One traffic law for us and a different traffic law for Gordon Brown

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That makes sense - if there was an element of risk.

If this was the case, though, surely they would *always* be driving above the speed limit?

Depends on traffic. Depends on situation. Depends on threat.

Somebody will have planned out the trade offs along the route.

Our PM takes a ride along a motorway and quite a few people will have been tasked with thinking through and anticipating the risks - and their job is to take the possible threats as real and present. It's a different mindset.
 
Yes. But, she trained as a driver and mechanic for the Womens Auxilery TA service. Which means she would have been exmined and issued a licence of sorts at the very least. Not only that, but I also believe she drove an ambulance, though I may be mistaken.

That was before she was queen. I believe it maybe the monarch does not need a license, but their children do. I could be mistaken there.
 
I'm fairly certain she could smash a skull in with a mace live on primetime TV and not really suffer any consequences beyond abdication and a nice retirement somewhere.

It's not like the royal family are a figurehead, or novelty or anything - this is their country, we just live in it. Times really haven't changed that much, just the presentation.
 
Ooh! What a scary man. I'm sure he slams doors and stamps his feet up the stairs when its time for bed.

Watch out, he could caused a road rage.:D

Being partial sighted doesn't means you are not allow to drive, I come across a lot of partial sighted drivers as long as the sights are corrected with glasses/plastics.
 
Watch out, he could caused a road rage.:D

Being partial sighted doesn't means you are not allow to drive, I come across a lot of partial sighted drivers as long as the sights are corrected with glasses/plastics.

I recall that there was a proposal to compare the list of people registered blind against those with current driving licences - I don't know what the result was.....:crazy:
 
Probably much the same as would be if you compared a list of people who had been issued death certificates against those holding current driving licences ( and claiming benefits/state pensions) .
 
Probably much the same as would be if you compared a list of people who had been issued death certificates against those holding current driving licences ( and claiming benefits/state pensions) .

The principle behind Day of the Jackal?
 
Watch out, he could caused a road rage.:D

Being partial sighted doesn't means you are not allow to drive, I come across a lot of partial sighted drivers as long as the sights are corrected with glasses/plastics.

I come accross many partially sighted drivers on a daily basis, some possibly even being blind. As well as clinically thick.
 
Going back to the OP, was the speed of the convoy actually confirmed or was it just based on the opinion of one eye witness?

If so, this is all just hearsay

Assuming the 'eye witness' was sticking to the speed limit, staying just below the 50 mph as he was aware of the cameras it is possible (due to speedo error) he was only doing 45 or less.

If the convoy went past at an indicated 50 mph on properly calibrated speedos he could easily assume they were speeding.



Must have been a slow news day.
 
Last edited:
Going a bit faster in a contraflow isn't going to get you there more than a few seconds earlier anyway


Maybe not... but when speed limits are reduced almost everywhere, it makes a marked difference over the course of a journey, a sizeable difference over the course of a week, and a massive difference to the travel potential of the whole driving population annually - creating the need for more jobs and vehicles, with the attendant sales (cars/fuel/parts etc.), taxes and overall market activity. This is precisely what lower speed limits and traffic "calming" measures are really all about.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom