Driving

[drinkfeckarse]

Adam I know you said you won't be replying to this thread again so I'll fire away

I am surprised you cannot see why your attitude provokes the responces it has. You are basically saying that you are an above average driver (how do you know this or is this your own assumption and what would you class as an average driver?) and because you are a car nut ( "I know cars" etc) this means you are somehow more qualified to comment on what constitutes speeding etc.

As has been pointed out, the laws are there for a reason and are not for you to decide what suits you and when. Yes we all have been over the speed limit at times but I don't see how that makes anyone a hypocrite, it is not always easy to maintain the exact speed of a speed limit for various reasons. What I think people are getting at is that ( to me anyway ) you are coming across as someone who is almost proud to speed even excessively and without any doubt, this is dangerous.

Excessive speeding constitutes bad driving IMO. Just because you are intelligent doesn't mean you can see into the future and see a potential accident waiting to happen around the corner which just might have been avoided if you had been going just 10 mph less....

[Lionel Ritchie]

I haven't and won't be voting in your poll Adam as I feel that, be it by accident or design, it's highly leading.

I'd encourage others who haven't and won't be voting to say so and maybe we can torpedo this 2:1 myth.

Your definiton of Speeding "with care" fits into my definiton of bad driving. As we're not going to agree -we have the speed limits.

For what it's worth -I dunno whether I'm an above, below or bang on average driver and frankly couldn't give a tuppenny fcuk -so I haven't taken any umbrage at your claims to be a an above average driver*. Like I've said elsewhere - if I'd my way I wouldn't allow Jensen Button drive more powerful than a 1.2L on an Irish road til he's 26.

I drive to the limit and certainly on our 60mph/100kmph roads I'd surpass it within 10mph if I'm overtaking. Beyond that I tend to believe if you need to be there sooner -leave sooner. So I make no claims of sainthood.

*I'm probably a better drummer than most on here (what?!? Stewart Copeland's just registered!!!) and probably a worse guitarist.

But in the sack ...I'm the fcukin' man!!!!

[strangeirish]

But in the sack ...I'm the fcukin' man!!!!

Rumour has it that you are a bit quick in the sack. Have you had any accidents and if so, does that make you a good or bad fcukin' man?

[sligoman]

If you don't want to be a mod on Foot.ie any more, there are better ways to stand down.

I know their is, I was just giving my opinion on the poll that it would make a better indication if the poll was public. I always make my polls public just in case anyone does accuse me of fixing the results!

[dfx-]

I voted Bad Driving..and would continue to vote that way. I will remain of the opinion that bad driving/bad drivers are at the root cause of accidents, not speed.

we have the speed limits.

Yep, you'd think if speed was the problem, those limits and the obsession on catching offenders (in the wrong place and for ridiculous reasons, but howandever), would stop the deaths occurring wouldn't you? But no, we also have people in the wrong lane, cutting across each other at roundabouts, on the phone, no seat belt, falling asleep at the wheel all happening instead, not concentrating on the road, driving recklessly etc etc. Bad drivers driving badly - imo, far more dangerous.

I'd agree with what most of what dahamsta has posted about the topic, both now and in the past. As for the banning of NY Hoop though, that's a different story.

[hoops1]

NY HOOP was told by Mr Dahamsta to get his Ma to write out
a note or he wouldnt let him play anymore! childish stuff
because he didnt agree with him
One of the few posters that makes any sense.

[drinkfeckarse]

I voted Bad Driving..and would continue to vote that way. I will remain of the opinion that bad driving/bad drivers are at the root cause of accidents, not speed.

Nobody is technically wrong and bad driving/bad drivers cause more accidents than speeding I would think. My argument though is that speeding, especially excessive and aggressive speeding puts you into the bad driving/bad driver bracket....

[Dr.Nightdub]

I haven't voted because there's no single definition of "bad driving". DFX listed a load of transgressions which would qualify, but that list is by no means exhaustive.

By the same token, what Adam means by "with care" and what I interpret it to mean may be the same or may be miles apart. For instance, I know a guy who used to own a Maserati 3.2litre something-or-other - one Sunday morning he took it up to 140mph (that's miles, not kilometres) just to see what it felt like but did so on a long straight stretch of the M50. In that instance, you could say he was speeding "with care", given the environment.

But that's a fairly niche definition of "with care". Apart from such exceptions, then I'd say "Take it to the limit, one last time - but no further".

[John83]

...how many crashes are there on formula one circuits each year? and they are supposedly the best drivers in the world ffs nobody is Immune from crashing...

While I don't want to debate your point, that's a dreadful example. They're deliberately driving to within a hair's breath of their cars' tolerances, not just going a little faster than is recommended.

[Student Mullet]

1. Calling someone's opinion "stupid" is the same as calling them stupid. If use has a problem with an opinion, they should refute it. If they don't, I will ban them for breaking the rule on personal abuse. If they (or you) don't like the rules, they should find another site.
2. My statement about averages should be obvious to all but a pedant.
3. The petrol station was in a rural area. I would have thought this was an obvious conclusion to draw, given the context.
   
4. How many cars do you see in the country without lights on?
5. You're already aware of my rule on personal attacks, so condider this your final warning: call me or anyone else "idiotic" or similar on Foot.ie again and you'll be out on your ear.

adam

Adam,
You claim to be a good driver and then ask a stupid question like this. There is more than just cars on the road. Pedestrians, most bicycles, stray animals and a hundred other things that you can meet on the road are unlit at night.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Adam,
There is more than just cars on the road. Pedestrians, most bicycles, stray animals and a hundred other things that you can meet on the road are unlit at night.

And then of course there are the narrow roads in country areas; where you used to be able to do 60 mph ;even when there are bends and twists in them where you will find most accidents actually occur, and not on Motorways here the Gardaí are shooting fish in a barrel as regards speeding.

[dahamsta]

You claim to be a good driver and then ask a stupid question like this. There is more than just cars on the road. Pedestrians, most bicycles, stray animals and a hundred other things that you can meet on the road are unlit at night.

How many posts in the thread have you read Student Mullet? You've conventiently ignored the posts this was in response to, in particular the one where I explained why the area in question is a black spot; you also seem to have missed the post where I explained that calling people's opinions or comments "stupid" is not acceptable on Foot.ie. If you want to respond to something I've said, knock the cherrypicking on the head and read the thread in it's entirety; then respond without purposefully trying to get a rise out of people. That's how the Current Affairs forum works. If you want to continue in your current form, I'd suggest registering on Boards.ie and trying their Politics forum.

adam

[Student Mullet]

Adam,
I have read the post you were responding to. It said;

(sure you can see 'lights' from further away, but what about those magical objects that don't have "light things"??)

to which you responded;

[*]How many cars do you see in the country without lights on?

The question was stupid because it ignored the point which crc was making, that there's more than just cars on the road.

In the post where you explained why the area in question is a black spot you said;

The crash happened during the day, not at night when you can see other cars because of those "light" things they have.

When combined with the fact that you've dodged the question of unlit objects at night a couple of times in this discussion, this gives me the impression that you think it's particularly safe to drive fast at night because you'll see oncoming cars by their headlights and that your driving seems to take little account of unlit objects. This is why I questioned if your driving is as good as you claim.

On the procedural issue you raised (and feel free to move this section to a more relevant place) I did read the post (you may note that is is the same post which I quoted earlier) and I disagree with it. You can't have a rule which says 'attack the post, not the poster' if any attack upon a post is going to be interpreted as an implicit attack on the poster. If you require an example, please see here, where you were not calling Gareth an idiot but his suggestion idiotic;

That suggestion is not just idiotic, it's offensive.

I gave my opinion, that your question was stupid, and I gave the reasons why I hold that opinion. I believe that I have acted entirely within the forum's rules.

[dahamsta]

I haven't dodged any question. I was talking about a particular incident, I can't help it if someone else wanders off topic and expects me to wander off with them.

As to my response to Gareth, that was wrong and I'll edit it. Calling someone's post "stupid" or "idiotic" results in flame wars (this is a fact, not an opinion). Please don't do it again, particularly in this forum.

adam

[drinkfeckarse]

I won't be replying to this thread again.

You did well to last 10 days in fairness, I bet you were itching to respond at times

[Student Mullet]

I haven't dodged any question. I was talking about a particular incident, I can't help it if someone else wanders off topic and expects me to wander off with them.

As to my response to Gareth, that was wrong and I'll edit it. Calling someone's post "stupid" or "idiotic" results in flame wars (this is a fact, not an opinion). Please don't do it again, particularly in this forum.

adam

Grand so, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll keep within your new rule since you're happy to apply it to yourself aswell.

[Shelsman]

Stupid Question ( for the Poll ). My answer:

Speeding is bad driving.

[dahamsta]

You did well to last 10 days in fairness, I bet you were itching to respond at times

Thread Tools > Unsubscribe from this thread. Only noticed the thread again it in one of my wanders around the site.

Grand so, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sounds good to me. CA would be a better place if more people could do that, rather than jumping down people's throats because they have a different view. (General comment, not directed at you.)

I'll keep within your new rule since you're happy to apply it to yourself aswell.

I'd appreciate that.

adam