Scamera , s-THE End £££

Spokey, once again I find myself agreeing with your rantings.

If this country still had a decent rail network then more goods could be transported by train, reducing the number of HGVs on the roads.

How about this for a way of reducing congesgion and removing the idiots who can't drive very well. Make the driving test a lot harder. You only have to watch a program like 'Britains worst driver' to appreciate how flawed the current system is for making sure people can opearate a car safely before they are allowed on the road.

- personally I can't understand why we don't have variable weather/visibility dependent motorway speed limits- they seem to work OK in Germany.

-highly visible Gatsos I don't have a big problem with, provided they are not too numerous in number, and genuinely placed at accident blackspots. If it was visible well ahead, and you didn't see it, you probably weren't paying attention. Ones that are well hidden are just dangerous; who hasn't instinctively braked for one, only to find that a) there was no need, and b) you nearly caused a pile-up behind you??

-as a concerned road user (I drive, cycle, and I'm a biker too) I am amazed at the nonchalance with which so many people hurl a ton or two of steel around, chatting to their passengers, eating a sandwich, talking on the phone, reading books, newspapers, or even watching 'kin TV I ask you! This dozy/irresponsible behaviour has cost the lives of about one of my cycling acquaintances per year over the last ten or fifteen years, mostly in accidents where they were run down from behind by people who were simply not looking where they were going properly.

- I for one therefore do NOT approve of the BMWCC running ads for the service that allows the TV in some BMWs to be modified to allow operation when the car is in motion; even if there is the ridiculous sop of a 'for non-highway use only' cop-out clause.

-it also seems that being an 'advanced motorist' is no guarantee of safety (or honesty) either; last year another vehicle pulled out in front of me, (and note, I actually saw, too late, the guy just not looking at all before he pulled out) and the ensuing collision wrote off my car for me. Had I been on my bike I would have been seriously injured. This guy turned out to be both an advanced motorist and an advanced motorcyclist, and lied on his claim form. I shall be taking him to court in due course.

-a 100mph speed limit? No thank you. Although modern brakes are fantastic, modern drivers are probably worse if anything. Plus it takes about twice the distance to stop from 100mph as it does from 70mph, and we still seem to have plenty of accidents at that speed...

-I think it is probably prudent to note that I gather the guy who developed the seatbelt (or it may have been the airbag) ended up being a bit depressed; although he did save a lot of lives, by and large people felt safer, so just drove faster, and had bigger, more dangerous accidents instead. He ended up by concluding that the biggest single safety feature in a car would be a big metal spike sticking out the steering wheel....

-don't get me wrong, I will stick my clog down too, now and then; but there is a time and a place for everything, and frankly circumstances on the UK's narrow and crowded roads don't often match up.

-drive safe....

Thats not political John, just shows up our two tier judicial system.

Have a look at the advanced motoring thread youve been on before, with reference to Stephen Perrys post ( I only hope he still wants to sit the test, and I can help him ).

What I find interesting, especially with Stephens post as a reference, is how Brunstromes daughter got off just because the cps decided the newspaper man hadnt been trained to use a radar gun !!

My labrador "teddy" could use a radar gun.

One rule for them, another for us, and I speak as an "ex".

Its getting worse and worse, I too find myself wondering when the revolt will be.

Backtracking on some thing said about changing speed limits, without a new notice of change.First Every council Must advise by Law in the Local press, of intention to amend, and invites comments or objections.If you see a notice, you can find out the reason why and in some examples, NO logic is used whatsoever.Its a quickie partnership ploy, to get lower limits spread out from both directions, meeting in the middle.

If you belonged to the Association Of British Drivers, lots of good advice on the way the authorities plan & carry out their battles against the motorist.As the public is so busy with trying to earn a living and survive, its no wonder that the adverts in local press get missed, Its just what is counted on-no hassle or fuss, job done.

If in the example given of No signs showing the 40mph limit, had been changed to 30mph.The Law had been broken by the authority, and or Police and one of the good Driver Lawyers on the Forums, would have had a field day in court against them.Many regulations & laws used to prosecute motorists are not worded correctly, or legal for that purpose.If you brought the Highways Signage Book-WH Smith, and checked them against whats really on the road Signs, and used to prosecute drivers, you might think again, if you receive a notice of Intended prosecution.

Nigel,

The system stinks. Uninsured drivers should be shot!

Glad to here that no one was seriously hurt. After all you can always buy a new car but it's not always so easy to fix people. Doesn't bare thinking about.

No they didn't bother putting up any 30 signs. The 40 limit was a 1/4mile stretch of road between two 30 limits so they just took the 40 signs down. This was a couple of years ago now. Now they put up big signs saying that the limit has changed.

I do have legal cover and am I right in thinking that MIB is this fund to cover uninsured losses?

The incident with the uninsured driver was when I had my last car. In fact about a month before I got my BMW. The damage was not too bad. The guy hit me head on and pushed the bumper in and dented the crossmember behind. I popped the bumper out and it didn't look too bad. The policeman I spoke to said that the fund for uninsured losses were only really interested if the damage is a lot more severe of if people have been injured. Anyway I just traded the car in against my BMW, accepting a bit less than I would have got for it had it not been dented. The car was only worth about 1k trade in before the crash anyway so I accepted £750 for it.

I'm in the same position Peter, do you have legal cover on your insurance ?

Do you know about the MIB ?