A wonderfully reasoned rebuttal, well expressed, showing a remarkable understanding of the subject.

Science - remove variables to the minimum possible number to see how things acts and observe the result. Then add them back in and you can see their effects.
In a vaccuum mass does not effect speed. Therefore mass does not effect speed in air. It interacts with something else. In this case probably increasing friction between tyres and road. More mass => greater surface area in contact (tyre squishy) => more friction. As the force is constant (same engine giving same force at max revs etc.) speed is reduced as more energy is used to counteract friction.

Why not? Pretty sure the channel tunnel is below sea level, as are inumerable caves, and most of the worlds tallest mountain.

Now that was worth watching.

I'd be very impressed if the person in the front car had any idea of the exact sequence of events that happened behind them in a 4 car shunt. Not distracted at all by being hit, air bag going off, shock, people yelling at side of road? Just pass it with all relevant details to the insurance company and let them sort it all out.

Put a sign up saying Living Modern Art Sculpture - by OP. For sale - £30,000

With a newspaper, its likely that someone investigates (hacked the phones), found a story, perhaps wrote it and then sold it to the paper. Damage already done before the papers (initial) involvement.

The scary part of the scandal is how much damage has been caused to people by telling them their phones were hacked. If it could have been kept quiet so the victims did not know they were victims, they wouldn't be in so much pain. I'm not saying it would be right to let people get away with it, but it needed to be handled more sensitively, rather then being on the front of every paper in the country. This is the sort of case that should IMO have had a super injunction to protect the victims.

I didn't mean the propsed law to be taken seriously, it was an illustration of a point. A very good case can be made to ban all cars. Can 3000 people dying every year be justified because people don't want to use public transport? No. Will a law get passed banning cars? No. Why? Because people are too selfish to support such a law, it becomes socially unacceptable. (Actually, I can't think of any non-selfish reasons offhand to have privately owned vehicles). So why have a law to reduce speed, which will at best reduce fatalities by a small percentage of that attained by banning cars, at worst have no effect?
Parallel argument: Look at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?...;deathtle=Death

USA fatal statistics for 2007. Interesting website.
Road accidents killed 42,031 people, guns only 13,000 excluding suicides, yet people are demanding tighter gun control. Why? Can't just be to save lives. My best guess, because it doesn't affect most people.
(Poisoning 2nd? WTF? accidental poisoning by narcotics, the drill down is handy )

edit: slight oops with the figures there, 613 accidental firearm deaths, actual firearm related deaths not in top 10 but seem to be about 30,000 (17,352 suicide and 12,632 homicide).

Wandering off towards philosophy here ....

That is sort of the point. The law is created as a social statement. There should be no difference between what is legally acceptable and socially acceptable. However, different people have different social standards (smokers/non-smokers). Where no direct harm is caused to others by an action, then that action in a free society needs to be permitted. The problems come in defining harm and free society. Everyone (probably) agrees that some freedoms need to be given up to allow people to live peacably together (my right to punch random person in the face).
Laws in this country are enacted by a very tiny minority who may or may not listen the the general public. (How many general referendums can you remember?) So this tiny minority end up imposing their views on the majority, sometimes they get it right, other times wrong. However, the feeback mechanism is virtually non-existant to complain about laws that are felt to be wrong. (Complain to your MP who is forced by his party whip to vote with the party regardless of personal opinion or lose his job.)

If a sizeable number of people are ignoring a law they know to exist, then that law needs looking at. Blindly enforcing it does not help. Either educate people why the law is correct in a reasoned debate so people want to obey it or scrap it. So far the argument seems to be, that is the law and it must be obeyed with no explanation or discussion. People therefore see no reason to obey a law they consider ridiculous, and will continue to break it.

For example,
Driving is bad, it results in 1000s of deaths per year: we should ban all cars. This will save 3000 lives every year.

Now show where the numbers come from, get a general agreement from the population and the law will be seen to be A Good Thing ™ and be obeyed. Say that speeding is bad with no proof and people will ask why, not be answered and ignore the law.


Justify that the right to use a car is worth 3000 lives every year, and the law should not be passed, or if it has been repealed.

Maybe the question should be what purpose is The Law ( not a specific one) supposed to serve. Then how does this specific law support that aim.
If The Law is supposed to make it possible for people to live together with a minimum of friction and in (relative) safety, then a specific law which is broken by a large minority of people (assuming here) would seem to be against the purpose of The Law and needs repealing (it is creating friction not reducing it). Either that or the minority in question needs expelling from that community (Jail/Exiled to Scotland) and allowed to form its own laws.

There is somewhere a sociological paper which claims that humans aren't good at coping with populations > couple hundred, and half of societies ills are because there are several thousand being forced into daily contact in towns and cities.

My problem with targets for cops is to me they don't make sense.
Arrest 5 drunk drivers. What happens if there are none that week?
Arrest 10 burglars. Sorry, they should be arrested on sight anyway. Not "I've done 10 lets ignore them from now on and get those pesky litterers, I need 2 more for the set."
Or even worse, I've made my target early this week, lets spend the rest of the time checking weights and measures down the local.

I agree performance should be checked, but not that way. Lets put a constable to help with enquiries into a murder. Does he get penalised because he isn't out arresting people, instead of doing interviews with potential witnesses?

My fault, I meant car E but everyone was mentioning buses. I'll edit it for correctness and to make you lokk funny

So he pulled out round car E blocking his view and hit a stationary vehicle whilst looking behind him? 100% his fault IMHO
Beeping the horn usually wakes people up if they are doing stuff like that and you realise in time.

edited to change bus to car E.

Old police advice is don't leave anything that looks like it might be worth nicking in plain sight. Put it in the glove box.
I'd be contacting the immobiliser company and asking "wtf is the point of your product if all it takes to break it is someone walking off with the keypad" and demmanding monies back.

Online company I never dealt with before did not send me a confirmation after paypal receipt. Started worrying after 5 days, got an email next day saying its shipped and everything I ordered arrived in post next day. Ordered from them again and happy with them now I know they do that.
GlassesEXperts _might_ just use the paypal receipt as an order confirmation, or be slow at communication. Cross fingers and hope.

I've had my tomtom show the wrong speed limit when the road I was on went over a motorway. You would trust this thing to get it right all the time?

What would happen if it autocancelled the insurance while you were driving?
I can see the point, anyone fitting this will be a careful driver and thus a low risk anyway. Wouldn't even have to do anything to be worth cheaper premiums. Interestign question would be could the police request the records of your driving, and if your car was stolen and the thief did 60 in a 30, how do you get the car back with voided insurance?

not used them myself but look at this
http://www.reviewcentre.com/Online-Opticia...-review_1372423

What happens if I took a car got it tested 3 days on the trot? Would the MOT then be valid for 3 years? Wonder if anyone tested this when they put the new computer system in.

I did say it was over 10 years ... Used to visit people at Polytechnic East London (as it was then) tube into town, back out on Northern to the big Asian mall (closed now I understand), back down to Forbidden planet, then walk to HMV and Virgin, trundle through SoHo, stock up on Pocky and Sake at the Chinese supermarket, see what was on at the cinema before going back to the poly and driving home. Back when driving 300 miles, walking all day, driving 300 miles back didn't kill me.

Drive in Central London? Are you insane??? If I have to visit with a vehicle (not done for 10+ years) I park at far end of Northern line (Barking) and get an all zone underground ticket.

+1
Letting drivers have a taste of being on a motorcycle while other drivers act 'normally' around them would be the best. Can't see it happening though.

On the mobile front, I moved the car this morning to get my bike out, and the bluetooth (which can find the phone inside the house) said the battery was low. Thought I'd put it on charge. Can't find what I've done with it. Had to leave for a Japanese lesson, but I'd better get searching properly before it has a completely flat battery.

Went to a Motorcycle show today, the Motorcycle Action Group were there. Got talking to them, and saw they had a leasftlet on their stand about this. I haven't heard anything about this (not a regular visitor to bike forums anymore). The leaflet claims that the French and Irish are proposiong compulsory Hi-Vis, and that the "British police are stopping riders and coercing them into taking vests".

I generally wear a hi-vis vest, but not always especially on bright sunny days. I think it does help in lowered visibility or at night, and to be honest anything that makes me feel safer (and doesn't cost a fortune) is worth it to me. However, I don't think it does improve visibility in bright daylight, together with everyone and their dog now seem to wear them it just doesn't stand out as much.

Any thoughts/opinions?

http://www.mag-uk.org for their homepage.

I dislike mobiles as well. I got one because I was job hunting and all the agencies needed a private number to get me one. Seeing as I very rarely call people on it (twice a week at most) or people call me I never know where it is anyway and often leave it on the kitchen table, forget to charge it or lose it in the washing pile. It is handy when away from home, and the phone book is useful, but that is about all I use it for.

Other people seem to be so wedded to theirs it is ridiculous. Sat in the pub for 3 hours on a Sunday, probably about 5 telephone calls by people I'm with and _lots_ of texting and checking of facebook.

There was a survey somewhere showing that the mobile increased work related stress massively, as the boss would think nothing of calling as you are getting on the train home to ask about something, or at 8 at night to say he needed something doing for 8 the next morning and would you mind.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/14/...in1125102.shtml
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/...e-stress-levels

Which is at or near the normal speed limit on most roads. Are you saying anything that can't do more than that should not be allowed on roads? Things like horses, cyclists, tractors, road rollers, steam engines, pedestrians, milk carts ...