Road Safety - Everything except speeding ignored

AugustusMinimus

I've already posted this in another thread, but I feel it deserves a thread of it's own.

Listening to the George Hook show yesterday and his sidekick (can't think of his name) came out with the following.


Anyways, they started to discuss the prospect of double penalty points on bank holiday weekends. George Hook made the very obvious point that you can't do any speeding on a bank holiday weekend due to the sheer traffic.

His sidekick came out with the following however.

- Double penalty points is a good idea, but only for speeding on bank holiday weekends. Not for anything else.

Less than an hour later he said this

- I've driven a car with a broken left wrist. No problem, I used my elbow to steer the car with.


So, breaking the speed limit is insanely dangerous yet steering a car with your elbow while changing gears with your right hand isn't ?

This is where constant RSA campaigns have lead us. The vast majority of the population think that as long as they don't speed, they are driving safely. In fact, as long as they aren't speeding, just about any manouver on the road is fair game.

I was shocked at what that guy said. Even more shocked that no body texted in to point out the insanity of what he was doing in his car.

Bruthal

It works the other way too. Speeders pointing out various laws and rules other drivers are breaking, which impedes their speeding.

But yes, an awful lot of stupidity on our roads that are a danger are not from speeding.

AugustusMinimus

robbie7730 wrote: »

It works the other way too. Speeders pointing out various laws and rules other drivers are breaking, which impedes their speeding.

But yes, an awful lot of stupidity on our roads that are a danger are not from speeding.

Excessive speed for a given situation is dangerous in my opinion.

140kph on a motorway though. I'd certainly rather do that than either steer a car with one elbow or climb everest.

Bruthal

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Excessive speed for a given situation is dangerous in my opinion.

140kph on a motorway though. I'd certainly rather do that than either steer a car with one elbow or climb everest.

Yes definitely. 140 on a motorway is safer than 100 on many national roads as well probably.

dr.fuzzenstein

What I see a lot of:

Farmers parking their cars IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD to have a look in their field.
They could have pulled into the field, or in some cases where they just go home for the "biha dinner", leave the car sitting in the road again, even though they have a yard to pull into.
These are not some country boreens either, one guy used to park his car in the middle of the Ennis-Tulla road.

Decrepit old fools driving along at 25 km/h.
Surely they can't have any idea of what's going on around them.

People stamping on the brakes because their phone is ringing and taking the call whilst parked halfway across a driving lane "because it is safer"

People changing lanes without looking

And just generally a lot of people just driving around and their mental horizon extends about 5 meters ahead of the car, whatever else goes on around them is as alien as the 27th dimension to them.

But all of that is OK, but if you drive 1 km/h over the speed limit OH MY GOD, YOU'RE GOING TO KILL 17 PEOPLE YOU FRIGGIN' LUNATIC!!!!!!!!!

GTE

This is the problem I think you can have with the media sometimes.

You get people like Hook and his Friday sidekick who have opinions on everything and who think their opinion is one of substance and one which deserves to be taken note of.

At the end of the day I think that its a similar situation to what we can see on forums all over Boards. Whatever is seen or read to be the most popular answer becomes the bandwagon for people to jump on. This can be for light hearted things like the TDI ****e that is spewed out on this particular board, or the blasting thing over in AH or a more serious matter, a barrage of RSA etc. campaigns attacking only speeding and opinionated egotistical people like Hook who have no idea of what they are talking about joining this as they can only agree with the RSA since they don't have the ability to fight them on other points.

Forums are better because anyone who says anything genuinely daft will be jumped on but the radio is a different story.

The NRA to their credit said most of the "legacy" roads in the country are unsafe in fundamental design so why not tackle that instead of assuming that the lower speed is the long term cure. You will still get people for right or wrong reasons speeding down these roads so why not improve them?

I also find it damning of the "safety" camera philosophy that they get placed where people have died when locally the road where someone had died is about 15 meters to the side from the new road that replaced it years ago which is fed by a roundabout which was never there before so even if you really tried you would find it hard to speed on it.

The old road would have been a badly sighted stretch where I am sure idiots could do 100 on it. But now that there is a round about on the new road I cant see how it qualifies for a safety camera. It is that lack of attention to the circumstance which annoys me. Plus the fact that everyone seems to die next to where 80 becomes 60, at least according to the vans.

AugustusMinimus

bbk wrote: »

I also find it damning of the "safety" camera philosophy that they get placed where people have died when locally the road where someone had died is about 15 meters to the side from the new road that replaced it years ago which is fed by a roundabout which was never there before so even if you really tried you would find it hard to speed on it.

The old road would have been a badly sighted stretch where I am sure idiots could do 100 on it. But now that there is a round about on the new road I cant see how it qualifies for a safety camera. It is that lack of attention to the circumstance which annoys me. Plus the fact that everyone seems to die next to where 80 becomes 60, at least according to the vans.

What I don't understand is why "safety cameras" are being place at locations where people have died, irrespective of the reason for the them being killed.

I know of a dead straight stretch of road where a pedestrian (who was drunk) got knocked down by a drunk driver. Why is a "safety camera" needed there when the cause of the accident was clearly drink driving and no evidence of speeding was ever presented.

Padraig Mor

Saw some of crimecall last week. They had some garda on doing a spiel about road safety etc. naturally he solely focussed on the speeding menace and produced a video showing the dangers of speeding. The video showed some boy racer repeatedly overtaking on the wrong side of the road on a series of blind bends - and this ASSHOLE has the nerve to tell the viewers the problem was his speed.

dr.fuzzenstein

bbk wrote: »

This is the problem I think you can have with the media sometimes.

Exactly right.
The idea that the media has a monopoly on opinion and comment.
Surely these fine people with their fancy degrees should tell us what we're thinking, we're only the great unwashed masses, we must be told since we're thick.
And up until the days of the internet that was pretty much the case, there was opinions held by people, of course, but other than the local pub there was no way to air them in public, Joe Soap didn't have a voice, except for the letters column, which of course got picked by the editor.
Now, through the miracle of technology, you can broadcast your view to the world and it seems that the propaganda isn't working anymore.
Of course what is said online is largely ignored by the media, as if they exist in some kind of vacuum, they still make the news and everything else just isn't relevant.
But these days the balance is tipping, soon online will be where you go to for the scoop, while the main stream media will become irrelevant if they don't buck up.
Let's see if they're paying attention, or like FF will simply continue to plough their course regardless

cyclopath2001

bbk wrote: »

You will still get people for right or wrong reasons speeding down these roads so why not improve them?

Best place for speed cameras is where people exceed the speed limit. That way, persistant lawbreakers can be identified and put off the roads. It does not matter where you catch these people.

ardmacha

That way, persistant lawbreakers can be identified and put off the roads.

I agree. Some cameras in urban areas would also catch the cyclist louts, riding on the footpath, breaking red lights, intimidating pedestrians etc.

AugustusMinimus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Best place for speed cameras is where people exceed the speed limit. That way, persistant lawbreakers can be identified and put off the roads. It does not matter where you catch these people.

I don't agree.

The place to put speed cameras is where there have been a number of crashes which have been put down to speed.

Why put speed cameras on a road where people speed but there have been no accidents. Surely logic shows that the road is capable of that speed and speed cameras wouldn't improve safety dramatically ?

allthedoyles

I have only seen the speed van once , and I was driving behind it ,.

It was doing 70kmh in a 60 zone .

Jimmy Garlic

'Speed' = profit for revenue collectors, simple as that really. Don't believe a word of the "safety camera" propaganda.

cyclopath2001

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Why put speed cameras on a road where people speed but there have been no accidents. Surely logic shows that the road is capable of that speed and speed cameras wouldn't improve safety dramatically ?

Speed limits are set for many reasons, safety beng one of the most important, taking account of average drivering ability. Other reasons would be to improve traffic flow, merging/crossing opportunities, the effect on the vulnerable and noise reduction.

Speed cameras detect drivers who break the law. It does not matter where they are placed as long as law breakers are detected and, if they are repeatedly detected, put off the road. Removing them from 'safe' roads sends out a message that drivers can break laws at their own discretion.

ardmacha wrote:

I agree. Some cameras in urban areas would also catch the cyclist louts, riding on the footpath, breaking red lights, intimidating pedestrians etc.

There is certainly much work to be done. Non indiicating, failing to stop on amber, footpath/cycletrack parking, illegal overtaking are barely touched at present.

paddyland

By miles, the worst offenders are cyclists, who get away with a multitude simply in terms of being smaller. One cyclist with a bloody minded attitude can still create mayhem though, and as a professional driver out all day every day, it would appear to be the vast majority of cyclists who obey no rule under the sun. This is only mitigated by the fact that there are far more private cars than cyclists, so it can appear that cars are the worse offender, by sheer numbers. The fact that the cycling infrastructure is deliberately ill designed, only serves to give these cyclists licence to behave as they will, to make some sort of point to everyone else. They are making their point to the wrong people.

Any policy to enforce general rules of the road would have to include cyclists to be taken seriously, but I don't see it happen. The Rules of the Road seem to be a relic of the past, their existence no longer acknowledged by either the RSA or the public at large. This is a great shame to those few who take pride in their driving, and old fashioned ideals of courtesy and consideration. But instead of raising standards across the board, the policy now would seem to be to dumb down driving standards, and reduce everyone to the standard of the lowest common denominator, the least competent person on the road. No matter how pathetic or dangerous your driving standards, you are still a valuable revenue to the state, so we all have to make way for the imbeciles and lunatics.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Best place for speed cameras is where people exceed the speed limit. That way, persistant lawbreakers can be identified and put off the roads. It does not matter where you catch these people.

Best place to put speed cameras is on the old main roads, straight, wide, open, hard shoulder, not much traffic on them.
Oh, and an 80 km/h speed limit for no good reason other than to catch people out and make money.
There are plenty of dangerous stretches of road around Clare and Limerick, I NEVER see cameras there.
I only see them in the same five locations, mostly where there is a ridiculous speed limit for the type of road.
Whoever decided where to put these cameras has no interest in safety whatsoever and only cares about maximum revenue.
Anything else that is being said is a filthy lie and that's about the size of it.

phog

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

'Speed' = profit for revenue collectors, simple as that really. Don't believe a word of the "safety camera" propaganda.

If it reduces the tax that I have to pay then I'm very happy with that.

dr.fuzzenstein

phog wrote: »

If it reduces the tax that I have to pay then I'm very happy with that.

Reduces tax?
I'm sorry, I know those two words individually make sense, but next to each other, I can't make head nor tails of it.
What is this "reduces tax" you speak of?
I know "tax increase", is that the one you mean?
Seriously, that's not how that works.
Your tax will go up, as will petrol, VRT and motor tax.
All that on top of more and more offences for which you will be fined in the future, "farting sideways" will be E80 plus 2 penalty points and of course all that will be on top of more speed cameras.
Don't forget property tax, the new water tax flat rate, which will then become a services charge and THEN there will be water meters on top of it, income tax up, VAT up, spend down and so on.
I am not being pessimistic here, if all that comes in and we're REALLY lucky, Ireland might not go broke and become an utter basket case.
Speed cameras are just another source of income.
Don't forget, the government is so fcuking desperate for money, I estimate wages not to decrease but to be taxed down by about 20% in the next few years, plus all other taxes and charges to go up by at least 20%.
Get ready for a near 50% drop in income and that's being optimistic.

cyclopath2001

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Reduces tax?

I think his idea is that only law breaking drivers get done for speeding and thereby contribute some extra money to the exchequer. Whereas law abiding drivers just pay the normal taxes.

More importantly, if we can eliminate all this law breaking, either by putting habitual law breakers off he road or by getting people to drive in a responsible manner we can reduce road accidents. Each accident imposes huge costs on society through the loss of valued members of society, the devastation of families abd to a lesser extent, in the forensic and medical costs. I think a typical fatal accident costs about 1 million euro?

One thing the government has underestimated is the deep pathological denial embeded in law breaking drivers. Trying to reason with such people is just not going to work. No matter where the speed trap is placed, they'll want it somewhere else and they'll want advance notice of the time and location.

-Chris-

ardmacha wrote: »

I agree. Some cameras in urban areas would also catch the cyclist louts, riding on the footpath, breaking red lights, intimidating pedestrians etc.

paddyland wrote: »

By miles, the worst offenders are cyclists, who get away with a multitude simply in terms of being smaller. One cyclist with a bloody minded attitude can still create mayhem though

Let's not turn this into a cyclist-bashing thread please.

delos

I suspect the concentration on speeding is simply down to the fact that it is the easiest to measure and as it can be measured in absolute terms the hardest to contest in court if it is taken that far.

As for people knowing where a camera is, where is the problem in that? If the camera is placed in an area where they want people to slow down, the likelihood is that people will slow down in that area if they know the camera is there. Sounds like a job well done to me.

Daegerty

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Speed limits are set for many reasons, safety beng one of the most important, taking account of average drivering ability. Other reasons would be to improve traffic flow, merging/crossing opportunities, the effect on the vulnerable and noise reduction.

Speed cameras detect drivers who break the law. It does not matter where they are placed as long as law breakers are detected and, if they are repeatedly detected, put off the road. Removing them from 'safe' roads sends out a message that drivers can break laws at their own discretion.

There is certainly much work to be done. Non indiicating, failing to stop on amber, footpath/cycletrack parking, illegal overtaking are barely touched at present.

Do you ever get tired of peddling this anti-speeding and generally anti-car agenda that nobody seems to agree with?

It won't do any good either, worst case everyone here's going to put the boot down out of sheer annoyance from this ould nonsense. Twould do you no harm to move to holland where there's cycling paths everywhere, would keep the ould blood pressure down a bit.

Jesus Shaves

delos wrote: »

I suspect the concentration on speeding is simply down to the fact that it is the easiest to measure and as it can be measured in absolute terms the hardest to contest in court if it is taken that far.

As for people knowing where a camera is, where is the problem in that? If the camera is placed in an area where they want people to slow down, the likelihood is that people will slow down in that area if they know the camera is there. Sounds like a job well done to me.

Exacxtly, i constantly speed on whatever road i'm on, but i know i'm a good driver so i'm happy to do so
It's the knob jockey drivers who haven't got a clue what they're doing that are more dangerous

Jimmy Garlic

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Best place to put speed cameras is on the old main roads, straight, wide, open, hard shoulder, not much traffic on them.
Oh, and an 80 km/h speed limit for no good reason other than to catch people out and make money.
There are plenty of dangerous stretches of road around Clare and Limerick, I NEVER see cameras there.
I only see them in the same five locations, mostly where there is a ridiculous speed limit for the type of road.
Whoever decided where to put these cameras has no interest in safety whatsoever and only cares about maximum revenue.
Anything else that is being said is a filthy lie and that's about the size of it.

When the "safety cameras" came out first they weren't called "safety cameras" by the media, they were called speed cameras.. They quickly changed tune and started the laughable "safety camera" "we will save 50 lives a year with safety cameras" nonsense. It is all BS, they (the gards, the media, the government) must really think people are as thick as sh*t.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think his idea is that only law breaking drivers get done for speeding and thereby contribute some extra money to the exchequer. Whereas law abiding drivers just pay the normal taxes.

More importantly, if we can eliminate all this law breaking, either by putting habitual law breakers off he road or by getting people to drive in a responsible manner we can reduce road accidents. Each accident imposes huge costs on society through the loss of valued members of society, the devastation of families abd to a lesser extent, in the forensic and medical costs. I think a typical fatal accident costs about 1 million euro?

One thing the government has underestimated is the deep pathological denial embeded in law breaking drivers. Trying to reason with such people is just not going to work. No matter where the speed trap is placed, they'll want it somewhere else and they'll want advance notice of the time and location.

Well, the point of this thread is that the official and therefore only valid view is that the only cause of accidents is speeding.
But that there is a lot of dangerous behaviour out there that is being completely ignored because as long as you're not speeding you can pull out without looking, not indicate, change lanes, ditto, park you car in the middle of the road, do anything you want, but as long as you're not speeding you're grand.
And the Gards seem complicit in this, other than pointing the hairdrier and checking for tax and insurance they don't care if you drive with your arse out the window.
I keep to the speed limit, have no points, I am a million miles from a boyracer (hate that term) or habitual speeder, but I think that the standard of driving is pretty poor at times, but that's all graaand, as long as everyone crawls along at 60 km/h.

cyclopath2001

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, the point of this thread is that the official and therefore only valid view is that the only cause of accidents is speeding.

That's a straw man argument. it is often repeated in here in 'Motors'.

mb1725

-Chris- wrote: »

Let's not turn this into a cyclist-bashing thread please.

My little nephew got 'bashed' by a cyclist on Saturday evening. The poor little fella stepped out his front door, got clobbered by an ipod wearing cyclist riding on the footpath. He was knocked to the ground and grazed his head off the wall on the way down. Overnight in CUH thanks to someone's stupidity.

-Chris-

mb1725 wrote: »

My little nephew got 'bashed' by a cyclist on Saturday evening. The poor little fella stepped out his front door, got clobbered by an ipod wearing cyclist riding on the footpath. He was knocked to the ground and grazed his head off the wall on the way down. Overnight in CUH thanks to someone's stupidity.

Great story. Probably more suited to the Cycling forum. This is the Motors forum and I don't see how a cycling story relates to a Motors thread about double penalty points at bank holiday weekends, and the excessive focus on speeding.

I don't know if you can actually break the speed limit on a bike, and you can't get penalty points as a cyclist (unless you have a driving licence) afaik.

Not to detract from the shock or injury your nephew experienced, but if you want to discuss cyclist behaviour, please use the Cycling forum.

paddyland

The heading of this thread is:

Road Safety - Everything except speeding ignored

An ipod wearing cyclist on a footpath knocking a child down and putting him in hospital bloody well does come under that heading, unless speeding is exclusively meant to mean cars only. The bad behaviour of cyclists on the road, or on the footpath, is very relevant to motoring, as it causes no end of frustration, danger and upset to motorists and other road users. I have no wish to single out cyclists, because there is a wealth to be considered about the behaviour of all road users, motorists or otherwise. But I certainly would not be lectured by a cyclist about what everyone else should or should not do.

By censoring discussion that includes cyclists' behaviour, you contribute to the very premise of the thread, that everything except speeding is ignored, speeding taken to mean private motorists exclusively. I was driving all weekend, and at least 90% of motorists I encountered were either absent mindedly or deliberately breaking some rule or other. There is a tolerance in the system for a certain amount of rule breaking, but it is endemic, and shocking the behaviour of some motorists. And cyclists were very much a part of that, as much as other road users.

That discussion needs to be aired, without tiptoeing around the sensitivities of individual groupings, be they cyclists or whoever. We are all part of the problem, and a discussion badly needs to be aired to find out why, and where to begin about identifying cause and solution. If it can be explained why cyclists should be excluded from that, then I would be very enlightened.

-Chris-

paddyland wrote: »

The heading of this thread is:

Road Safety - Everything except speeding ignored

The heading of this thread in the MOTORS forum...

paddyland wrote: »

An ipod wearing cyclist on a footpath knocking a child down and putting him in hospital bloody well does come under that heading

There were no cars involved in that story, nor did it even take place on the road (if you want to be pedantic about it). That's why I'm thinking it should be possibly discussed in the Cycling forum.

paddyland wrote: »

unless speeding is exclusively meant to mean cars only.

As I said in my post, I'm pretty sure you can't even be prosecuted for speeding on a bike, so yes (and especially in the Motors forum), speeding exclusively refers to motorised vehicles.

paddyland wrote: »

The bad behaviour of cyclists on the road, or on the footpath, is very relevant to motoring, as it causes no end of frustration, danger and upset to motorists and other road users.

I absolutely agree, but if it's a situation involving a car and a bike then it's suitable for the Motors forum. If it's about a bike only, then it's more suited to the Cycling forum.
That's why I asked for no cyclist-bashing. Either keep the discussion in a Motoring context, or take it to the appropriate forum.

paddyland wrote: »

I have no wish to single out cyclists, because there is a wealth to be considered about the behaviour of all road users, motorists or otherwise. But I certainly would not be lectured by a cyclist about what everyone else should or should not do.

I have no desire to see you be lectured by anyone, but if you're instructed by a Moderator of the forum to drop a subject, you're expected to drop it.
If you've an issue with a moderation decision, you should query it by PM rather than on-thread because questioning it on-thread tends to drag the thread off topic (as you've now done with this particular thread).

paddyland wrote: »

By censoring discussion that includes cyclists' behaviour, you contribute to the very premise of the thread, that everything except speeding is ignored, speeding taken to mean private motorists exclusively.

My take on this thread, and maybe I'm wrong, would be that the question posed was "why is speeding so focussed on, when other offences such as driving without insurance, breaking red lights or driving while physically incapacitated are equally as dangerous?"
That's more than enough of a broad topic without bringing cyclist-bashing into the discussion.

paddyland wrote: »

I was driving all weekend, and at least 90% of motorists I encountered were either absent mindedly or deliberately breaking some rule or other. There is a tolerance in the system for a certain amount of rule breaking, but it is endemic, and shocking the behaviour of some motorists.

Great, feel free to share any of these (Motoring related) experiences. That would certainly be more constructive in the context of the thread than the current discussion.

paddyland wrote: »

And cyclists were very much a part of that, as much as other road users.

Again, if it's Motoring related, it's suitable for this forum. Use your best judgement.

paddyland wrote: »

That discussion needs to be aired, without tiptoeing around the sensitivities of individual groupings, be they cyclists or whoever. We are all part of the problem, and a discussion badly needs to be aired to find out why, and where to begin about identifying cause and solution. If it can be explained why cyclists should be excluded from that, then I would be very enlightened.

As above, cyclists are excluded from the discussion unless there's a specific Motoring related context to it.
Please drop it.

cyclopath2001

-Chris- wrote: »

I don't know if you can actually break the speed limit on a bike, and you can't get penalty points as a cyclist (unless you have a driving licence) afaik.

On a bicycle you can't be done for breaking a speed limit, but you can be done for dangerous/careless driving, and it is possible to get points applicable to any licence you might sometime hold. Similarly, there is a different law for drunk cycling, but it's still illegal.

Posters dragging cyclists into the discussion fits a profile of denial of wrongdoing, one of the defensive tactics used by law breakers to justify their behaviour is 'comparison' or diverting attention away from the issue.

What is very obvious among those motorists here, who deliberately and persistantly break the law, are some of the the classic symptoms of pathological criminality: minimisation, blame shifting, rationalisation, comparison, and catastrophising.

Perhaps at 6 penalty points, drivers should be referred for psychological assessment?

Lives are at stake.

-Chris-

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

On a bicycle you can't be done for breaking a speed limit, but you can be done for dangerous/careless driving, and it is possible to get points applicable to any licence you might sometime hold. Similarly, there is a different law for drunk cycling, but it's still illegal.

How is that any different from what I said?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Posters dragging cyclists into the discussion fits a profile of denial of wrongdoing, one of the defensive tactics used by law breakers to justify their behaviour is 'comparison' or diverting attention away from the issue.

I've dealt with the "dragging cyclists into the discussion" issue, thank you very much.
And I used less provocative language while I did it.
Drop it - final warning.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What is very obvious among those motorists here, who deliberately and persistantly break the law, are some of the the classic symptoms of pathological criminality: minimisation, blame shifting, rationalisation, comparison, and catastrophising.

Perhaps at 6 penalty points, drivers should be referred for psychological assessment?

Lives are at stake.

Can you also drop the "pathological criminality" angle and the hyperbole please? It's obviously designed to provoke a reaction and could therefore be considered Trolling.

There are many instances, throughout all of human life, where people will get away with as much as they think they won't get caught for.
Enforcement, or the threat of enforcement, is very important. So is peer pressure.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

On a bicycle you can't be done for breaking a speed limit, but you can be done for dangerous/careless driving, and it is possible to get points applicable to any licence you might sometime hold. Similarly, there is a different law for drunk cycling, but it's still illegal.

Posters dragging cyclists into the discussion fits a profile of denial of wrongdoing, one of the defensive tactics used by law breakers to justify their behaviour is 'comparison' or diverting attention away from the issue.

What is very obvious among those motorists here, who deliberately and persistantly break the law, are some of the the classic symptoms of pathological criminality: minimisation, blame shifting, rationalisation, comparison, and catastrophising.

Perhaps at 6 penalty points, drivers should be referred for psychological assessment?

Lives are at stake.

Well, I don't have to worry about it.
I keep within the speed limit, therefore I am a driving God, RSA: job done and I can safely tune out for the rest for this debate since I do everything right already.
I am not joking here, I don't have any points, so I'm ok.