Oh yeah, reminded by the above post, NONE OF THAT FRICKING WEIGHT WATCHERS ADVERTS ON TV EVER!

So demeaning. It's always the woman who needs to lose weight/ looks so much better now she's lost it/ is back to the woman I married...well, you probably had hair then, balding coot.

Also, anyone saying "germs" should be punished severely. Bacteria, virus, microbes, whatever. And furthermore: KILLS 99% OF GERMS DEAD! Domestos advert will be halted as you would hope that, when you kill something, IT IS DEAD! The dead is redundant. *Headdesk* Also, it uses "germs".

The Unpronounceable wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008, 6:58pm:

Too right. I know one of my biggest fears when I sit in a car is injuring someone else in anyway shape or form. And as a pedestrian/cyclist and someone who is learning and soon will be driving, I agree wholeheartedly on the 5 year test system. Though despite another post asking for it to made 10 years, I'm going to maintain the 5 year stance - purely because part of the reason most people I know got so edgy was down to the fact they had never taken a driving test before and had only half a year or so past experience of driving via lessons - after a five year span on the road I'd say your confidence levels should be high enough to take the test with no worries.
Quote:

Aye and council tax, etc.
Quote:
Interestingly, their are already organisations doing this. Aside from Childline, these were the only charities I actively supported, once I'm earning enough or have balanced my bank books enough to have spare cash again, then again they'll get something from me every month.

Quote:

Again, good call on these. I've lost track of how many times the fact I've been too tired to initially spot the light change on a crossing has saved my neck due to w*nker drivers just running the lights, its not liket he pedestrian light changes at the same time as the red light comes on either, theirs a good few seconds allowance between the red light coming on before the green man comes on.

Also, to add to this. Driving instructors allowed to report bad drivers - I had a discussion with my old instructor about this, apparently it was an idea they had put to the local police force and been knocked back with some BS reason - they're in a far better position than the police are to spot traffic offenses and should be good enough drivers themselves to be able to make the judgement call needed to tell if its worth reporting or not.

I'd replace Trident with Spud guns.

Lars Lars Pants On Fars wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008, 9:00am:

You mean like the Pass Plus, that pretty much any honest instructor will advise against? (I've spoken to a couple about it now, they've all said their is no point in doing it.)

I really see no point in this at all, sure motorways are different to driving on a normal road, but to be honest with you, they should be easier - you have less to worry about in terms of hazards, since only other vehicles will be around you, you're going in a straight line for the majority of the trip, meaning so long as you can keep a steady speed and keep your eyes on the road ahead, you should be fine.

IIRC Clarkson passed a comment that he never uses his brakes on a motorway, the argument being that unless visibility is less than a few meters, you should be able to see far enough ahead to see anything that can cause a possible issue and slow down well in advance accordingly.

Georgina Leak wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008, 9:13am:


I can see why the Pass-Plus is still available, as it does help you get a bit of experience in certain situations such as motorway driving - i did my pass-plus and for part of it i was taken onto the M25 at 9am on a monday - i would never have had the confidence to do it if i didn't have the pass plus.

Having said that, we didn't cover all the points of it (no point doing rural driving, living where i do and can't do "adverse weather" as it was good weather) and for what it is, it's a fair bit of money. I know it does save on insurance but i don't know what kind of saving one would make.

All of the England cricket teams home test matches would be on terrestrial TV, and Sky can go take a running jump.

Drink drivers would be heavily, heavily punished, as would hit and runners etc etc. However, in cases of genuine accidents - i.e. cases where the driver is driving below the speed limits and has no alcohol/drugs in their system and ACCIDENTALLY runs someone over - no prison, as this does not solve anything and just fills up the jails quicker. Punishment of some sort if you like, but really not prison.

Anyone who even so much as looks at a police officer the wrong way is arrested. They are not employed for the benefit of the arseholes that harass them.

klinsmann18 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008, 1:21pm:


That'd be me f*cked then   (for looking at them the wrong way, I've never harassed a copper that hasn't harassed me first).

Valentino Rossi wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008, 1:45pm:


I'd say most people that fail do so because of the ridiculous stress you are put under, the better way would be for you to have to complete a minimum amount of supervised driving time (like pilots with flying) then you have 3 tests where they average out the score. I've also heard it alleged by a couple of driving instructors that they can only pass so many people per day...