That’s because you directly equate speed with danger and fear, and think that only you can decide what a safe speed to travel at is.

Bit of an assumption isn’t it? Surely if he’s abiding by the legal limits then it’s basing a decision on the road designers, traffic engineers, road police etc. People who speed think they know better than the professionals, hence they speed. Superiority assumption I guess.

Chap who ran it passed away.

Yes, I remember that, but I thought the campaign was carried on.

Whatever happened to “Safe Speed” haven’t hear of them for ages?

Going back to what I said earlier, almost half of the drivers on the road are below average ability.

Therefore the law has to cater to the lowest common denominator. Although that would mean that everyone would be driving around with a man with a red flag walking in front of them. This is inconvenient so we accept that there will be a risk* and speed up accordingly.

The risk ends up with about 1700 deaths and about 21,000 seriously injured (total causalities nearly 192,000 – 2014 figures: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401295/quarterly-estimates-jul-to-sep-2014.pdf)

Personally I’d like the rules tightened up, getting places faster shouldn’t be worth this kind of harm.

the fact that capitalism and globalisation have achieved what Che Guevara and communism never could – the transfer of wealth from imperialist nations – is not lost on me and amuses me to no end.

Ah cr*p, bang go my socialist quasi-communist sympathies. Going to have to rethink (short and medium term) capitalism now!

Seriously though very good point Tom, and one I hadn’t really thought of having been sucked into the whole Brexit depression. Is it simply the case that the recent isolationist/protectionist policies from UK, US etc. are just a weak kickback against globalisation and automation? A half-hearted attempt to stem the tide of a new world-wide society that threatens to knock the rich West off it’s pedestal?

I really hope so, that would make the next ten/twenty year economic outlook a bit more palatable if only from the perspective of improving the lives of billions* of humans in developing countries.

*To the detriment of millions in the developed world, but then you can’t make an omelette…

I got my wife a FitBit that was incompatible with her phone.

Though I did cook a curry in the evening.

Unicorn ivory, mermaids tears and minotaur blood.

My sister trod on one well over a metre in diameter 30 odd years ago in Cardigan Bay, Wales. Had to stick her in a hot bath, apparently the poison denatures if the temperature rises too high above that found in the sea.

Cool story bro etc…!

My hope and it’s a remote one is that someone can come up with a breakthrough in energy production. Whether that’s nuclear fusion or some other technology, if we could develop a boundless low pollution energy source

History suggests these kind of technological leaps happen during times of greatest stress – famine, conflict etc. I hope that we can learn our lessons from the past.

but some of the things happening right now are things we have more control over.

Yep, I agree that the dismantling of our healthcare and social care system is something we do have more control over compared to, say the threat of MAD in the cold war era. I’m more than happy to do my bit in protecting these institutions.

Jeez, this is getting kind of depressing now, I’m starting to agree with OP.

That’s all true wl, but I would also suggest there is a spin put on it for whatever reason. For example, recorded mental health issues are soaring, but are they simply being recognised and recorded more? Previously kids would’ve been branded introverted, difficult or similar. Now there are formal diagnoses and treatment options for Autism, ADHD, etc. It’s not necessarily true that these things are getting worse.

I completely agree about not burying your head in the sand, and the under resourcing of the NHS and social care. However, I think that is different to some kind of significant generational change, as P-jay says there were significant issues when I was the age of my kids, and I’m sure there will be when my kids are my age.

Doesn’t every generation of parents worry about their kids and think exactly the same?

How life, the world, politics etc. is going to hell in handbasket compared to previous times?

I’m sure they do, and each time their deepest fears are usually avoided. It’s easier to feel scared these days due to the accessibility of information*, but I doubt much has changed in terms of fears for our children, and the future of the world we live in. Ultimately human nature hasn’t changed, there are still fools and still heroes, the rest of us just sit somewhere in the middle.

* Conversely it’s easier to feel reassured too, just choose your source of information wisely!

The Koran can’t be translated since it’s the literal word of Mohamed as he spoke it. Once translated it’s no longer the Koran.

So that’s why my (fairly old) printed copy I titled “The Meaning of the Illustrious Quran”. Interesting.

Also, I wonder whether there would be any benefit in lumping religion in with philosophy as far as formal education is concerned. Both seek answers to questions that traditionally couldn’t be answered by the more practical sciences/arts.

but religion can give problem people a convenient excuse to justify their actions.

People are pretty good at making up all kinds of reasons to justify their actions, religion is a pretty good one, but political ideology is another one, pseudo-evolutionary theories seem to get rolled out often too I’m sure I heard dodgy genetics being used at one point too.

All rubbish mind.

Someone mentioned that religions ‘pray’ on the vulnerable. In my experience, they help the vulnerable. And of course they want them to become believers too, and why wouldn’t they if it means they might be saved?

Well, quite. That’s one way of looking at it. Alternatively they are just looking at increasing their club membership and power accordingly. Of course, I am being facetious! Generally I agree, most of the religious people I have had the pleasure of meeting have been nice and a fair representation of the positive aspects of humanity. I suppose it’s two sides of the same coin ultimately….

esselgruntfuttock said:
Ok, 2 quick questions, to everyone. What denomination do you consider yourself to be & do you ever go to your place of worship, if you have one? (apart from weddings & funerals)

Agnostic – I like the theory of infinite knowledge, together with Arthur C Clarke’s quote: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. IMHO it is the journey, not the destination in seeking knowledge/truth that is important.

No place of worship, too much choice of who to worship and what the purpose would be anyway!

The food smells lush. I’ll be first in line when they have an open day!

Like all organised religions, they prey on the vulnerable. I was a Christian for many years based on a top notch hot cross bun! Have been tempted by the aromas from the local Muslim Cultural Centre too. God* help me if the Scientologists ever team up with the chocolatiers…

:-)

* Any of them, all of them. Not really fussed which one/s.

evidence that poorly implemented positive discrimination does not work.

FTFY

If I was a judge or auctioneer or maybe a proper barista I’d be tempted, they are pretty. Couldn’t justify it to myself.

I don’t have a proper coffee machine anyway, be a bit pointless with a caffetiere.

Peyote – anything governments do to try to control the behaviour of car drivers, make them pay their way or to make them stick to the law is immediately greeted by a huge backlash with ” war on motorist” headlines in the Daily Wail etc. So governments shy away from doing anything.

All true I’m afraid TJ. The motor lobby is a powerful force and it’s backed up by a significant (majority) population of the country, so anything that penalises them is frowned on. “There but for the grace of god” and all that.

Only when we appreciate the negative impact of motoring (KSIs, pollution, social segregation etc.) fully will we start to recognise the responsibility associated with it and then start to control the negative aspects properly.

Surely it should be readily apparent that rather than focusing all our efforts on “oh, you’ve done 45 in a 40 zone despite it actually being perfectly safe, here’s a £100 fine and three points,” our time would be better spent teaching people how to drive in a straight line without ****ing hitting anything in the first place?

Are all our efforts focused on speed reduction though? Or is it just the one aspect that gets peoples backs up*?

There’s lots of other road safety initiatives going on, as well as road efficiency projects. Reducing speed limits/reducing speeding (two separate things) are just another tool in the box.

*Incidentally taking road space for cycle lanes seems to come with similar ire from our motorist kin in a lot of urban areas.

Thanks for the explanation Cougar, it wasn’t necessary though!

Like I said Dez, it wasn’t a dig…

Define a lot?

Well, I’m not going to start going off on AADT, or peak periods or stuff like that. I have to do enough of that in my job! Suffice to say typically I need to filter into a row of traffic travelling around 50 odd mph. I really can’t remember the last time I had free reign to choose my own speed.

Sounds like it, but I think you missed the : Commonbleedinsense bit

Nope, I chose to ignore it. It’s so often used to justify stuff that isn’t justifiable on closer inspection (that wasn’t a dig, just one of my own bugbears).

Like ANY driving, speed to suit the conditions, get up to 70, see a lorry and no gap in front, slow down. Commonbleedinsense, I believe it’s called.

So, razz it up/down the slip road (not sure if we’re talking grade separations here) to 70mph, see a lorry, slow down and filter into the line?

What’s the point in razzing it? Surely there aren’t that many slip roads that are 500m long too make it worth zooming up to that speed then slowing down?

I don’t know maybe my experience doesn’t match yours, but it’s very rare I join a motorway that doesn’t have a lot of traffic on it.

Ultimately I suppose it’s more about the speed differential, rather than absolute speed. Of course, when you hitting potholes on poorly maintained motorways I’d rather do it at 70mph than at 100mph anyway!

How about the fatigue argument? “I can’t drive slowly (under 50mph) because it’s so boring I end up falling asleep/getting distracted. I have to drive faster to maintain my focus and concentration therefore driving faster is safer!”

Or the perennial “I drive a powerful car: I pay massive road tax for the right to be able to make progress as I see fit” I suppose it makes sense in terms of the polluter-pays-principle, but unfortunately it does tend to give a sense of entitlement.

Also, do people really join/leave motorways at 70mph? I live (and drive) in the SE so most of my experience is M25, M3, M4 and M40 all of which tend to have artics using the inside lane. I thought these were restricted to 52mph, so joining around that speed would be sensible no?

Birdstrikes are worse at 100mph than at 70mph, so are blow outs and other similar failures. Motorways are not sterile environments so there’s always the chance of something unexpected.

Plus there’s the pollution, inefficiency, excess consumption arguments.

Speed justification is always narrowed down to the simplest factor when they are asked why they choose to do it. Ultimately though, it’s just because they want to and don’t really care about any impact.

as I understand it, the abuse is not neccesarily the violent act that we assume it to be

the paedophile can convince their victim that the relationship is healthy and loving..

the paedophile can convince their victim that the abuse is a result of the victim’s failings as a human being..

the paedophile can convince their victim of anything that they want to
all of this can be mixed in with threatening and violent behaviour

It’s standard behaviour in any abusive relationship I think. Considering how frequently it plays out between adults (transpose the word “paedophile” with “partner/spouse” above), the ease with which adults can manipulate children is a magnitude greater. Of course, it is also during the part of the life where they are growing up, so they don’t necessarily know it isn’t normal therefore the persuasion element is even smaller than that required by adult to adult abusers.

I’m kind of staggered that there is such a lack of empathy to victims of all types of abuse really. It’s the age old “Why don’t they just fight back?”, “Why don’t they ask for help?” and all the rest of the victim blaming responses that get churned out. When really we should be asking “Why did the abuser rape/abuse?” difficult question to answer though.

Not just workers rights threatened either, the raft of Environmental Legislation prompted by EU Directives is also under threat under the cover of “protecting the economy”.

But then these are laws that are broken routinely and have a blind eye turned to them too. Unsurprisingly given the kneecapping the Regulators have experienced.

Should never have left the primordial soup!

There’s nothing new under the stars.

‘Twas ever thus.

I’m sure every generation looks back on previous ones and wonders whether the good back then outweighed the bad and compares that to their present setup.

It’s interesting to do it though, and for some it makes them feel better, for others worse. Ultimately life for most of us is a struggle, it’s just the problems that manifest themselves change a bit.

Isn’t 50/50 the starting point though? Then it’s subject to a long drawn out process depending on the various assets and responsibilities involved.

I don’t think anyone has said it is automatically 50/50 just that it’s as good a place as anywhere to start.

Everyday is a school day on STW!

Thanks for the lesson Whitestone, it’s an interesting subject.

So as a result we are getting Americanisms back to us which upset people like my father (who’s 83) without them realising that they’re actually old English words and phrases from the 17th and 18th centuries.

Like “color” and “theater”? I was once informed that many of the American spellings were originals, and that the weirdly written ones we use in Britain were changed to make them look more French. Apparently being French was pretty cool at one point.

Peyote I don’t want to a citizen of a United States of Europe. I am British and proud of what that represents in terms of our history and our future. I am happy to live in most countries but I’d like to remain British thanks very much. The EU has proven incompetent at just about everything why would I switch being British for that disaster ?

Fair enough. I do though, I’m quite happy being British, English and European. I don’t think being part of any of those negates the other and I’m interested in why anyone would?

If I may draw a tenuous parallel, I’m sure some Californians regard themselves as both Californian and American without falling into the “doublethink” that you appear to dislike. Why does it have to be one or the other?

As far as incompetence goes, I’m sure we can all think of similar disasters that the British have inflicted on themselves and others. Likewise pretty much any group of people who consider themselves a particular “tribe”. Certainly I have been and continue to be embarrassed and proud of my heritage…

For the love of God Peyote we can’t have Johnny euro foriegner in charge of us….. Much better to bend over for the rest of the world.

Johnny Foreigner may do a better job though!

I once heard an interesting thought experiment: rather than allowing the electorate of a given democratic sovereignty to vote for who they wish to govern them, the entire rest of the world should be allowed to vote instead. Apply this to the entire world and see what happens!

My brain started to turn to mush when I thought about the implications, and the potential for corruption, but it was an interesting idea nonetheless.

I think being possessed by a water demon would exclude you from the competition.

Shame. Would’ve been my only chance at proving myself.

So it’s more of a perception thing then?

In a philosophy class whilst debating this point i suggested i hit them repeatedly with a chair until they decided it was in fact a real solid object that actually existed rather than a social construct. Again i struggle to get why folk could believe such a false thing

Wouldn’t the pain and physical damage to the person also be argued away as a social construct too though?

the logical thing is deeper political union, not break up.

I agree.

Just out of idle interest, what is the problem with a United States of Europe? Assuming it is based on democratically elect representatives in each council I don’t really see it is an issue. Or am I just being a mug?

Also, couldn’t there even be a middle ground option. Rather than having a federal European Nation, why not something akin to the UK, the United Kingdoms of Europe maybe?

I dunno, maybe I just haven’t read up enough on the Eurosceptic perspective.

Wasn’t this an episode on “Round the twist”?

Have you ever, ever felt like this…

i think that for a large percentage of people, they still understand what it actually represents, the remainder are those that think the Daily Mail is a real newspaper, that press “like” to every Facebook page that states the country is being over run by Moozlims and whip themselves up into a frenzy about a non-story like footballers being stopped wearing a poppy armband and how England is going to be great again whilst working out how they can move to Spain……..

“And for the smaller percentage, the remainder, wearing a red poppy legitimises their viewpoint” would be the counterargument.

Guess it depends how many are in each column.

I can see exactly why red poppy wearers wouldn’t want to be associated with the above smaller percentage, hence the ire on this thread I guess…