For me it's the serving suggestion rule that says if you show, say cornflakes in a bowl with milk & a spoon, you have to print 'serving suggestion' over it, what do they think I'm going to do with them, make cakes? 😉
OK, I'm being flippant, but I have just eaten a packet of nuts that were shown in a bowl with 'serving suggestion' written in the bottom of the picture.
What gets your goat???
Not too sure, now that you've mentioned nuts, it's either packets of nuts saying 'may contain nuts', or bikes having no right of way on footpaths.
For me it's the serving suggestion rule
If you're bothered by that, try working on a building site which doesn't allow shorts & tee shirts (risk of skin cancer) and requires you to wear long sleeves, long trousers, hi viz, gloves, goggles, ear-defenders, mask, and hard hat, indoors, in summer, in temperature of 30 degrees, just to use a drill - which has to be PAT tested every 3 months even no one [i]ever[/i] dies from electrocution from 110 volt power tools.
Two building workers still die every week mind ......
Not seen the no right of way on footpaths Ian, I thought you wern't supposed to ride a bike on a footpath 😉
ernie, didn't you inadvertently answer your own question?
ernie, didn't you inadvertently answer your own question?
Not really - because most of it is bollox. They take away 'common sense' and introduced pointless rules without any thought - such as PAT testing. And much of it actually makes the situation more dangerous, such as gloves getting caught in power tools, goggles getting misted up because of dust masks, sweat-soaked jeans hindering your movement as you climb scaffolding etc. And then of course, they ignore dangerous stuff like broken glass littering the place 😕
planning - policy set by planners but decisions made by small time poloticians that dont understand planning!
The no singletrackworld.com at work rule.
It used to be the 'directors only' door but I got out of that place,
Having to pay taxes and then watch them get squandered 👿 and obviuosly not being allowed to ride my bike on footpaths.
Oh and any law or rule which once enacted doesn't get enforced fully. Thinking of speeding, parking offences, death by dangerous driving. If someone has been caught speeding, fine them, give them points, don't dilute the rule and send them on a couple of hour course. If it's too difficult to enforce a rule, don't enact it. If it's really that important then back it up with massive punitive penalties to act as a deterrant.
Everytime they introduce more unenforceable rules (either practically unenforceable or they haven't got the guts to enforce) they chip away at the public's respect for the rules. People start making up their own mind which rules to obey and which to ignore.
Right off to kill aliens on the Wii before that gets banned too.
(PS I like rules and regulations, I just like everyone else to follow them as well as me)
You can make nice cakes with cornflakes.
I hate all rules as they dont apply to me, but the authorities dont seem to realise this.
The Act of Union 1707
They take away 'common sense' and introduced pointless rules without any thought - such as PAT testing. And much of it actually makes the situation more dangerous, such as gloves getting caught in power tools,
I remember asking two old builder chaps I knew..."Hey what happened that chap with the dreads who was working with you the last time I saw you?" "Didn't you hear?" they said, "he got his dreads caught in an heavy duty SDS drill/breaker and pretty much ripped his scalp off the side of his head. They did a good job stitching back on mind, you'd hardly tell!"
Still makes me shudder thinking about it.
I hate the one about hunting with hounds. Because it doesn't go as far as me being allowed to pull the red-jacketed cock off his horse and set a pride of lions on him.
GB/USA Asymmetrical extradition
any 'rule' or 'law' enforced by a smug, shortarse, retarded, sanctimonious, jobsworth phucker with no regard to the context or circumstances in which his precious rule has been broken
Planning is certainly winding me up at the moment. It's a ****ing conservatory, it's only one floor and all our neighbours have said they don't mind you trumped up little nazi.
He even said when he came round 'I don't understand people wanting to expand their houses, I live in a little terrace and we're quite happy there.'
English and welsh right of way
any 'rule' or 'law' enforced by a smug, shortarse, retarded, sanctimonious, jobsworth phucker with no regard to the context or circumstances in which his precious rule has been broken
You are [i]sooo[/i] going to get into trouble with the mods iDave .....
ernie_lynch - Memberernie, didn't you inadvertently answer your own question?
Not really - because most of it is bollox. They take away 'common sense' and introduced pointless rules without any thought
Isn't the problem that those that make the laws cannot guarantee 'common sense' so have to make rules to accommodate those without it?
To us it may be a case of natural selection in process, to others it may be a case of life or death*.
* 😉
Those who have loads of kids yet don't work and WILL NOT WORK because they don't have too! Why the phook do we as a country make it so easy for these scum bags! ****ing mugs me off!
Did anyone mention the "work trial" thing?
I know it's not legislation, but it probably will soon be, so bear with me. And it will not interfere with the financially comfortable with cosseted whelps, but it may well do in time.
Instead of interviews for low paying insecure jobs, we now have "work trials."
Ok, I can understand an employer wanting to try out a potential employee for a few hours, or a day even...but did you know that many british citizens now are required to work for at least a week without pay in order to "apply" for a shelf stacking job?
OK, you get your JSA, but in reality that's a week stacking shelves for £64 a week. And only one in ten of you will get that three month variable location "be prepared to travel 1.5 hours either way" shelf stacking position afterwards. So much for minimum wage. So much for a first world nation.
That's something that annoys me.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
She's looking really good lately too whilst doing the gardening in her short shorts. 😀
The pathetic so called Hunting Ban. Doesn't help anyone except chippy class warriors like Darcy.... 😉 Total waste of parliamentary time and an unnecessary piece of legislation.
On a serious note, I find it amazing that there's a legal minimum temperature for a working site, but no legal maximum. IMO, heat is more dangerous than cold, as you can put on more clothes to keep warm, but there's little you can do to keep cool!
Oh, and the 70mph speed limit is too low on motorways for modern cars. A law I have a personal association with, as my grandfather and his mates were somewhat responsible for it happening!
IT dept's rule saying i can't use the wired network because the computer is my own (which i have to because work computers aren't equipped for me to do my job!). The wifi network doesn't let you print or send email ffs!
as my grandfather and his mates were somewhat responsible for it happening!
Why, what speed did they drive around at ?
Almost everything related to airport security- no this, no that, behave yourself, don't do anything that could even be remotely taken the wrong way, don't smile, take yourself too seriously- all for what? Nothing. Just make every innocent person feel guilty because of perhaps 30 people in the whole world. Seriously, am I, a young white guy, really going to blow up a plane in the name of Allah? No! So leave me alone and let me keep my belt on and take enough shower gel to last my holiday, please. I also don't approve of how airlines get away with murder in charging for stuff.
Oh, I also don't like paying for parking, speed cameras and footpaths.
When I'm king...
not being able to cycle on footpaths!
CF, I would love to meet you, you surely can't live up to your on-line persona!
Are you seriously saying it was your relatives that drove up the M1 at 150 mph in an e-type?
Or your forefathers that started hunting in England?
For someone with such an opinion on how we should spend our money, you show very little wealth in your actual posts other than words.
Proof please,... sir*
*said jokingly, but in a put up or shut up way 🙂
On a serious note, I find it amazing that there's a legal minimum temperature for a working site, but no legal maximum
I think there is, sort of. I think the temperature shouldn't be more than 10 degrees above the ambient temp outdoors.
As for motorway speed limits - the capabilities of modern cars are of no consequence - its the humans, not the cars that do the driving.
Anything that restricts where I can go in the countryside - I hate keep out/off/away signs that seem to be everywhere and threaten prosecution. If we had the same access legislation here that I used to enjoy in Scotland life would be much enriched.
If we could gain this freedom I would gladly give up another... there should be a minimum speed limit too. I get utterly, utterly hacked off stuck behind people driving around the Lakes at 20mph, slowing for the corners and NOT pulling into passing places/laybys to allow the snake of traffic behind to get past.
The dole!
I think there is, sort of. I think the temperature shouldn't be more than 10 degrees above the ambient temp outdoors.
When did that become legislation?
Seriously, am I, a young white guy, really going to blow up a plane in the name of Allah?
A young white guy blew up a train in Madrid in the name of Allah, and a young white guy tried to blow up a restaraunt in the south west in the name of Allah.
As for motorway speed limits - the capabilities of modern cars are of no consequence - its the humans, not the cars that do the driving.
That has been a bugbear of mine for years, why can a 100 (insert any age here) year old in a 1950's morris minor do the same speed as a 30 year old in a new Ferrari designed to stop on a dime?
Skidartist- was he a british student who'd never even been to the far east?
Anything that restricts where I can go in the countryside - I hate keep out/off/away signs that seem to be everywhere and threaten prosecution. If we had the same access legislation here that I used to enjoy in Scotland life would be much enriched.
TBF Scotland's population is ten times less than England's, but has 3/5 of the land area.
As for motorway speed limits - the capabilities of modern cars are of no consequence - its the humans, not the cars that do the driving.
Yes, but the limits were set based on the cars capabilities, not the humans (anybody who's incapable of driving on a motorway at 80 in good conditions shouldn't be driving on a motorway IMHO).
As for motorway speed limits - the capabilities of modern cars are of no consequence - its the humans, not the cars that do the driving.That has been a bugbear of mine for years, why can a 100 (insert any age here) year old in a 1950's morris minor do the same speed as a 30 year old in a new Ferrari designed to stop on a dime?
Urgh, and why does anybody want to do a 100 on a road used by normal people who just use it as the only way from A to Z?
Selfishness? Lack of empathy? Criminal austism?
TBF Scotland's population is ten times less than England's, but has 3/5 of the land area.
Which means there is even more reason for the majority of the population in England to be allowed to go where they like, rather than being told they can't by a tiny minority.
[i]If we could gain this freedom I would gladly give up another... there should be a minimum speed limit too.[/i]
How the hell do you enforce a *minimum* speed limit?!
Re the original question though, I'll go with access laws as well. Along with any other archaic and out-of-date legislation. Also, laws that were railroaded through as a kneejerk reaction without being thought out - gun laws in the wake of Dunblane/anti-terrorism laws after 9/11 & 7/7 for example
Yes, but the limits were set based on the cars capabilities, not the humans
Reaction time is much more of a factor than the car. Imagining that you're more attuned than anyone else is folly, even top flight fighter pilots have reactions speeds that are barely above the norn.
And consequence is much more of a factor than the car. The car doesn't have to deal with the consequences
Skidartist- was he a british student who'd never even been to the far east?
Mohammad Rashid Abdulaziz Saeed Alim - known as Nicky Reilly
How the hell do you enforce a *minimum* speed limit?!
I think the general idea is that you nick people driving below a minimum speed limit.
Are guns despite Dunblane 9/11 & 7/7 a good idea after all ?
I had no idea 9/11 or 7/7 caused further restrictions on gun use btw. Why was that - guns where not used on 9/11 nor 7/7 ?
Dr Dolittle - MemberUrgh, and why does anybody want to do a 100 on a road used by normal people who just use it as the only way from A to Z?
Selfishness? Lack of empathy? Criminal austism?
To my shame I have done worse than you quote (on a private track officer) when i was in my teens/twenty's, I now drive to my limits & prevailing conditions, I take absolutely no notice of the speed limit, this also means I drive well below the NSP a lot of the time.
I think you'll find this was covered above whilst talking about common sense. I have seen a stretch of road go from a 60 mph limit to 40, then 30 then to 15 mph because of a bad bend, at no point did the bend change apart from when it was re surfaced to give it more grip with a special coating!
Reaction time is much more of a factor than the car.
Nowadays maybe, not necessarily so much the case when they set the limits, and cars really did have poor brakes etc. Though are you really telling me that reaction time is the most important factor for driving safely on a motorway (and that people are incapable of driving safely at 80)?
I had no idea 9/11 or 7/7 caused further restrictions on gun use btw. Why was that - guns where not used on 9/11 nor 7/7 ?
Read the post again.
aracer - other things have changed apart from car brakes in the last 50 years.
See if you can spot it in this photo of the M1 taken in 1959 :
[img] 
[/img]
There's a clue in the term : "right up your arse"
CaptJon - MemberRead the post again.
Right, I did - thanks.
I'm getting as daft as SFB ffs .....
To my shame I have done worse than you quote (on a private track officer) when i was in my teens/twenty's, I now drive to my limits & prevailing conditions, I take absolutely no notice of the speed limit, this also means I drive well below the NSP a lot of the time.I think you'll find this was covered above whilst talking about common sense. I have seen a stretch of road go from a 60 mph limit to 40, then 30 then to 15 mph because of a bad bend, at no point did the bend change apart from when it was re surfaced to give it more grip with a special coating!
Fasinating!
But what about the knob heads who feel the [b]uuuurrrgggeeee[/b] to do 100 on road that Normal People just use to get from A to Z? Let's have a consensus on the tawts who feel [b]it's in their blood[/b] to emulate hush puppie Clarkson, the unwieldy headed leather blouson clad high waisted stone washed jeans wearing pied piper of the terminally insecure male.
CaptainFlashheart - MemberThe pathetic so called Hunting Ban. Doesn't help anyone except chippy class warriors like Darcy.... Total waste of parliamentary time and an unnecessary piece of legislation.
Masterpiece/masterstroke of politics, that: it got loads of well meaning lefties (obviously I include myself here) het up about hunting whilst not thinking enough about whatever else was going on. No way it would have made it to parliament had there not been all manner of anti terrorist legislation and a war to push through at ther same time.
unwieldy headed leather blouson clad high waisted stone washed jeans wearing pied piper of the terminally insecure male
😆
You've nailed that one, Dr Dolittle!
unwieldy headed leather blouson clad high waisted stone washed jeans wearing pied piper of the terminally insecure maleYou've nailed that one, Dr Dolittle!
Aye. Balls deep, as they say backstage.
.(and that people are incapable of driving safely at 80)
Its not the driving, its the accident. I'm sure people are capable of driving, confidently, neatly and happily at 80, or any other speed. But are people capable of having an accident safely, or as safely? Road deaths are common, whether you are holding the steering wheel, or strapped into a child seat. Any speed limit is arbitrary, but increasing it comes with increased accidents and increased severity of accidents. What greater rate of death and injury is an acceptable increase, if we count it in coffins, widows and orphans, disability and dependancy? And for what benefit? What are the tangible benefits to the public or to an individual of a higher limit? More fun? Setting your alarm clock a few minutes later? Being home in time for East Enders?
Dr Dolittle, stupid is always stupid...
Thats what this thread is about, or have we started on something else?
See if you can spot it in this photo of the M1 taken in 1959
No central barrier to stop the cars smashing headlong into each other at 70/80 mph?
Mmm, yes........ but not quite what I was looking for aracer.
Have another go.
btw, there was no 70/80 mph speed limit in 1959. In fact there was no speed limit at all.
Road deaths are common
Yes, the vast majority of which are on non-motorways. Meanwhile if there's one thing that has changed with cars since the speed limit was introduced, you're likely to survive a crash at at least 10mph more than you were back then - how reckless was a 70 speed limit then?
You could always bring back the red flag man though if you like. I mean if increasing it is such a bad thing, what's so magical about 70 that reducing it to say 40mph wouldn't be a good thing - just set your alarm clock a bit earlier.
Have another go.
No hard shoulder? (how many guesses do I get?)
No hard shoulder?
Erm .... nah, not quite.
I'll give you another clue - vee brakes would have probably been more than sufficient for those cars, disc brakes probably an over-kill.
you're likely to survive a crash at at least 10mph more than you were back then
Indeed - assuming all the cars on the road are brand new, of course. But 'survive' isn't the same as walk away.
I was going to suggest the drivers weren't capable of staying in their own lane, which is the only other thing immediately obvious from that photo (don't worry, I'm sure I can find something else). But are you suggesting the cars didn't need good brakes because they weren't actually capable of going very fast (hard to tell from the photo how fast they're going), hence a speed limit would have been irrelevant?
Indeed - assuming all the cars on the road are brand new, of course. But 'survive' isn't the same as walk away.
OK, so you'd walk away from a crash at least 10mph faster than the crash you'd walk away from back then. Is that better? 😕
Anyway back to rules you hate:
Pregnant ladies being able to wee in a policeman's helmet on request:
Why only pregnant ladies, why only ladies? Why just policeman's helmets, what about their pockets? And why only wee? When people complain that there aren't enough bobbies on the beat, its not about crime and the perception of crime, its because the council have closed all the public toilets.
Evening all.
Also, laws that were railroaded through as a kneejerk reaction without being thought out - ...anti-terrorism laws after 9/11 & 7/7 for example
Actually I think you'll find those laws were very carefully thought out. Lets not call it a "kneejerk" either - I'm sure those who drafted them would more likely use the term "opportunity".
are you suggesting the cars didn't need good brakes
I am suggesting that, as you quite rightly say, modern cars do indeed have much better brakes however, today's drivers exploit those superior brakes by driving far closer and preforming far more dangerous manoeuvres, than was previously the case. This somewhat cancels out the benefit of better brakes.
And for the record, I support varying speed limits - clearly 70 mph in dry conditions on an empty motorway is too lower a max speed limit. Likewise, 70 mph in wet conditions on a crowded motorway is too fast.
Rather than speed cameras on motorways, I would like to see cameras which clock those who drive too close to the car in front - the technology for that must exist. You would probably need several cameras (3 maybe ?) over a short distance (100 metres ?) to allow for the tossers who pull in front of others. Not only would these cameras dramatically reduce the amount of accidents on motorways - and, the amount of vehicles involved in each accident, but they would also allow traffic to travel smoother, and therefore faster..... God I hate the 'foot-brake touchers'.
I hate that rule that says a thread is closed when you mention Hitler.
Blimey, and there I was thinking you were disagreeing with me!
Have we sorted out what that photo is showing us has changed yet though? I think I've spotted something else - there are no flowers on the embankments.
Though I've also realised something else which isn't apparent from the photo - if you're saying discs would be overkill, does that mean the cars are running on 23mm slicks?
Anyway, back to the original topic, I hate the rule which says I don't get paid unless I go to work.
Unless you get placed on gardening leave for, say, driving a bank into the ground. Then you get paid for not working.
I think my least favourite piece of legislation right now is the proposed coastal access bill. Ok, it would be nice for people to be able to see the coast, but honestly, is it really ok for people to feel like they have a right to walk _anywhere_ along the coast? Even on private property? What about on farmland?
Given most people's reputation of allowing dogs of the lead around livestock, it's just an accident waiting to happen.
I'm not going to mention the hunting ban. It is beneath me.
I hate the hunting ban as its a contoversial law that hasnt worked, hunting still happens, the anti's still moan as do that retarded son of Brian Ferry and his chums. It does my ****in head in. Decide what to do and then do it, at least then only one side would moan.
is it really ok for people to feel like they have a right to walk _anywhere_ along the coast?
I say yes, even on private property which restricts access to the coast. But it has to be managed sensibly.
And talking of managing sensibly, or not in this case...The hunting ban. Didn't go far enough.
'No heavy petting' at the local baths.