Legal Eagle

I just want to make two points. Firstly, speed limits are in fact limits and not targets. This means that you can lawfully and legitimately drive at less than the limit. If opther drivers wish to drive at or over the limit, that is up to them. I may well do the same, and there again I may not. Indeed, I may wish to drive at a speed lower than the limit - again, that is up to me. If you are not happy with that then overtake me - I am not bothered. Secondly, there is no such thing as a SLOW LANE. Overtaking lanes exist on the off-side, and as soon as the overtake has been completed, you should move back in to the lane on your near-side. The lane on the near-side is not for slow traffic. It is for all traffic to use when not overtaking. The sooner we remember these two points, the less likely we are to get irritated at other drivers' behaviour.

No, not a WRC one but I have been a passenger in a Group N Impreza. I have to say the acceleration and braking were simply awesome, so much so that I began to suffer from tunnel vision and very nearly fainted. I thought my WRC was fast but the Group N's are something else. It makes me wonder just how much faster the WRC ones are.

Now at the risk of being unpopular (which I am at the moment on Scoobynet, so I flounced off there), I wonder if I may say a few things about paying for car parking. Firstly, I don't know where we have gained the impression that car parking in our towns and cities should be free. Local authorities have a duty to administer their areas and provide value for money for the services they provide to the community. The community includes businesses, residents, visitors, shoppers, motorists et al. The provision of CCTV'd car parks doesn't come free of charge, and neither does their maintenance. Even the provision of free car parking doesn't come cheap, as Councils have to make sure (under our H & S conscious society) that people are provided with a safe environment in which to park their cars. If they should trip in a pot-hole, be mugged, have their car stolen or damaged, the first people they will blame is the local Council, and not because the Council was at fault but because they have lost/damaged something and somebody (the Council) MUST be at fault... Car parking is not a right. When buying a ticket, you have not bought a right to occupy a space and sell any unexpired portion to another. The courts have proved that, not me - but we still wont accept that. We need to think differently. Years ago it was OK to drink and drive but it is not acceptable now. Attitudes do change, but not quickly enough sometimes. Machines into which drivers have to tap in their car reg numbers help to prevent fraud. They also ensure that revenue is maximised, and why not? Just consider, whatever business you are engaged in, how you would feel if you were being ripped off by up to 40% by your loyal customers. You wouldn't like it because it is deceitful if not downright dishonest. Ask yourself what Council services you would like for free, and what you feel everyone can do without so as to afford it. If you had to pay for the Fire Brigade, in full, before they arrived at your house, or that they asked whether you had paid your Council Tax before turning up, you may have a different view on public services. I accept that it is not easy to get it right, all the time, to suit all people, including those who are in need of special consideration for a whole range of reasons, but I think, by and large, we get it right most of the time for most of the community. Shall I get my coat?

D'oh! Darn typos - need to redesign my typing finger!

According to the D for T, in the medium sized car category, the car which is the least safest in respect of risk of injury to drivers involved in a two-car accident is... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...the pre-1999 Subaru Impreza with a score of 8% (of drivers fatally or seriously injured 2000 - 2004) compared to 2% for the Jaguar X-Type. The overall safest is the Toyota Land Cruiser (1%) and at the other end is the pre-2000 Rover Mini with a score of 14%. Apparently, driver behaviour is not taken into account, just the results of their accidents.

"sparkling Chardonnay is not Champagne" Agreed but Champagne IS sparkling Chardonnay (a blanc de blanc) or one of the two Pinots. If you really need the neck of the bottle to say Champagne then by all means spend loads of dosh on a bottle with a name. If you simply want a good sparkling drink, crisp and not too sharp, I still say the Sainsbury's one is cracking good value. The choice, of course, is all yours. I bought a case of Mary Martin from an hypermarché near Reims last year and, at about €10 a bottle, it wasn't bad at all. Right, back to the Council House for me...

This now makes it a very difficult job for the Teutonic, ahem, sportsman. I wonder how he will accidentally drive into Alonso ( causing him to retire) and still be able to win or come second and thus snatch the Championship?

Sainsbury's own sparkling Chardonnay is much nicer than Moet and a quarter of the price. Buy two and pretend you have a magnum.

And now you have an email...

I've done reply No. 2 (which is shorter than No 1 but still says the same) and PM'd it to you. If you are not getting them, maybe Phil would allow us to exchange phone numbers thro him...

So have you! M

OK, try me. pm if you want

I just hope the tattooist can spell better than some of us on here. Just imagine if you asked him to put "I heart my" followed by your wife's nick-name on your arm. After enduring all the pain, you look to see that instead of SERA, he's managed to mix up the letters. What a bummer eh?

What I would like to know is this. Who is qualified to say whether someone's driving is good or bad? Unless you have been properly trained, you are very unlikely to be able to objectively assess what is good or bad. This is because you are maybe basing your opinions on untrained, inexperienced, ignorant and/or incomplete information. Just because you thought it was too fast or dangerous doesn't mean that it was. After all, most of us have only passed the standard driving test and have not done anything since to improve our driving awareness or skills. It is only when your mind has been expanded that you can view things differently, and proper driver-training allows you to understand things you would never have thought possible. The IAM is a start, but it is only a start. Even if we think that we, as Scooby drivers, are a cut above the others, it doesn't mean that we are. How many times have we been the victim of other drivers aggression simply becasue we have done something they didn't like or didn't understand? They are the ones who will be putting our reg nos on this site and I for one would not want that. Where is my right to challenge their view/opinion about my driving?

Hmm, it seems that, if I understand what has been written up to now, we are generally in favour of the Emergency Services being allowed to speed subject to: the speed not being excessive; there being proper guidance/procedures in place outlining the circumstances giving rise to the exemption from prosecution; and the emergency being for our benefit(!). I must say I was very impressed with the quality of the arguments being presented. I think it demonstrates that there is a great deal of depth to our community despite what we see sometimes in other threads...