BMW Buying Advice - 525d

mjt · 11 Apr 2011 at 14:23

Spamalot said:
The article says the limit is 100 km/h.

There are some 'motorways' around Bergen and Oslo which have a 100 km/h limit, but almost all other roads across the country have a max of 60, 70 or 80.
Some stretches of dual carriageway around the country sometimes have 90 km/h, but in general the limits are stupidly low.

So yeah, a 525d is plenty sufficient

Robbo · 11 Apr 2011 at 14:24

mjt said:
Who's mentioned 120 mph?

The bloke in Norway wasn't even doing a ton in the equivalent of a 50. (But then all roads are max 90 km/h outside of built-up areas in Norway, which is pathetic)

I was caught doing the equivalent of just under 80 in a 40. Expecting a 2 week ban at the most with a fine.

Driving at twice the national speed limit here would be doing 120mph, would it not?

90 km/h is about 56 mph here I think, so barely under the NSL we have here. It is a bit slower on smaller roads I know, but then you have to consider the winter driving conditions over there are a bit dodgy at best.

You can go over 90km/h on a motorway over there cant you? So that would probably equate to about 70mph here, or just under.

If you do nearly double the speed limit, you should expect to get in trouble. If you think the speed limits are 'pathetic', then thats too bad.

mjt · 11 Apr 2011 at 14:29

Robbo said:
If you do nearly double the speed limit, you should expect to get in trouble.

Of course. However 6 months prison is somewhat extreme, don't you think?
OK, prisons in Norway are more like a student flat than a Thai prison, but it still ****s you up. The guy ended up with severe depression and all sorts of problems.

Robbo said:
If you think the speed limits are 'pathetic', then thats too bad.

Thanks.

So you think having a maximum limit of 50 mph on all single carriageways isn't a bit on the low side?
The greens even wanted to reduce that down to 43 mph (70 km/h), but thankfully nobody's having any of it.

Robbo · 11 Apr 2011 at 14:31

I agree its somewhat harsh, but then you shouldn't speed in the first place.

You know the law and the punishments, you have to abide by it, and its not hard to understand why it is in place.

mjt · 11 Apr 2011 at 14:33

Robbo said:
I agree its somewhat harsh, but then you shouldn't speed in the first place.

You know the law and the punishments, you have to abide by it, and its not hard to understand why it is in place.

I beg to differ. Having lived in rural western Norway for a year, and driving (fast) on the worst roads in the country, I can see why there's such a low limit on some roads.
However on wide, long and relatively safe stretches of road, there's no reason why it can't be higher.

Robbo · 11 Apr 2011 at 14:34

Maybe so, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't higher so dont go over it and risk being caught.

mjt · 11 Apr 2011 at 14:36

Robbo said:
Maybe so, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't higher so dont go over it and risk being caught.

Robbo · 11 Apr 2011 at 14:37

Is there any need to be childish?

PMKeates · 11 Apr 2011 at 15:03

Robbo said:
Is there any need to be childish?

Says the person who is going "but the law is the law" when discussing whether the law is right. The existence of a law is the worst justification for the existence of a law imaginable.

Robbo · 11 Apr 2011 at 15:08

PMKeates said:
Says the person who is going "but the law is the law" when discussing whether the law is right. The existence of a law is the worst justification for the existence of a law imaginable.

Saying you dont think the law is right is not a valid justification for not being punished for breaking it.

Mjt is saying that he feels the speed limits are too low in some places, which is fair enough but doesn't mean you can break it and then complain when you get punished.

Also a lot of the things mentioned above are incorrent anyway, you wont be thrown in jail for breaking the speed limit by a little bit. You will if you keep doing it or if you are going WAY over the limit.

PMKeates · 11 Apr 2011 at 15:29

Robbo said:
Saying you dont think the law is right is not a valid justification for not being punished for breaking it.

Of course it is. A law is not right by default, and so challenging it when in violation is a perfectly legitimate and justified position to take. The practice of jury nullification exists to allow for such a situation where despite the evidence and the law you are not convicted.

Robbo said:
Mjt is saying that he feels the speed limits are too low in some places, which is fair enough but doesn't mean you can break it and then complain when you get punished.

If a law was created stating that Robbo is not allowed to breath, and your continuing to breath is a clear criminal offence, is it justified for you to be punished, and can you not complain when punished? I mean, you knew it was a crime? The situation is extreme but it demonstrates that the theory that if there is a law and you break it, you are absolutely completely unable to oppose the existence of the law and should suffer your fate willingly, is completely wrong.

The idea of it being reasonable to unconditionally jail people for driving at 96 MPH on a 62 MPH motorway is a little extreme.

Robbo · 11 Apr 2011 at 15:37

I know what you mean, but what I'm really getting at is that the speed limits there are perfectly fine anyway.

How could Norway set up a system that lets you do 120km/h on a road one part of the year, and only 70 km/h another part of the year? It would be impossible to uphold as winter sets in at different times and weather conditions are not consistent. As we know in this country, common sense does not always apply when it comes to the weather.

People do not get unconditionally jailed for speeding on a motorway, you may get jailed if you do twice the speed limit going through a built up area (past a school for example), which is perfectly justifiable.

The only situation where you would be jailed speeding on a motorway is if you are doing a ridiculous speed or you have prior offences.

PMKeates · 11 Apr 2011 at 15:47

Robbo said:
People do not get unconditionally jailed for speeding on a motorway, you may get jailed if you do twice the speed limit going through a built up area (past a school for example), which is perfectly justifiable.

I was only using the link provided by someone earlier (http://www.roadmc.com/default.asp?pubid=14) to calculate the limits. However, unquestionably, Norway's speed limits are among the lowest and most vehemently enforced in the world.

Robbo said:
How could Norway set up a system that lets you do 120km/h on a road one part of the year, and only 70 km/h another part of the year? It would be impossible to uphold as winter sets in at different times and weather conditions are not consistent. As we know in this country, common sense does not always apply when it comes to the weather.

You don't need really a 'system' that allows you to do 120 for a period and then 70 for another. If you wanted one, you could simply use condition-based limits. A sign with two limits on and if conditions are bad you are meant to abide by the lower one. If someone tries to defend a charge based on the conditions being fine, then a 'man on the Clapham omnibus'-type standard of care test could be made.

It's only if you want a massive, automated, police-state system of all-pervasive perpetual prosecution that the setting of an appropriate speed limit that varies based on seasons becomes a problem. If less emphasis was put on absolute numbers and more on what is reasonable it wouldn't be an issue.