Fast and Safe

**Mongoose** · 9th February 2005, 20:36

Originally Posted by SPman

Cockspur. - cant say I've tried it.

Some cocks have certainly been spurred on this thread, the last few days!

Coruba!.....soap and water!

Oh, the joy of returning to the KB language

BOOZE!!!

**Joni** · 9th February 2005, 20:38

Originally Posted by Hitcher

This is a pretty special place and one that is frequented by REAL people. People who deserve some courtesy and respect.

Thank you Hitcher.
This was needed, hopefully its heard and absorbed.

Alan - There are some very special people here, maybe if got off the defensive and took the time to read what we have to say on other subjects you would find the real value of KB....

**Skunk** · 9th February 2005, 20:47

Shit, I don't look at a thread after page two and look what I miss. (I only read the last six pages - what a plonker.) I never saw an answer to a question from him, just name calling.

Who needs I am Milky or theknightrider?

**El Dopa** · 9th February 2005, 20:55

Originally Posted by Holy Roller

Mate you have just not lived

Perhaps we could get Marty, Spud and Scumdog 'Lawmaster' bikes for Christmas?

'You're going to the cubes, perp, because....I AM!....THE LAW!'

Ahhhh, memories.

**Paul in NZ** · 9th February 2005, 21:01

Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson

Let me see, you scrape people off the roads, discuss traffic laws and regulations with Spud, I don't pay your salary - you must be a self-employed road cleaner.

Just perhaps he is fully employed and a volunteer fireman in his off hours Alan. You know, someone that donates their time for a good cause with bugger all hope of fair reward. Just does a job because it needs doing in some little town thats prepared to turn out anytime to save your sorry arse... Why take the negative and get all uppity...

Besides.... Maybe we ought to invest in decent railway systems eh? Buy it back and lay some new track! Roads are too hard and we have coal and water - steams the future lads....

Anyway. I really don't like your idead of privatising the roads. It's not worked so well with everything else? (Air NZ, Telecom, BNZ, Railways) (please don't tell me how your phone costs less these days - thats an accident of technology) Besides, how would they pay for them? Toll roads? ETC? Well I know a bit about that, it's not easy, it's not cheap, it's barely economic and most people can't afford them.

I'm sorry Alan but some of us do believe in the classless society that was the ideal of our grandparents. That does not make us idiots, just a little different to you (thank god). No need to get wound up!

Paul N

**Biff** · 9th February 2005, 21:19

Alan
Your opinions and those of your organisation are never going to carry much weight here. Particularly from this point on. Let me tell you why:

Fact - As has been stated on more than one occasion, "We" are the general public. "We" being a cross section of society hailing from all walks of life. As such we have our opinions. Opinions that should be respected, and not derided in any way. Unless you place "PT" (pi$$ take) after your comment that is, in which case you are most welcome to call me Tracey and ask me out on a date. If you don't then you’re going to make enemies. I wouldn't recommend asking me out at this stage, as I have a big dog.

Fact - I'd never walk into someone’s front room and begin hurling insults within 5 minutes of being welcomed in for chat. I expect the same courtesy from visitors to my house.

Fact - Anyone that claims to take the moral high ground who then resorts to hurling personal insults and conjecture, while presenting a cogent if not what could be described as an extreme opinion on any matter, must be prepared to
accept that they are going to loose credibility, and get a bloody nose in the process.

Fact - Some of us like to sit in a room full of people and listen to intelligent and constructive debate. Even if some opinions could be expressed more succinctly. But we all get a bit pi$$ed when someone who hasn't earned the right to come in here and hurl insults at us, does so. You're a guest. Please remember that and respect our hospitality.

Fact - We're a close knit community here. Friends. Personally I don't have the time of day for anyone that walks into our communal living room and insults my friends.

**scumdog** · 9th February 2005, 21:39

Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

.

The cemeteries are full of people that decided to excercise "the right to drive as I wish", unfortunately a few in the cemetery are the innocents that paid for that attitude.

As I mentioned in a sarcastic way (and got criticised by you for it) some people are just not capable of controlling a vehicle even at 100kph, even if THEY feel they are doing o.k. and do not realise how abysmal their 'driving' is.

**spudchucka** · 9th February 2005, 22:53

Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson

Get lost meat-head. When you pay my salary instead of me paying yours I could believe there is something inside your skull worth listening to.

You have no evidence, just a big mouth.

Holy crap!! It looks like Alan has pretty much insulted or abused every member that has posted couter arguements in this thread.

As expected replies made by Alan Wilkinson have degenerated into abuse, a sure sign of a weak counter-arguement.

Hmmm, what have I just written, it sounds oddly familiar, let me think for a moment...................

...............................

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

As expected replies to Alan Wilkinson have degenerated into abuse, as sure sign of a weak counter-argument.

There it is!

Thanks Lou, I knew that pearl of wisdom would come in handy one day.

**speedpro** · 9th February 2005, 22:54

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

I have trouble believing that people keep taking this all wrong. The important part of Alan's statement above is "so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else".

Why give him a hard time for the first bit when if it's read in full it's a very reasonable statement.

He wants to drive at a sensible speed, not neccessarily currently a legal speed, PLUS at the same time he doesn't want to adversely affect anyone. Something we all probably practice ourselves at various times - we ride fast

but we sure as hell don't want to hurt anyone.

**spudchucka** · 9th February 2005, 23:04

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Hmmm. Where have I read this before.
That's right almost word for word from a speech by the most infamous politician of the '30's.
"We have a God given duty to protect our people from the evils of international jewry."
You obviously don't delve into cause and effect with regard to crime. But just think back to the major job losses of the mid-late '80's.
Consider the saying, "the devil makes work for idle hands".
We may have ended up with a more efficient economy, but we are paying the price for it.

Whatever, you're talking bullshit again. Your head is obviously stuck in the 30's as you have some sort of a Nazi fixation.

**spudchucka** · 9th February 2005, 23:11

Originally Posted by Clockwork

So what you're saying is that by not answering she could be charged with an offence but not arrested?

It was Indo in thread #102 that first claimed she was arrested legally....

Firstly we don't know what exactly she was arrested for. However we do know that she wasn't arrested for refusing to offer the detail of the driver because there is no powere to arrest for this offence. She was probably arrested for obstruction or for being a party to another offence, (burglary).

If she had been arrested for either of these offences she can still be questioned about the drivers details, however she would have to be cautioned first, ("You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, anything you do say can be given in evidence").

**spudchucka** · 9th February 2005, 23:13

Originally Posted by Alan Wilkinson

Firstly, I never claimed to be a lawyer or legal beagle. I consult one or look up the stuff when I need to know. In this instance I thought the Star-Times article looked dubious so asked your mate to clarify as I assumed he would know and save me the trouble. He just said obstruction usually led to arrest. What you have just said is probably what the lawyer told the reporter who then garbled it a bit.

You're subject to a fair bit of "garbeling" yourself.

**Lou Girardin** · 10th February 2005, 07:23

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Okie Dokie, so the crime rate has dropped in the last few years lou? The unemployment rate is at a comparitive low, so your logic tells us that there must be less crime, right?

That's what the Govt is claiming - less crime. Actually less 'reported' crime. Not necessarily the same thing.