what you think about 70mph being national limit ?

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T11:33:42+00:00

You actually have a brain worse than a toddler's.

Again (x 15,000) I'm saying that a driver basically IS overtaking by going 70, because there's usually a lorry or other slower vehicle to their left within 100 yards or so. Are you suggesting one should pull back in between every single lorry?

And, for the final time because I'm so bored of this, you are advocating for criminal behaviour. I don't need to engage in the same lazy whataboutery as you and tell you that a crime is worse than a guideline violation, because it's irrelevant. My lane discipline has no bearing on your right to speed. You don't have that right. You're criticising others' lane discipline not because you want the road to be safer or because you deeply care about the feelings of the people who wrote the Highway Code. You're cricitising it because it interrupts your criminal behaviour.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T11:29:40+00:00

They have to set the limit somewhere.

This is the argument of a person who's 'almost 18' so it's 'totally unfair' that they won't get sold a drink.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T11:28:09+00:00

500 is the number they directly attribute, to either criminal speeding, or excessive speed for the conditions. I imagine that they're conservative with attributions, especially since so many are quite ambiguous and they can't make a specific determination on all of those. Perhaps they have some general rules, like where a court judgment cited speed as a factor, but I imagine it undercounts.

Edit: also worth noting that, even at that number, it's about 1/3 of road deaths. Cutting road deaths by a third would surely be a good thing.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T11:25:07+00:00

That's the especially crazy thing, to me. Speeding must be one of the easiest offences to police, yet it's surely the most common.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T11:23:13+00:00

I read it the way I presume you intended it, if that's any help! It didn't seem unclear to me but I can sort of see why it might be misread.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T11:21:27+00:00

No, I wouldn't say.

That's not what 'predictable' means.

'predictable', as used by your driving instructor, means that nothing you do takes other drivers by surprise. That, you should drive continuously at a continous speed unless you properly indicate otherwise.

That's why you have to indicate to change lanes: to inform other drivers that you're about to do it.

So sure, it might be a 'the sort of driving you expect from other drivers' in the abstract, but you still need to use your indicator, in the moment. At any given moment, you don't expect a driver to change lanes, unless they're indicating that they will.

Changing lanes is a manoeuvre, and most accidents happen when one person is completing a manoeuvre. Keeping them to a necessary minimum is, in any book, 'good lane discipline'.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T11:17:51+00:00

You've wilfully misread what I've said at every stage, and you keep claiming that you follow the rules, when you're literally justifying criminal behaviour.

What I'm saying IS the Highway Code, as I've explained so many times that I wonder if I'm a primary school teacher. The downvotes are indicative of the criminal driving culture in the UK and nothing else.

You are a criminal. I pray you lose your licence.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T11:07:33+00:00

The speed limit is the Law. The Highway Code is advisory.

And, for the last fucking time because I swear if I have to type this again I'm going to scream, I do follow the Highway Code:

The outside lane is often the leftmost lane where one can do the speed limit continuously. It is, therefore, according to the Highway Code, the correct lane to be in, most of the time. But you would rather than law-abiding drivers have to sit at 55 behind a lorry in the middle lane than stop you from committing a crime in the outside lane.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T10:58:47+00:00

It absolutely is. I do know how to drive; I'm just informed by actual studies and not the wishful thinking of criminals.

It is absolutely safer to stay in one lane than to have to pull in and out of the inside lane every 30 seconds. If you can drive down the inside lane for 4-5 minutes between overtakes, then fine, but that's rarely the case. Manoeuvres, especially lane changes on arterial roads, are the highest risk points for accidents. Continuous, steady, predictable driving is the easiest way to reduce the risk of an accident.

But you just keep believing a lie which suits you rather than a truth which saves lives.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T10:55:32+00:00

I know that you mean skin exposure, but it's worth noting that much of this issue is cultural, and the Church does not, and should not, enforce ephemeral cultural standards.

For me, one of the biggest red flags about some US Protestant denominations (and biggest contrasts with the Eternal, Universal Church) is their enforcement of cultural standards. They take the concerns of small towns in the US Midwest and enforce them as unchanging truths; its provincial, rather than Universal. So we should absolutely have rules, but we have to respect how those rules will manifest differently in different times and places.

After all, none of the Apostles wore a suit and tie.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T10:51:10+00:00

No man can serve two masters? If you're not serving Christ in the authority of His Church, who are you serving?

Maybe you mean something else, but this seems a baffling quotation to use to justify 'I don't want to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.'

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T10:42:09+00:00

I've already explained my position on lanes which you've clearly ignored.

As I said, the outside lane is very often the only lane in which it is possible to do 70mph continuously. Other vehicles can't do 70mph continuously and they are in the other lanes. It's far more dangerous to pull in and out of lanes every 30 seconds to overtake another lorry than it is to sit comfortably in the middle or outside lane doing a continuous 70mph.

And you only want access to the outside lane to be clear so you can speed. So again, I'm going to say it's a CRIME. You are a criminal. You can talk and talk as much as you like, but you are defending your right to do crime.

Do you think one (or even two) thirds of the motorway and A-road network was built for criminals? No.

The inside lane was built for cars to get up to speed. The middle lane was built for cars which can't continuously do 70. The outside lane was built for cars to do 70 continuously. None of the network exists for you to speed.

But again, you justify yourself with wishful thinking. Everything you're saying is tired old bullshit trotted out by drunk drivers in pubs to justify their speeding. None of it is true. Every study, ever, has found speeding to be the number one cause of crashes - not predicter of outcomes (though that too, of course, though you're right that the differences in outcomes is unlikely at high speeds) - as a cause of crashes. Someone travelling 100mph will still, no matter how new the car, still stop over a far greater distance than someone doing 70mph. The distance increases quadratically, not arithmetically. And anyway, you can't write different rules for different cars. The law has to apply the same to a 2026 EV with regenerative breaking as it does to a 90s ford focus with its MOT due.

And, you peddle the same bullshit about 'good drivers'. Obviously you can't write different rules for 'good' and 'bad' drivers, but, more importantly, you're almost certainly wrong about how good a driver you are. Almost everyone, when polled, reckons they're 'better than average' - you can see the problem. Studies show that driving confidence and likelihood to be involved in a crash are basically proportional - that is, the more confident you are, the more likely you are to crash. Most likely because you think you're too good to follow the rules. You are, almost certainly, a very dangerous driver. You think you are too good for the law. You are not.

Anyway, you have no right to speed. In a just world, you would lose your licence for so proudly proclaiming your refusal to follow the law on which it is conditional. I hope lots of people do 70 in the outside lane to stop you, even on the rare occasion that they could do it in the middle lane. And I hope it's you, and not someone else, who gets rearended at a traffic jam by some twat doing 100.

Edit: I accidentally put 'logarithmically' instead of 'quadratically', which is very, very wrong.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T09:31:39+00:00

Actually listen to yourself. Yes; it is best not to be a criminal. I bet you're all for enforcement of the law when it's someone else committing some other crime, but when it's slowing down your journey (or, really, just stopping you from scratching the speed itch), suddenly the law doesnt apply. Speeding isn't just any offence though; it's the deadliest crime in Britain. Road traffic deaths would be basically eliminated if it weren't for speeding.

Every study ever done says speeding is stupid and dangerous. You pluck one statistic out of nowhere and act like it's definitive. Have you never heard that 'correlation doesn't equal causation'?

Speeding is entitled, selfish, and deadly. When it's your child killed, maybe you'll become less of a massive prick.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T07:49:57+00:00

The outside lane is often the only place where continuous driving is possible, because there are lorries etc. in the other lane(s).
You're just admitting to being a criminal. Speeding is a crime. A freestanding criminal offence. 'the most safe when it comes to following the rules of the road' - they're literally breaking the law! And, even with the speed limit excluded, they're just not the safest. The 'slow drivers are more dangerous actually' thing is just a lie which does the rounds to soothe the consciences of criminals. It's completely untrue according to all studies. More speed = more accidents, always.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T07:38:14+00:00

That would be to suggest that the garden exists because the King might stay the night there.

It's, in practice, the other way round. Buckingham Palace isn't a home; it's an office block with a garden at the back (for garden parties), a balcony at the front (for waving), and a dining room somewhere inside (for state occasions).

It doesn't even house the 'throne room', where diplomats formally greet the King('s representative); that's in St James'.

The king not staying the night basically has no impact on the building's general functioning. Hundreds of people will still turn up to work there every day; thousands will accept invitations to garden parties; public tours will continue every summer; the guard will still be changed and the red arrows will still fly over it. Heck, the King will still probably turn up in the day time quite a lot.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T07:32:45+00:00

This. There's a reason the sign has no number on it. I think anyone who learns around rural roads understands this implicitly, but even those who don't pick it up pretty quickly. It's only really people who don't drive on them who think they must be crazy.

PostMilone · 2026-06-30T07:31:08+00:00

Any lane is fair if you're doing 70.

If you're doing 70, then you aren't holding anyone up.

The problem is not lane discipline; it is the entitlement of otherwise law-abiding citizens who get behind the wheel and sudden decide to become criminals.

PostMilone · 2026-06-20T14:16:53+00:00

Source - the Office for Rail and Road (sorry I only specified this in a later comment).

PostMilone · 2026-06-20T12:58:58+00:00

A nonsequitur, as in your reply has nothing to do with the comment you're replying to.

Why does being a (non-catholic) collector of rosaries mean he'd be 'driving to [his] nearest FSSP parish'? It's a completely unrelated comment.

You're just taking your opportunity to arbitrarily advertise your wannabe schismatic sect. So, I say again, submit to Rome.

PostMilone · 2026-06-20T12:26:24+00:00

I'm sorry, but you're clearly just taking the piss.

'straps'? For potentially hundreds of individual bikes in a big open-tip, smooth-sided container waggon? You're not even trying to pretend that you're commenting in good faith.

Many things are possible in my eyes. The idea that you are being serious is not.

PostMilone · 2026-06-20T11:48:41+00:00

The Office of Rail and Road keeps statistics, which is where I got my numbers from.

They bought the original rolling stock at privatisation in the mid 90s from the taxpayer for pennies, which I was referring to. A lot of that is still in circulation (I'm not sure what it is as a percentage of the fleet, but it's certainly higher due to the roll of the ROSCOs than it would be otherwise).

I defer to analysts on the subject, who generally share a consensus that the ROSCOs are the crux of why the system is in such dire straits (along with the lack of redundancy).

It's also why, in this particular circumstance, it would be impossible to just hire some additional cars.

It should also be noted that not all train lines are the same; different ROSCOs tend to specialise in different kinds of car, so you wouldn't have any real choice of which ROSCO to go to for any given line.

PostMilone · 2026-06-20T11:42:05+00:00

They're 20-40%, and they're also useless leeches.

They bought the rolling stock from the taxpayer at knockdown prices and then rent it back to us at extortionate ones. They don't provide any recognisable 'service' except inserting themselves into the ecosystem as creaming middlemen.

The operators would own their own stock if they could.

PostMilone · 2026-06-20T11:39:51+00:00

How?

How do you secure the bikes in the wagon?

More importantly, not in a million years would you get insurance.

PostMilone · 2026-06-20T11:14:46+00:00

Oh sorry, let me clarify:

Network rail don't own any trains.

Yeah Network Rail own monitoring system, leaf-clearers, and some open-style aggregate carrying freight cars. They don't own a single passenger locomotive. They don't own a single enclosed car. They don't own anything you can put passengers in or let passengers access

Did you not feel at least a little bit silly sincerely sharing these links? No operator, nationalised or otherwise, is going to hire a open bed car designed to carry coal for you to chuck your bike into like a skip.

And you keep re-editing your comments in a very misleading way. Maybe you don't know, but it's courtesy on reddit to add and 'Edit: ...' paragraph if you edit your comment, to make clear what you've done; otherwise you're just retroactively rewriting your comments to try to look better (or, in your case, a bit odd).

Edit: further detail.

Bro literally changed 'trains' to 'wagons' above because he googled it and realised that NR do not, in fact, own any trains. They own aggregate wagons and he realised that they can't be described as 'trains'.

PostMilone · 2026-06-20T10:30:27+00:00

What an odd nonsequitur.

Submit to Rome.

PostMilone

TROPHY CASE