Crackdown on Beach Speeders

excellent.

what are you doing near a computer, anyway? shouldn't you be manacled in the kitchen preparing a 3-course dinner for your man?
#

Bloody internet fridge, I knew they were invented for evil.

This is not true and is basically discrimination. Individual ability varies greatly across superficial criteria like this, and the determining factor should of course be ability. NB a huge number of collisions are caused by younger drivers. Would you want to discriminate against them, too, on the grounds of lack of experience?
Yes it is true, and yes it is discrimination, and yes it is legal to discriminate in this way.

Old people DO have slow reaction times (and more accidents), on average
Men DO drive too fast (and more accidents), on average
Women DO have more accidents per mile, on average
Women DO have less fatal accidents per mile, on average
Young drivers DO have more accidents, on average
New drivers DO have more accidents, on average

"White van man" etc

All of these are reflected in insurance premiums. Of course, they are only stereotypes/averages and do not reflect everyone, or even the majority of people. I was once a new and young driver, I didn't have any accidents, crashes, or insurance claims. Does that mean new and young drivers are all safe? Obviously no.

Whilst you may live in a fantasy world where everyone is equal, that is not the case. Having done data mining at university, I can tell you that even your postcode can affect your insurance premium.

Whilst you may live in a fantasy world where everyone is equal, that is not the case. Having done data mining at university, I can tell you that even your postcode can affect your insurance premium.

I think that Oliver's main point is more - where do you end the discrimination once it starts? Who judges where the discrimination starts? Majority rules?

Thank goodness governments are run by postcode data...wait...nevermind...

I think that Oliver's main point is more - where do you end the discrimination once it starts? Who judges where the discrimination starts? Majority rules?

Thank goodness governments are run by postcode data...wait...nevermind...
The fact is that driving standards are set so low as to allow *anyone *to drive. It shouldn't be someone's right to drive on the road, it is a priveledge which should be taken away if they are a danger to other citizens.

Women DO have less fatal accidents per mile, on average
Y

Fewer. Fewer accidents.

I'm terribly sorry, please do ignore me.

kills self

You're saying "people can drive at the speed limit if they want, but should accept the responsibility of their actions".

I disagree with that. It should not be up to drivers to decide whether they can drive dangerously or not.

Oh no that's not what I meant, for example in one of my earlier posts I was talking about people driving at a dangerous speed while still being under the speed limit, having deadly consequences.

Might sound a bit draconian, but I believe anyone over the age of 70 should not be allowed to drive, at all. We, the taxpayers, should provide taxies instead. I also believe that cars should have trackers in them which automatically fine anyone who drives above the speed limit, repeatedly doesn't indicate when turning, etc.

That first bit I kind of agree on, personally I think people over a certain age should have to be retested every so often, the second bit I don't agree with, as with the speed limits people will assume that by obeying these tracking devices they are driving safely, which will not be the case.

This would also allow the speed limit to be dynamic (e.g. slower round corners, near schools etc). Thirdly I believe everyone should retake their driving test every three years. I also believe people should undergo a driving 'endurance' test about a year after they pass the normal test... driving round for about an hour to see if they got into any bad habits, not signally, driving dangerously etc.

A U.S. government study calculated the "Average Economic Cost per Death" in 2006 at $4,000,000. This is due to the fact that they cannot generate $100k a year for the economy anymore, because they're dead. There were 3,592 deaths on the road in the UK last year. Multiply those two numbers together gives you $14.4 billion. That's just the economic cost alone, let alone all of the pain and suffering caused. That's also not including people who are not killed but injured in a car accident.

Cars need to be taken more seriously, and the government needs to stop wasting money on retarded little schemes like in my original post.

I agree with all that.

The fact is that driving standards are set so low as to allow *anyone *to drive. It shouldn't be someone's right to drive on the road, it is a priveledge which should be taken away if they are a danger to other citizens.

Definitely agree with that

bournemouth got three pages on lfgss
big up!

[quote=ta2]Might sound a bit draconian, but I believe anyone over the age of 70 should not be allowed to drive, at all. We, the taxpayers, should provide taxies instead. I also believe that cars should have trackers in them which automatically fine anyone who drives above the speed limit, repeatedly doesn't indicate when turning, etc.

That first bit I kind of agree on, personally I think people over a certain age should have to be retested every so often, the second bit I don't agree with, as with the speed limits people will assume that by obeying these tracking devices they are driving safely, which will not be the case.[/quote]Hmm, I guess you're right to be honest. Not that our opinions will have any effect on the actual laws - I'm sure they will remain as useless as they currently are, do you have any better suggestions?

if we aren't good enough to drive do we get a tax reduction so we don't have to pay for the roads we're not allowed to use?

if we aren't good enough to drive do we get a tax reduction so we don't have to pay for the roads we're not allowed to use?

...You mean you don't use buses/taxis, and your food isn't delivered by trucks/lorries?

if we aren't good enough to drive do we get a tax reduction so we don't have to pay for the roads we're not allowed to use?
Obviously you wouldn't have a car so wouldn't have to pay road tax or fuel duty. On the other hand you would still be using the roads, by taking a taxi, bus, and buying stuff in the shops which is transported on the roads. Which brings me to the point of foreign vehicles which have even worse safety standards than us (particularly the vehicles, rather than the drivers).

Snap! =P

Snap! =P
Great minds.... ;)

this might be love...

...You mean you don't use buses/taxis, and your food isn't delivered by trucks/lorries?

Obviously you wouldn't have a car so wouldn't have to pay road tax or fuel duty. On the other hand you would still be using the roads, by taking a taxi, bus, and buying stuff in the shops which is transported on the roads. Which brings me to the point of foreign vehicles which have even worse safety standards than us (particularly the vehicles, rather than the drivers).

But you can see what I'm saying right, you can see the point i'm making?
The beauty of speed cameras is although clarkson moans how much they cost they pay for themselves and for other things too.

if we aren't good enough to drive do we get a tax reduction so we don't have to pay for the roads we're not allowed to use?

No we just get called muppets "WHAT! You don't drive?!" I've heard that since forever...

But it is just as well as I am foreign, female and old, can you imagine what I would be like on the roads. Jeeez!

And imagine how good you'd feel being told you were too thick to drive.

actually thats what happens now when peole fail their tests.

I would take it as a compliment frankly.

But you can see what I'm saying right, you can see the point i'm making?

Not really, if I've followed your point about tailored taxation correctly.

if we aren't good enough to drive do we get a tax reduction so we don't have to pay for the roads we're not allowed to use?

Unless thin people should get a tax rebate as they don't put as much of a strain on the NHS, and so should rich people, as they don't use the state school system, and people on benefits should be penalised when they finally get a job as they've had more than their fair share of tax-payer's spondulicks, and...oh, hang on, we appear to have stumbled in to a right-wing vortex....

Not really, if I've followed your point about tailored taxation correctly.

Unless thin people should get a tax rebate as they don't put as much of a strain on the NHS, and so should rich people, as they don't use the state school system, and people on benefits should be penalised when they finally get a job as they've had more than their fair share of tax-payer's spondulicks, and...oh, hang on, we appear to have stumbled in to a right-wing vortex....

I was thinking more along the lines about solving problems caused by excessive legislation with further legislation, leading to the state we're in now.

Unless thin people should get a tax rebate as they don't put as much of a strain on the NHS, and so should rich people, as they don't use the state school system, and people on benefits should be penalised when they finally get a job as they've had more than their fair share of tax-payer's spondulicks, and...oh, hang on, we appear to have stumbled in to a right-wing vortex....
Fat people can eat less and become less fat, solving the issue for free (and infact saving themselves food money), therefore they should have to pay for their strain on the NHS.

On the other hand, rich people can still send their kids to state school if they want, and a lot of unemployed people cant help it (though I personally think more people were on the dole before the credit crunch than needed to be).

Also smokers and alcoholics pay for their bad habits. Obese people get away with it.

But what if they want to be fat?

But what if they want to be fat?
Either cough up the money, or don't expect to receive a disproportionate amount of medical treatment for free.

Either cough up the money, or don't expect to receive a disproportionate amount of medical treatment for free.

I'm so glad you're not the King of this stuff :D