[Closed] What rule or legislation do you hate the most?

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 - Member

Read 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 - Member

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.

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 male

You'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.