Disabled slur

[chesters1]

speeds never killed anyone otherwise all F1 drivers would be dead ,very fast acceleration from standing still kills pedestrians or de deceleration very fast from moving vehicles kills drivers

Edited November 13, 2007 by chesters1

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Issues? Naar , not at all Phil. I believe we should all get along and live under the trees in a big commune wearing nothing but fig leaves as clothing , but , that ain't gonna happen.As for thinking things through.....i am one of the very rare few that sees this life for what it actually is. I see as much "behind closed doors" life as say , a policeman and think i have a 'better than most' opinion of people than most joe-public.

I disagree. Coppers spend so much of their time dealing with scum bags that they tend to treat everyone as a scumbag/potential villain. In other words, if you work in a profession that deals with a problem of one sort or another, you tend to start focussing on those problems. Imagine for example being a volunteer for the Samaritans. After a shift on the telephone, what do you think you'd 'see' when you came outside? Would you see all the smiling faces or would you see the sad one and wonder what his/her pain was?

As i have already said Phil , comparing the skies to the roads is a no-brainer.Simply because there aren't many 'joy-fliers' around who fancy pinching a 747 for a quick buzz.

Sorry MrM, but we were discussing the less abled, not your local car tealeaf!

[mr motorola]

speeds never killed anyone otherwise all F1 drivers would be dead ,very fast acceleration from standing still kills pedestrians or de deceleration very fast from moving vehicles kills drivers

So a scenario then

A disabled man on the M1 , speed limit 70mph , and the disabled driver is doing 35mph (lane 1), a car travelling the same way doing 65mph (lane2) comes up to pass the disabled driver and he has to swerve to (lane 2) to avoid a swan stood in lane1 straight in front of him Should the disabled driver have

1. stopped.......well he was only doing 35 mph

2. pull into the hard shoulder

3 pull straight out into lane 2?

 

Bare in mind that this is a split second decision and the contributing factor IS the speed.

 

This is actually a true story , watch out for it on 'ROAD WARS' Sky one.

 

The disabled driver actually pulled straight out into lane2 and the driver doing 65mph was just about to pass him as he did , resulting in the faster driver going straight into the armco barrier and flipping over causing severe head injuries BUT he survived.

 

Oh well , so long as speed isn't the killer eh.

 

"If he had been going with the flow of traffic and maintaining that speed then it would have been and avoidable incident"

were the traffic officers remarks.

 

When , as Sky usually repeat things i will have it and post it up on youtube for you all to see.

[chesters1]

i remember the time when all disabled vehicles went at 35 ,little blue 3 wheelers they were.

you are picking on a sole occurrence how many accidents were caused by fit people? using your criteria all accidents are caused by disabled people ,using statistics if everyone was disabled the roads would be far safer

never been behind a lorry when it suddenly veers into lane two ,disabled lorry driver i suppose? i expect two lorries side by side one vainly trying to overtake the other for miles gets more near misses in lane 3 than your example , the drivers must be disabled also to make this error of judgement ofcourse

Edited November 13, 2007 by chesters1

[Janet]

I understand the point you're making about dangerous driving, but where does his disability come into it? I've seen many similar "Sunday" drivers pootling along like that. They can't all be disabled, surely?

 

Janet

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

I understand the point you're making about dangerous driving, but where does his disability come into it? I've seen many similar "Sunday" drivers pootling along like that. They can't all be disabled, surely?

 

Janet

 

Now steady on Janet, we don't want you getting in the way of a good smear campaign here!

[chesters1]

i think they must be! either physically but more probably mentally.

i'v seen "disabled" drivers come out of a on ramp and go through 3 lines of traffic in one go in an effort to go somewhere,dangerous B's and yet fred tootling around at 35 is picked on! cant drivers see how close they are gettig to the vehicle in front or is 70 the slowest you can go?

the most annoying thing is drivers hogging the middle lane and refusing to go into the inside one they all cant be disabled surely

Edited November 13, 2007 by chesters1

[barry luxton]

STOP IT STOP IT!!! Its like hugging bloody sandpaper!

 

 

Sorry guys, been asleep, just trying to keep up now, how do you know Phil?

[mr motorola]

i remember the time when all disabled vehicles went at 35 ,little blue 3 wheelers they were.

you are picking on a sole occurrence how many accidents were caused by fit people? using your criteria all accidents are caused by disabled people ,using statistics if everyone was disabled the roads would be far safer

never been behind a lorry when it suddenly veers into lane two ,disabled lorry driver i suppose? i expect two lorries side by side one vainly trying to overtake the other for miles gets more near misses in lane 3 than your example , the drivers must be disabled also to make this error of judgement ofcourse

Just a minute chesters , you said that speed dosen't kill ,and luckily on this occasion it didn't.

My point is the conflicting speeds that actually created this ugly incident .

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Sorry guys, been asleep, just trying to keep up now, how do you know Phil?

 

My missus keeps tellin me! Yours told me to, and I quote "go and have a ruddy shave, you remind me of my husband"