Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,672
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
Religions.
Things I don't like (TIDL) thread
- Thread starter Maccy
- Start date
Driving at less than the speed limit isn't "unnecessarily slow driving" (careless driving). Nor is it driving dangerously, driving without due care and attention or driving without reasonable consideration for other road users (rule 144).
Careless driving is where the motorist's driving falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
No one is going to get prosecuted for driving at 25 in a 30 or 35 in a 40. You couldn't legally argue those speeds weren't those of a "competent and careful driver".
Genuinely, do you have vision problems? I've already clearly stated, and the OP clearly stated nobody is talking about 5mph under the limit.
The post you argued with and quoted did. I suggest you have mental problems.
Eh? I suggest you look at the source of the discussion...
Post number 1112. Let me know what that says.
You stated the speed limit is a target which we should all be aiming for. It isn't.
Perhaps you have your own vision/understanding problems if you can't see/understand the post you quoted and the reply you typed.
Is this the hill that you want any remaining credibility to die on?
Slow driving can be a prosecutable office. It has already been linked.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/driving-offences
It's why I can only conclude he has vision problems. He's made something up about driving 5mph under the limit and completely ignored what the CPS say.
Unnecessarily slow driving can be prosecuted as an offence. The "competent and careful driver" can drive moderately below the speed limit and won't be prosecuted.
There is no rule or law which says the speed limit is a target which was the claim I was responding to.
Why get hung up on the specific numbers? I was giving you some rough examples of what someone is not going to be prosecuted for because there's no rule or law which says the speed limit is a target.
Because that's what we're talking about...why post something that's not what we're talking about? Did I bring melons or the planet Jupiter in to the conversation? They're about as relevant as your 5mph under the limit crap.
You stated "Actually it is a target" [the speed limit]. My posts were in response to your statement.
I'm not sure if you know what you're bringing to the conversation. You made a statement which I responded to and then accuse me of being "off topic" and my giving you some illustrative examples as "crap".
Perhaps you shouldn't make statements if you don't want to be challenged on them.
And as I, and another have pointed out, twice now, driving under the limit can see you prosecuted. There are laws in place to do this, hence why, as I stated you should drive as close to the limit as is safely possible. You aim for it. It's a target.
Your 5mph comments had, and still have no relevance to the point being discussed when the figures given were 40 in a 60. You don't aim to drive at 40mph no matter what.
Your initial comment wasn't addressed to driving at 40 in a 60. You quoted the "It’s a limit, not a target." post which was made before those numbers were mentioned.
It's an irrelevant point anyway. Your statement was to the effect that everyone is required to drive to the "target" of 60 in a 60 if conditions permit. Anything below 60 is not allowed.
The speed limit isn't a target, as I've pointed out. It's the maximum speed and no one is required to drive at that speed.
No. If that was the case I would have said you must drive at the limit. Not to it. I wouldn't have said it's a target, it would be an absolute. Words are important. Learn them.
I quoted the post after the numbers were stated...
Words are indeed important. Please explain to me how in this post:
you're not saying you have to travel at the speed limit if conditions allow.
