George W Bush

MadMaz · Post by **MadMaz** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:23 pm

Hi Darryl

You've broken my cover. It's George W replying.

After what happened to that unfortunate motorcyclist just up the road from
me, I'm all for enforcing the speed limit because I firmly believe it will
help save lives.

Nothing's spoon fed to me - I make up my own mind based on facts and what I
see. And agree with the call for greater driver training to lift the skill
factor - especially as our roads are not up to scratch which is yet another
reason not to speed.

The law is the law - and it says a maximum of 100km/hr on the open road.
There's generally a 10 km/hr buffer above that, more than enough to prevent
the need for constant speedo gazing.

If you persistently speed on public roads, you'll eventually be nabbed -
there's a new campaign being launched against speed that's beginning now.

And I support it 100%

Cheers
George W (aka Mark)

Darryl Curran · Post by **Darryl Curran** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:29 pm

I agree, theres a good chance you will evetualy be nabbed for speeding,
doesnt mean you will eventualy have an accident does it. Everything is
circumstantial.
Darryl Curran

Darryl Curran · Post by **Darryl Curran** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:29 pm

I agree, theres a good chance you will evetualy be nabbed for speeding,
doesnt mean you will eventualy have an accident does it. Everything is
circumstantial.
Darryl Curran

MadMaz · Post by **MadMaz** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:07 pm

Agreed, speeding doesn't necessarily mean that you will have an accident,
but it does increase the chances.

Cheers
Mark

MadMaz · Post by **MadMaz** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:49 pm

Biff

The bottom line is this - I've been referring to one simple law - just one.
Keep within the speed limit on public roads for reasons of safety - so why
all the political detail?

I'm not a self righteous soapboxer - very, very far from it mate. But I'll
speak my mind with fear nor favour when important issues like this come up.

I like freedom - and on the track there is that freedom to go as fast as you
possibly can. That's the piece of tarmac, a most often deserted piece of
road, where you can have a rush of blood to the head behind the wheel -
legally.

Race tracks over the decades have been where racing car technology has
proceeded in leaps and bounds and many of these advances incorporated into
present day road going vehicles. Advances made not by some clown roaring
along public motorways and highways at highly illegal speeds.

Keep excessive speed OFF the public roads, and take it to the track. It's
that simple and that's all I've been saying all along.

Mark

Darryl Curran · Post by **Darryl Curran** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:09 am

Mark, I think the political references are because its politics that are
pushing this law. There is false reasoning behind it and if you seriously
believe that if you stick to the speed limit you will be safe on our roads
then you may well be placing your order for your choice of flower now to
push up along with the hundreds of others who thought the same. As the stats
prove, there are far wider issues to our road toll than speed, many in which
no one gives a shit because it cant be policedto a point of revenue
gathering, but it can be helps, but at a negative cost when compared with
ticketing speeders

Darryl Curran

Darryl Curran · Post by **Darryl Curran** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:09 am

Mark, I think the political references are because its politics that are
pushing this law. There is false reasoning behind it and if you seriously
believe that if you stick to the speed limit you will be safe on our roads
then you may well be placing your order for your choice of flower now to
push up along with the hundreds of others who thought the same. As the stats
prove, there are far wider issues to our road toll than speed, many in which
no one gives a shit because it cant be policedto a point of revenue
gathering, but it can be helps, but at a negative cost when compared with
ticketing speeders

Darryl Curran

MadMaz · Post by **MadMaz** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:04 am

Hi Darryl

I'm up late tonight still working and burning the midnight oil - as you
often do when you're a small business owner - so have spotted your message.

Look mate, honestly and without any offence intended, if you find the truth
offensive, then you're obviously doing something wrong.

Cheers all the best for the long weekend.
Mark

Darryl Curran · Post by **Darryl Curran** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:16 am

trying to find something on one of my dvds, but cant remember what dvd its
on so got a few to get through lol

on topic
thats just it mate, the truth I can handle, misled facts for the sake of
revenue gathering I cant.

Darryl Curran

Darryl Curran · Post by **Darryl Curran** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:16 am

trying to find something on one of my dvds, but cant remember what dvd its
on so got a few to get through lol

on topic
thats just it mate, the truth I can handle, misled facts for the sake of
revenue gathering I cant.

Darryl Curran

poison · Post by **poison** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:25 am

You're both making good points, but fast or slow right or wrong, I think
driver training is still the biggest cause. Pure physics agree's the faster
you go the bigger the mess, but also we have poor roads, slow drivers
causing frustration on long trips etc etc, which all really comes down to
driver training.

And breath testing, well they do it in the middle of the day so the
statistics look good "1 in 1000 drivers tested positive, the Drink Driving
message is getting through". Imagine if they did it at closing time down the
road form the local pub "15 out of 20 drivers tested postive" well that
would not look good for the police bosses. And if they wern't out breath
testing at 8 am on the way to work then they would have to go out and visit
burglary vitims, and visit crime scenes, putting crims behind bars... and we
all know that doesn't happen anymore.

Gazza

"PO1SON"

poison · Post by **poison** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:25 am

You're both making good points, but fast or slow right or wrong, I think
driver training is still the biggest cause. Pure physics agree's the faster
you go the bigger the mess, but also we have poor roads, slow drivers
causing frustration on long trips etc etc, which all really comes down to
driver training.

And breath testing, well they do it in the middle of the day so the
statistics look good "1 in 1000 drivers tested positive, the Drink Driving
message is getting through". Imagine if they did it at closing time down the
road form the local pub "15 out of 20 drivers tested postive" well that
would not look good for the police bosses. And if they wern't out breath
testing at 8 am on the way to work then they would have to go out and visit
burglary vitims, and visit crime scenes, putting crims behind bars... and we
all know that doesn't happen anymore.

Gazza

"PO1SON"

MadMaz · Post by **MadMaz** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:58 am

Hi Darryl

Fair enough mate. Look I'll tell you what - you make a good point about
misled facts for the sake revenue gathering - take taxes on small business
for
example - and that's why I'm still working - still at least half an hours
work to go and look at the time.

Gazza, you'd make a very good adjudicator - appreciate your input.

Cheers to both
Mark

Michael & Kate Cooper · Post by **Michael & Kate Cooper** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:59 am

Hi George (Mark)

Using that motorcycle accident as a reason for supporting over-zealous
money-laundering enforcing of a number (namely the speed limit), I feel is a
little OTT. Anyone driving a motorcycle and some that don't should know
that when you're on a bike you have NO PROTECTION when you hit anything.
That is why motorcyclists are taught to drive in the left-hand third of the
road. With no disrespect intended, the bikie who died down your road did so
because he hit the other vehicle, not because he was breaking the speed
limit. If he had been doing 80km/h his injuries may have been less
gruesome, but chances are he would still have been a goner. Possibly if he
had been doing a lower speed he would have avoided losing control and
crossing the centre line - but what use would a speed-camera have done him
then, as he wasn't going over 100km/h.

Kate

Michael & Kate Cooper · Post by **Michael & Kate Cooper** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:59 am

Hi George (Mark)

Using that motorcycle accident as a reason for supporting over-zealous
money-laundering enforcing of a number (namely the speed limit), I feel is a
little OTT. Anyone driving a motorcycle and some that don't should know
that when you're on a bike you have NO PROTECTION when you hit anything.
That is why motorcyclists are taught to drive in the left-hand third of the
road. With no disrespect intended, the bikie who died down your road did so
because he hit the other vehicle, not because he was breaking the speed
limit. If he had been doing 80km/h his injuries may have been less
gruesome, but chances are he would still have been a goner. Possibly if he
had been doing a lower speed he would have avoided losing control and
crossing the centre line - but what use would a speed-camera have done him
then, as he wasn't going over 100km/h.

Kate

MadMaz · Post by **MadMaz** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:31 pm

Sorry Kate

But you're wrong about this. The Police told me face to face that the
motorcylist was speeding.

You have to be able to drive according to the conditions and be able to stop
in half the visible distance - regardless of the posted speed limit - or
you're termed to be speeding.

All my extended family live on Runciman Road and we've got young children.
What if the man had hit one of our ordinary little sedans and not the big 4
by 4? He could have been flung off his machine clean through the windscreen
into the the back where the children were.

Mark

Who is online