Boy ([info]boyraceruk) wrote,
@ 2008-03-08 12:33:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Indestructible? _Nothing_ is indestructible.
This is a brave boast. I look forward to pissing on their parade from a very great height.

In other news I'm off to America on Thursday to see the missus, where I look forward to pissing on their St. Patrick's Day parade from a very great height.

(Post a new comment)


[info]boyraceruk
2008-03-08 01:22 pm UTC (link)
Apparently nothing is indestructible except this mobile.

(Reply to this)

[info]1st_of_5
2008-03-08 01:35 pm UTC (link)
*sigh* need i remind you again that we don't let our adults piss on the street like dogs? then again, it would be a great way to renew your passing acquaintance with new york's finest, with whom you seemed to get along so well last time.

=)

as for the parade, irish, irish-american, or whatever, it is truly a sight to behold and a tradition in the city.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]boyraceruk
2008-03-08 04:36 pm UTC (link)
It's NYC, I thought urinating on the street was mandatory?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]1st_of_5
2008-03-09 05:10 am UTC (link)
no i would say it's pretty much universally frowned upon here. i don't know where you get your misinformation...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]boyraceruk
2008-03-09 04:03 pm UTC (link)
Mostly old movies like Kids. And Red vs Blue's introduction to the New York Film Festival "Wild Wild Web" showcase.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]bonedancer
2008-03-09 10:27 am UTC (link)
They may not be able to make an indestructible one, but they can probably make one that's more trouble to damage than it's worth.

All this fuss because a relatively small number of people can't get it into their heads that driving as fast as you like is not a basic human right.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]boyraceruk
2008-03-09 04:12 pm UTC (link)
_Driving_ isn't a right if you want to treat it that way. I don't disagree with speed cameras per se, I disagree with the overturning of the law which made councils paint them yellow. If they're there to slow cars down and enhance safety then camouflaging them and giving them invisible flashes seems to contradict that.

Put it another way, if someone is so poor at driving that they fail to spot a bright yellow camera in time, they deserve the points. If they are an observant driver they will slow down in time, but there can be no distinction when councils are allowed to hide their cameras.

Put it yet another way, the police drive fast but are generally acknowledged to be good drivers, so speed itself is not unsafe. Green or hidden cameras are there to catch speeders, not bad drivers, and I think that revenue should be spent to catch bad drivers, not purely speeders.

Don't get me wrong, if I get caught speeding I take my licks like a man, but I think the covenant between law-breakers and law enforcement should avoid underhanded tactics on either side. I don't give a false name, I don't say anyone else was driving, I don't run cloned plates. They shouldn't be hiding cameras.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]bonedancer
2008-03-09 06:10 pm UTC (link)
Driving isn't a right, regardless of which way I want to treat it. It's a privilege, one that you're granted in return for proving your (relative) competence in a driving test and agreeing to follow the rules of the road. Including speed limits.

The police are supposed to drive fast in an emergency, and take special courses before they're allowed to do so. Most drivers are neither responding to an emergency nor are they experts at driving safely at that sort of speed.

I see the point you're making about deterrence, but surely a camera you can't avoid is an even greater deterrent? At the end of the day, if you stick to the speed limit they can't touch you anyway. Why does it matter whether or not you can see the enforcement mechanism?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]boyraceruk
2008-03-10 05:48 pm UTC (link)
Your argument is sound but our opinions differ. Also you're wrong about the police taking special courses before being allowed to drive fast, advanced police drivers (the guys generally called to pursuits) are taught by driving fast on public roads and officers are allowed to speed to 999 calls in any vehicle after completing a standard advanced driving course such as any civilian driver could attend. As for most drivers not being experts at driving safely at speed, RoSPA state that 95% of accidents are down to driver error. Unsafe at any speed in other words. Speaking from experience (I've been the driver in five collisions, two of which were my fault) I'd have to agree.

But I can see where you're coming from and your point is valid, if I didn't speed I wouldn't have to worry about this.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-03-10 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Fair enough! I'll take your word about the standards of police driving, but I would like to suggest that whilst any civilian could take an advanced driving course, very few do. And at the end of the day, speed limits are not about what a particularly skilled driver could safely do in a properly maintained vehicle - it's about what is, on the balance of probability, safe for Joe Public to do.

"RoSPA state that 95% of accidents are down to driver error" - which would, presumably, include driving too fast for the road conditions? God knows there are plenty of muppets on the roads, but that would seem to be an argument in favour of speed limits and the enforcement thereof, rather than against.

I still don't buy the speed-isn't-dangerous argument. It's basically the same as the "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" hypothesis, and has the same answer: Maybe, but the guns help. More speed means less time to react, less time for the car to respond, and more kinetic energy to spread around in the case of an impact. It makes accidents more likely, and makes them more serious when they do occur.

Case in point: this very afternoon, as I got out of work, some old fella in a big silver Merc came screaming round the corner off Charter Square roundabout, going much too fast on a wet road. He skidded and span out, but ended up more or less straight and accelerated away.

If he'd been going a little bit faster, he might have ended up facing backwards and been shunted by the van that came around the corner a second later - he nearly was anyway, but at least he'd started moving away.

If he'd been going a good deal faster, he'd have continued across the road and onto the pavement and squashed me like a bug.

Yay speed limits!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]bonedancer
2008-03-10 07:37 pm UTC (link)
Uh, that was me, by the way. There are plenty of muppets on LJ, too, so it's lucky for me they don't make you take a test. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]boyraceruk
2008-03-11 03:44 pm UTC (link)
Don't think that I am against speed limits, I am against stupid speed limits. 70mph on the motorway and 40mph on Bochum Parkway being good examples.

And I'm not against enforcement, I'm against enforcement that catches the good with the bad.

I think we're pretty close in our views, but the nuances are a matter of opinion and there we differ. No matter, I am sure it will not affect our friendship and if you ever want to get somewhere fast feel free to give me a call.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…