home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / uk / transpor / 280 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-21  |  1.3 KB  |  29 lines
  1. Newsgroups: uk.transport
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!demon!gtoal
  3. From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
  4. Subject: Re: Rear end drivers, etc
  5. Message-ID: <C17D7D.Ay4@demon.co.uk>
  6. Sender: news@demon.co.uk
  7. Nntp-Posting-Host: pizzabox.demon.co.uk
  8. Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
  9. References: <1993Jan18.132859.2943@lsl.co.uk> <C14E1C.DpC@demon.co.uk> <1993Jan20.144627.2953@lsl.co.uk>
  10. Distribution: uk
  11. Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:57:13 GMT
  12. Lines: 15
  13.  
  14. In article <1993Jan20.144627.2953@lsl.co.uk> snail@lsl.co.uk writes:
  15. :And you miss the point entirely. The people who advocate a higher limit
  16. :have also been saying educate people so that they know how to drive safely
  17. :and considerately. Someone doing so (regardles of the speed limit) would not
  18. :drive at such speed in the conditions you describe. Indeed I doubt if you'd
  19. :survive at 50mph, for the circumstances described. So that nullifies that
  20. :argument, despite the fact that Motorways don't have 'little dips' in them.
  21.  
  22. As someone who used to regularly do London to edinburgh by M1/M6, I can assure
  23. you there *are* places where you come across totally unexpected fog.  However,
  24. if you want a better argument - pick a 'safe speed' over the limit and tell
  25. me what happens when you unexpectedly blow a tyre.  Or some kid decides
  26. to play 'chicken' on the M1 right in front of you, drunk, at 1am...
  27.  
  28. G
  29.