging their corner and ending up on the wrong side of the road and it's curtains for you. Unfortunately it's a risk we have to decide to take if we're going to not have to walk to work! Everything in life is a calculated risk. If I was travelling down that long straight on the S100 (I'm terrible with names) and there was ~5 cars in front doing 40mph, as long as I could see the lead vehicle so that I could have a fair idea of why they're driving slowly, I'd overtake them. The risk is low enough that I'd consider it not worth worrying about.

  2. Guilt implies a crime, and as Nitro said, triangles aren't enforced speedlimits. The justification he gave as far as I can see is entirely legitimate, and a problem anyone could have encountered in the same place, if the signs aren't up at a decent distance there's no way you can be down to 20 by the time you get to the workers. Unfortunately I think the fault lies with them on this one!

     

    As for the other "incident", overtaking isn't a crime and as far as I can see there's no reason the overtake should have been considered "unsafe". Perhaps if the OP had been back with more details about exactly what their complaint was (because reading the first post, the complaint seems to be "He was going faster than I liked and his car is loud") we could make a better assessment, but the OP appears to have vanished.

     

    Re: The quicker car, I own a fairly quick car. But that doesn't make me drive it quickly where it's not very safe to do so (I guess it helps that I'm a sissy). The guy says he goes up to Duke trackdays often so I would guess he's going to get the most use out of it there.

  3. there's excuse and not a very good one..........."went past at about 50mph and had slowed down a fair amount"........so you entered the road works at over 50 and drove through them at 50..........that's very advanced deano. and couldn't be bothered to stop and make the situation safer for all the other drivers. at least you were "diving" within your limits though

    perhaps that's the problem deano, check your certificate again......you're an advanced diver and not a driver.

     

    Sorry but I must ask this question seeing as you've a bee in your bonnet.

     

    Have you been certified as an advanced driver?

     

    just to add to your first comment........my brother is a road worker and whilst he might spend an fair amount of time leaning on his shovel he does have quite a few close shaves with loonatic drivers on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. Deano is obviously one of them and seems totally oblivious to his actions. He likes to harp on about his advanced diving skills but certainly doesn't demonstrate them. that hopefully explains the bee in my bonnet.

     

    Oblivious? I suppose that's why he slowed down and was able to give a full justification for why he hadn't slowed down previously (the sign not being out).

     

     

    driving past a line of 4 or 6 cars is not safe, cannot be. You cannot tell what may happen on the nearside, even if you can see ahead. Of course the cars should be far enough apart to allow overtaking one at a time and that is what you should do.

    It worries me that you hold this belief and (presumably) have an opinion in court. There are numerous places on the island where you can pass 6 cars safely, especially if they are travelling slowly and you have a car with some decent punt.

     

    Also guys i went past the guys at about 50mph and had slowed down a fair amount but would of been impossable to slow to 20mph in the space of time, i have a loud car which makes it apear faster than it is by the sound it maked. Also at no point have i said i dive at my limits on the roads its not something i would do hence why i am a regular up at duke trackdays i save driving like a loon for the track not the road

     

    there's the excuse and not a very good one..........."went past at about 50mph and had slowed down a fair amount"........so you entered the road works at over 50 and drove through them at 50

    Reads to me like he was slowing whilst going through them, and doing about 50 as he passed the workers. Which makes sense. Not sure why you're assuming it means he slowed to 50 then thought "Fuck it, that'll do" and carried on at 50.

     

    at least you were "diving" within your limits though

    perhaps that's the problem deano, check your certificate again......you're an advanced diver and not a driver.

     

    When half your argument has to revolve around typos, your argument is probably pissweak. Just something to bear in mind.

     

     

    ....i assume this, you assume that.......what does it matter, the fact remains he was speeding.............period !!

     

    there is obviously some kinda gay love developing between deano and yourself which is fine but it's clouding your judgement HeliX

     

    Ahh, run out of decent arguments so now you have to resort to calling me gay? Priceless.

     

    And no, the only thing I have a "love" for in the context of this conversation, is "innocent until proven guilty." Rather than the "innocent until alleged guilty by some bloke walking his dog" that you appear to use.

  4. Also guys i went past the guys at about 50mph and had slowed down a fair amount but would of been impossable to slow to 20mph in the space of time, i have a loud car which makes it apear faster than it is by the sound it maked. Also at no point have i said i dive at my limits on the roads its not something i would do hence why i am a regular up at duke trackdays i save driving like a loon for the track not the road

     

    there's the excuse and not a very good one..........."went past at about 50mph and had slowed down a fair amount"........so you entered the road works at over 50 and drove through them at 50

    Reads to me like he was slowing whilst going through them, and doing about 50 as he passed the workers. Which makes sense. Not sure why you're assuming it means he slowed to 50 then thought "Fuck it, that'll do" and carried on at 50.

     

    at least you were "diving" within your limits though

    perhaps that's the problem deano, check your certificate again......you're an advanced diver and not a driver.

     

    When half your argument has to revolve around typos, your argument is probably pissweak. Just something to bear in mind.

  5. Just taken the dogs out in the car for a walk. Birch Hill Crescent closed both ends for resurfacing so could'nt get to my house. Noticed they waved taxis and goods vehicles through but not me.

     

    No leads for the dogs so parked up and chanced a walk home. Dogs decided to have a little deviation onto their nice warm, soft tarmac and left an impressive set of tracks. Chap on the shovel began one of those quaint country dances and went a funny purple colour whilst shouting oi ! and Hey! like Morris men do.

     

    Dogs thought they would join in and have a little jig on the tarmac as well. Oh! how I chortled on the way home.

     

    Typical bloody dog owner. Takes dogs to shit elsewhere, usually in a place where people like to walk and doesn't take leads for said dogs.

     

    Your dogs obviously run where they want to, annoying other people and obviously you can't control them, or won't control them, because you let them run all over the tarmac.

     

    Lazy and a bully, you are a person who does not care about others or your own dogs.

     

    Glad you got a laugh out of it, at the tax payers expense. I bet you loften augh at other peoples misfortune.

     

    Shame on you.

     

    Careful, if you project any harder they'll be using you to light up the castle.

     

    EDIT: Oh, by the way, misplaced apostrophes are usually typos not spelling mistakes. Unless you writing "loften" instead of "often" is also a spelling mistake. And "augh" instead of "laugh".

  6. Yeah dude been a full member of the IAM for nearly 3 years smile.png

     

    that's great that deano.......so when was it that they taught you that if it's "more dangerous to slam by brakes on" (you're certainly not an advanced speller) then it's ok to carry on regardless !!

    surely the proper actions of an advanced motorist like yourself should have been to slow down gradually and then pull in and point out to the road workers that there was no early warning signs and that the lights weren't on/flashing. surely that would've have been the right thing for an advanced driver to do ?.....................I await your next excuse Dude !!

     

    Typos != bad spelling.

     

    And uh, if it's more dangerous to slam your brakes on than to continue at your current speed, of course you continue at your current speed.

     

    Honestly you seem like someone who's just trying to wind people up but has no real reasoning for your comments.

  7. witnessed by several people on different occasions driving like a dick.

     

    He was adamant that he was a safe driver and that he was capable of pushing his car to it's limits on open roads

     

    Except neither of these things has happened in this thread. One person said on one occasion that he believes he was doing more than he should have been past some road workers, and the "defendant" has not said that he pushes the car to its limits, merely corrected the misunderstanding after the OP (where the overtake took place) and the reason behind the alleged roadworks misdemeanour.

  8. Nowhere do I see an admission of "driving like a loon" (not that that's recognized as an offence anyway). Seeing as I wasn't there, and neither were you, there is very little point speculating, but if it was on the work-run it's entirely possible that the workmen had only just arrived and not put out the warning signs yet, in which case what exactly can you do to anticipate that? If you assume that around every corner is going to be workmen you'd drive everywhere at 20mph. And that wouldn't be very good would it? :)

     

    Anyway, it's ridiculous to speculate as neither of us were there. And the person who originally brought it up was neither in possession of a speed gun, or acting as a police officer. So it's all of very little relevance as their "estimation" of speed could be out by any amount in either direction.

     

    But of course you knew all that and, based on your previous comments, are merely trying to be obtuse.

    • Like 1
  9. looks like i will be getting my 340bhp after all!!!!

     

    Are you sure you're an advanced driver? Only you seem a bit retarded to me.

     

    What's retarded about buying a car...?

  10. Methinks the lady doth protest too much about his superhappiness.

     

    If you don't want people commenting on your missus, then leave her out of it, you juvenile prick. It is absolutely - one hundred percent - your fault that anyone is discussing her

     

    Except it isn't. You'll notice there are plenty of people NOT commenting on his missus, because it's a dick move. It's also rather ironic you call him juvenile.

    • Like 1
  11. You don't have to edit out number plates anywhere as it happens, since they're publically viewable when walking down the road. Of course it's nice to do as a courtesy and to stop cloning.

  12. This guy services both our cars, top mechanic..

     

    I often wonder how someone who is incapable of servicing their own car feels qualified to pass judgement on the standard of work carried out by persons who do. What has he done then that makes him stand out from other mechanics? After all, a monkey can service a car to an acceptable standard.

     

    ...........and you feel qualified to pass judgement on the standard of work carried by a monkey?

     

    I dunno, he is a professional shit-flinger.

  13. Yeah, the Evo interior is a little... plastic. But that's what you get when you design the car entirely around performance and everything else is an afterthought! Besides, there's not much time to contemplate the dashboard when a quick squeeze of the throttle puts you into orbit :D

  14. Ignoring the obvious Godwin's law violation, are you honestly saying tolerance, reason, knowledge and intellectual thought was what made Hitler decide on genocide?

    I am saying that the intellectual roots of Naziism (and Soviet Communism) lay in the Enlightment thinking. I therefore reject your invocation of Godwin's Law - there is a valid basis for what I say.

     

    There is nothing intellectual about desiring to remove a race from the world. There was also nothing in the Enlightenment about mass murder being a good idea.

  15. In my personal opinion, Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. I think it is terribly wrong. I can very well understand the way in which the Catholic and Anglican Church are viewing the matter. If they are to be forced by law to enable Homosexuals to adopt children, then it's better to just get out now. Leave society to face the problems that society creates for itself.

     

    I cannot accept that we as a society would allow a child to be brought into the homes of a Dad and a Dad.... or a Mum and a Mum, thus depriving that child of the contribution of both parents that even nature itself decrees.

     

    Sorry a bit late to the party on this one....

     

    "Nature itself decrees"...Really? Nature just called and said you're talking b&&&cks.

     

    Look at wolf or lion packs for example. Yes the Male and the Female make the pup/kitten/whatever, but then thats the end of the envolvement of the Male. Usually the Alpha Female and the other Females raise the pups with next to no involvement with the Males.

     

    But hey, as long as the Idiots Guide to getting it wrong (or the Bible as it is also known) says Nature is doing it wrong then who are we to argue?

     

    That post you quoted was 2007. So yeah, a little bit late... :D

  16. I see what you're saying, but morality is not (or shouldn't be) a hard concept to grasp. For the most part, if it harms another being or thing, it's immoral. If it doesn't, it's not immoral. If you follow those guidelines it's difficult to go far wrong.

    Helix - your tenets can give rise to various quandries. Leaving aside the question of just what "causing harm to another being or thing" can itself mean (pure opinion is going to lead to different answers) how does your view reconcile to killing other animals for food, poisoning ringies, etc., etc.? How about killing or injuring someone or something because it damages your interests e.g. your food supply? How about killing one thing in defence of another. Personal opinions are still going to ensure that, even if averyone were to accept yout tenets, there would be widespread disagreements.

     

    Of course, that's why I included the "for the most part" disclaimer!

    When harm is being caused whether you act or not (for your example of self defence), the side should be taken dependent on who was acting immorally. i.e. if a murderer breaks into a house, and you cause harm to him to stop him killing someone, you took the side of the person who was behaving morally.

    With regards to killing animals for food, it's a tricky one and always will be. Food is necessary for the survival of our species. As such I can abide by using animals for food, however I DON'T agree with some types of food. For example lamb. I would say it's immoral to kill an animal for food before it's had a decent shot at a decent-length life. I would also call using anything smaller than a chicken for food immoral, as I weight the value of the life higher than the amount of food you'd get from it.

    As I say, that one is always going to be subjective (even with a divine law).

×
×
  • Create New...