• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

"Drug driving - it's a car crash" says Prof Nutt

good point. yeah apart from that. roads ive known for years etc i speed on where i know its safe, 30/40 limits on straight open roads nothing around ill hoof it, twisty corners around here with pulling out points i always slow down, cyclists and people pulling out etc. theres some wicked roads around here. driving 9 years with no incident that was my fault so far. i love driving
 
I got my drivers' licence back when mephedrone was legal, I honestly don't think I ever droven a motor vehicle while being 100% sober. For me the most important thing, is what you have taken and how much...
 
I have shared my stories on this before - crashing into three neighbors when trying to get on your drive does not make you a popular person :D.
 
"Don't get high and drive. Disregard this if you happen to be one of those people who drive better high."

(paraphrasing the onion)

:\

alasdair
 
itd get ploughed through the cat, dont see why a kid on the pavement would get hit

i feel guilty about running overthings, a rabbit ran out and crunched under my wheels the other day, felt bad
 
Speed limits sometimes make sense and sometimes they don't. It depends on circumstance, and perspective. There is a long section of road near where I live that is a 30mph zone. It's a narrow country road, there are no buildings on either side except for two or three houses set back from the road at one short section, and there is no pavement either. There are rarely any pedestrians on it, probably because it feels unsafe to walk, but you get the odd one or two. I have walked the road myself a few times, when a car comes the only safe thing to do is jump onto the (fairly awkward to reach, in places) grass verge. As a driver I find the 30 limit frustrating because I will slow down for pedestrians and give them plenty room - and there is rarely anyone on the road anyway; but as a pedestrian I appreciate it because not all drivers do slow down or give you room. Cycling on that road feels ok to me in daylight but I'd be nervous at night. There are no street lights and it's twisty in places. So there are times when the 30mph zoning is appropriate - when there are people walking on it and when it's dark. But there's no way to tell when there are people on it and because it's a bit dodgy no-one walks it at night. So you end up with a 30 zone for apparently no reason, most of the time.

If people were trained to slow down a bit when they see pedestrians or bikes on such roads, and when they can't see far enough to tell what's ahead, then I don't see why it couldn't be a "50 with caution" or something. As it is, people drive at 50 anyway. We're expected to see and obey speed limits so why are we not simply expected to see and obey the conditions of the road :D It's harder, but a good driver does this anyway, all drivers are capable of it, I'm sure. A maniac isn't going to obey they speed limits anyway. An ideal driver would drive at such a speed that they could avoid any "obstacle" (like a child :)) that might appear in their path. They would also need to detect such "obstacles" in time, which might come from all kinds of places. If every driver was that sort of driver, you wouldn't need speed limits. Maybe that would make driver training and testing prohibitively expensive for the number of workers capitalism needs to be on the road to work, or to the shops.

At some point all vehicles will be fitted with devices to either measure your speed and report you, or prevent you exceeding the speed limit. Then they could retire most of the traffic police and all the speed cameras. It'll be the cheapest way of ensuring compliance, so it's practically guaranteed to happen :D the only reason it might not happen is some influential people like to break speed limits...

Playboy interview said:
Playboy interview with Bill Gates, 1994

PLAYBOY: What about your penchant for driving fast and accumulating speeding tickets?

GATES: [Smiles] I get fewer speeding tickets than I used to.

PLAYBOY: Did you once get a cop fired for giving you a speeding ticket?

GATES: Thats false.

PLAYBOY: What about the story that while driving from Albuquerque to Seattle, you got three speeding tickets in one day from the same cop?

GATES: No, no, no. I've always told the truth about that one. I got twospeeding tickets from the same cop. Two. Not three. I got three tickets on the drive, but only two from the same cop. But I don't think anybody ever suggested that I said I got three from the same cop.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ColtDan said:
itd get ploughed through the cat, dont see why a kid on the pavement would get hit

i feel guilty about running overthings, a rabbit ran out and crunched under my wheels the other day, felt bad
Click to expand...

You wouldn't try and swerve at all for a cat or a stray dog?
 
I hate to sound like Jeremy Clarkson, I really do, but today's speed limits were designed for cars and roads built 100 years ago. They need updating. They are an anachronism in their present form.

I like to get stoned and drive so I can kill stray cats and dogs. Why should I swerve for them? Because they're a bit cute looking? I don't swerve for ants and they're the greatest living creatures of all time. I only swerve for humans because of the law tbh.
 
dopemegently said:
On coke my reactions where much improved; I felt a better driver on that, just like speed. Course, it's highly illegal, so moot as fuck
Click to expand...
"Don't get high and drive. Disregard this if you happen to be one of those people who drive better high." (paraphrasing the onion)

maybe your reactions were not better. maybe you just thought they were better? you know, because you were coked up.

:\

alasdair
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
I hate to sound like Jeremy Clarkson, I really do, but today's speed limits were designed for cars and roads built 100 years ago. They need updating. They are an anachronism in their present form.

I like to get stoned and drive so I can kill stray cats and dogs. Why should I swerve for them? Because they're a bit cute looking? I don't swerve for ants and they're the greatest living creatures of all time. I only swerve for humans because of the law tbh.
Click to expand...

lol i did once deliberately drive into a pigeon, but felt very shit after killing it and looking into my rear view mirror to see a pancaked pigeon carcas. I was expecting to feel a bump but its bone structure and heft must be so flimsy as i felt nothing through the suspension. I still drive at them when they are on the road to make them scatter, whether it be a big flock or just one, but now swerve away at the last second so if there is a slow and stupid one i dont kill it. All verry childish but good fun.

When i was 17 a friend told me not to bother slowing down if there are sheep in the road as they will get out of the way. I took him at his word. The sheep did not fuckin move. Fortunately i just clipped one of its legs, rather than a full on collision. Ever since, i do slow down/ or drive around the sheep.
 
Last edited:
I saw a pigeon hit a bonnet at a combined speed (car + pigeon) of about 35mph. Sounded like a proper gun going off. You don't want to hit a deer.
 
When i was in australia i was a passenger in my step dads car driving through 'the bush' when a family of kangaroos pogoed into the road out of nowhere and resulted in an unavoidable collision. Massive bump and blood and gore splattered the windscreen and side windows. It was the mother kangaroo and left about 4 orphans. I think/hope they were large enough to look after themselves. In Australia these incedents are taken seriously by the authorities. I had never seen my step dad act like such a cunning and gulity criminal getting rid of all the evidence. He was totally blameless, no one could have avoided it and he was not speeding.
 
Last edited:
knock said:
I'm not sure why it's not a productive argument, given that it is true. There is probably a more complex argument to be had, perhaps along the lines that heroin addicts are at risk of reducing their driving ability if they overshoot their dose.
Click to expand...

Very good point. I have driven both whilst in withdrawal, and after having had 'a bit too much'. Neither are a good state in which to be on the road. I don't know which is worse, but the latter definitely 'feels' subjectively safer. Gouching yer tits off while driving is not big or clever, but you do tend to drive veeery slow to compensate (unlike a drunk driver who doesn't give a fuck) - in fact, i have been stopped by the police for driving 'too slow' while smacked off me trolley, but as i didn't reek of booze and came up with a bullshit excuse, they let me go. I personally think that driving in the grip of a rattle is worse, because all that's on your mind is scoring - not concentrating on the road. This whole 'drug driving' thing is gonna open up a whole can of worms - which makes me glad that I'm a pedestrian/cyclist and gives me no incentive to get back on the road at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top