Marijuana? Oh how perfectly rebellious of you.

[Mr Mystery]

Yep. Bored to tears of those obsessed with ganja and ting.

I've tried it, and it didn't do much for me. Chilled a bit, and then Nowt. Woo. What a wonder drug!

And yet it seems all over Facebook many just keep on gibbering about it, as if they're the only one with the balls to use it. And don't get me started on those banging on about hemp. The hemp plant is to marijuana as a domestic cat is to a Lion. Same genus, but different strain. Hemp in particular has a much lower thc count...

Medical uses aside, I just don't see the big Woop about it.

[MaltonNecromancer]

You describe my reaction to alcohol and bacon.

Just don't get any of them, never have, yet people go on like they're the greatest things on Earth. Which they probably are for those people, just not for me. Same for things like romantic comedies, Top Gear, Stewart Lee, Will Ferrell movies, Black Library books, the Beatles, Iron Maiden, early thrash-era Metallica... all these things I'm supposed to like but ultimately feel nothing for. Nothing. I've been involved in massive debates/arguments with friends over how I'm "wrong" for lumping all these things in together along with New Kids on The Block, Clarks shoes, plastic carrier bags and every other thing I have no emotional response to (aside from mild distaste), but no-one has ever been able to convince me to care because you can't force someone to have the "right" emotional reaction to things. They either feel it, or they don't.

YMMV on everything I suppose. Give me a cup of tea and a Neil Gaiman comic any day.

[eldargal]

The difference is bacon doesn't permanently damage your intelligence (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html).:p Alcohol can of course but not to the same extent.

I think the stuff should just be legalised to take the illicit gloss off it (because prohibition is always so successful) and then all 'cool' kids will stop taking it and just leave it to the idiots and those in chronic pain.

[Grailkeeper]

Never tried the stuff myself but I've defended people for growing it. I was more in favour of legalising it till a friend spend six weeks in the mental hospital because of it. (He used A LOT)

I'm fond of the odd pint but I'd probably give da 'erb a shot if it was legal. It's legality rather than damage that's my main concern.

I rather like bacon but sadly it's gone the way of things that are alright then being somewhat ruined by LOLZ INTERNET RANDUM over use- like monty python- an alright show with a few decent movies that have been ruined by over use. It is a bit different I accept as it's a food product and not a show, but it's up there with ninjas and pictures of cats.

[Mr Mystery]

Doesn't help when most regular users I know personally tend towards the 'dribbling knob jockey' end of the spectrum. Though it is hard to tell if they were morons before they started using.

I just don't get it. A few drinks with your mates on a Friday night? Awesome. All the more as an Ale drinker as they have genuinely different tastes. But weed? How horribly anti social. Get monged, and just sit around mashed out your skull? No ta. I prefer witty banter, even when we hit the level of being paralytically incorrect! Though it's not much fun if you're the only sober one.

Still. On the bright side, I've been reading hard drug use is falling dramatically amongst the yoof. Just need them to realise illicit drugs are lame overall.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I personally wouldnt smoke it as I think it would probably make my anxiety worse, but I've no problem with those that do. I hear you on the "dribbling knob jockey" types though - but the folk i know that are more moderate with it seem to be just fine. Ironic you say it's anti-social and no fun if your the sober one - given the timse iv hung out with people smoking it I ended up having some pretty interesting conversations with them so maybe it was just the wrong people? then again, the guys i know that do it tend to keep it fairly private as well, most my mates are fellow electronic music producers so that would be the conversation topics normally. I think people with chronic illnesses/pains should be legally allowed to grow it - especially if it is something life-threatening like cancer, then anything that helps them take away some of that pain should be acceptable in my eyes.

[Psychosplodge]

You describe my reaction to alcohol and bacon, Top Gear, Black Library books, Iron Maiden, early thrash-era Metallica...
Give me a cup of tea and a Neil Gaiman comic any day.
Malton You're entitled to your opinion, it's wrong but you're entitled to hold it :D
I'm with you on the beetles though massively overrated...and while Neil Gaimen's good, I just can't justify cost/time ratio on any graphic novel/comic/manga etc




I think the stuff should just be legalised to take the illicit gloss off it (because prohibition is always so successful) and then all 'cool' kids will stop taking it and just leave it to the idiots and those in chronic pain.
Plus then we can tax it, rather than just pay for drugs raids etc...

[MaltonNecromancer]

while Neil Gaimen's good, I just can't justify cost/time ratio on any graphic novel/comic/manga etc

Psychosplodge


You're entitled to your opinion, it's wrong but you're entitled to hold it

:D

You should at least give "Sandman: Season of Mists" a try. It's the one where Satan quits being in charge of hell. Only book that ever changed my life.


I think the stuff should just be legalised to take the illicit gloss off it (because prohibition is always so successful) and then all 'cool' kids will stop taking it and just leave it to the idiots and those in chronic pain.

I totally agree with making it seem uncool. Smoking weed should be the province of foul beardy men in open-toed sandals who sit around discussing Sartre (despite never having read it).

In all honesty, the only issue I have with weed is the fact it's 4x more likely to give you cancer than regular cigarettes. Well, that and the fact that unless you know the guy growing it, you're probably giving your money to some utterly reprehensible human scum.

I was reading a story about cocaine smugglers in South America. The brutality has gotten so bad between gangs, so normalised, that torture is now a hobby. There was a story about a man suspected of being an informant; they tied him up, cut his face off, stitched it to a football (soccer ball), and used it to play a game in front of him while he died.

Horrible.

I wouldn't want any of my money going to these beasts.

[olberon]

did use the plant serveral years ago on a daily basis and liked it. then when my first kid came i quit the stuff. Just recently i had a really bad molar and no booze around so the mrs suggested to me to smoke one for pain relief. I have to tell you i really got sick ... guess i outgrew the plant :D

[Uncle Nutsy]

The difference is bacon doesn't permanently damage your intelligence (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html).:p Alcohol can of course but not to the same extent.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intelligence-and-the-brain/201009/the-confusing-concept-iq

"IQ is only stable because of how IQ represents differences in intelligence across people - it is not a direct measure of how people perform on an intelligence test, but a comparison with other people of the same age."

If I was included in that study, I probably would have thrown that study for a loop seeing as my IQ was measured in the 130's. And yet, when I was stoned, I was able to play one of the most complicated games ever made for the PC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJbMqFbcqQ4) while giggling at the chaotic dance happening around me with george carlin playing in the background.

[DarkLink]

One person can't throw a good study for a loop. That's the whole point of a 'good' study. There are lots of factors influencing intelligence, and a good study filters those and focuses on one specific factor. So assuming the study was properly performed, then regardless of other factors, smoking pot while in your teens regularly permanently reduced your IQ, and not insignificantly.


Alcohol can of course but not to the same extent.

Unless you're alcoholic And actually I do think there's a lot of evidence that underage drinking causes damage of some sort, though that's just from memory.



Anyways, alcohol tastes terrible. You can go on all day about how it's an acquired taste, but my solution is simply to not acquire that taste and never have to worry about it.

[Mr Mystery]

Depends what you're drinking.

Spirits? I couldn't agree more. Hard to enjoy any subtlety of flavour when your throat is burning. But my aforementioned Ales? Whilst the alcohol does of course contribute to the flavour, it's anything but dominant. For instance, I prefer the malty end of the spectrum, and can't wait until payday comes around again as we're heading into Porter season. Hoppy ales always taste, well, a little soapy to my palate.

Weed however? Just depends how monged the user wants to get. Pointless to my mind.

[Deadlift]

Depends what you're drinking.

Spirits? I couldn't agree more. Hard to enjoy any subtlety of flavour when your throat is burning. But my aforementioned Ales? Whilst the alcohol does of course contribute to the flavour, it's anything but dominant. For instance, I prefer the malty end of the spectrum, and can't wait until payday comes around again as we're heading into Porter season. Hoppy ales always taste, well, a little soapy to my palate.

Weed however? Just depends how monged the user wants to get. Pointless to my mind.

Depends on the what your tastes are really on the spirits front, I'm quite partial to a decent cognac. Something like a nice Hennessy XO is something I really enjoy. It ain't cheap though.
I love real ales too, every year I go to our local beer festival to have a taste of what the local microbreweries have to offer. Unfortunately the youngsters this year let it get out of hand.

But back to the issue, I think both drink and drugs though can be equally destructive. I have a close family relative who has struggled with drink very badly since the age of 18. It basically made him an outcast as he slowly pushed away his family though self destructive and violent behavior. 12 years and now a year out of a rehabilitation home (sponsored by Eddie Jordon no less) he is slowly rebuilding his life. It's going to take a long time though before his family will ever truly trust he won't relapse. Which of course he may.
I can't really comment on pot too much, I don't really know anyone who smokes it and I never have. I get the odd stoner wandering around the arcade all bleary eyed, but they are shown the door. They don't generally cause much of a problem though. Drunks though, that's a different story. I would rather deal with 4 stoners than one drunk.

Personally I enjoy a drink, socially with friends there is nothing better. Putting the world to rights and have a good evening with friends is enjoyable to me. I don't get wrecked anymore. Tipsy maybe but not hammered. Not since I and the wife have had our children.
Old fashioned I maybe but my stance has always been, if its illegal, then it's a no no. Drink isn't, but drugs generally are.

[Uncle Nutsy]

One person can't throw a good study for a loop. That's the whole point of a 'good' study. There are lots of factors influencing intelligence, and a good study filters those and focuses on one specific factor. So assuming the study was properly performed, then regardless of other factors, smoking pot while in your teens regularly permanently reduced your IQ, and not insignificantly.

and you're an expert on IQ now?

have a read of that psychology today link I posted.

[DarkLink]

Alcohol is a drug. A particularly dangerous one, and only in part because of its social acceptability. I happen to be the opposite of you, mystery, I can't stand beer but don't mind whiskey as much.


And I know that IQ fluctuates naturally as people age, and I did read your article. I'll point out that a study, by design, will control for that. A single individual might, coincidentally, drop in IQ for whatever reason unrelated to pot. However, there was a statistically significant drop in IQ among the group of pot smokers compared to non-pot smokers. You might want to study up on the difference between anecdotal evidence and statistical data. My comments were about the irrelevance of your single case of anecdotal evidence, and had nothing to do with individual fluctuation of IQ over time, or even regarding IQ at all except indirectly.

Now, it wasn't a strict control study as far as I can tell. But those studied did something that caused them to drop in IQ relative to their peers, among other negative benefits. It's possible that they all happened to also to, say, trip and fall and suffer a bunch of concussions and take some brain damage, and it wasn't really the pot that did it. Without a control study, it's impossible to say. But the study certainly isn't favorable for pot. As XKCD states, correlation does not imply causation, it just winks suggestively at it.

[wittdooley]

We should be legalizing, taxing it, and regulating it. Would eliminate any "extras" drug dealers put in pot to get you on harder stuff. Would eliminate the number of man hours we spend searching for pot fields. Would eliminate lots of non-violent offenders serving felony time in our prisons.

It isn't particularly harmful, and for those with terminal illness, is one of the few things that can give them appetites (I have a friend that has leukiemia that moved to California so he could legally get it. His treatments would make him really, really sick and he couldn't eat. Was losing weight too fast. Smoking small amounts twice a day is the only thing that gives him an appetite.)

IMO, more positives to it than negatives. It's hardly criminalized in many areas in quantities deemed as 'personal use' in the US anyways.

[Uncle Nutsy]

then you must know, Darklink, that a nine-point drop in IQ doesn't necessarily mean they're actually dumber than other people.

we also don't know the mean IQ of these people either, whether they have an IQ of 100, 110, or 120. As with all other news articles, you must ask yourself 'what are they NOT telling us?'

And I expected you to not let the anectdote I posted influence your thought process. It was a talking point, not a measuring stick.

[DarkLink]

IQ isn't everything, but it is something, and the study notes that the IQ drop was not the only issue the subjects had. In addition to the IQ drop, which, while not huge is still not insignificant regardless of how high or low on the IQ scale the subjects were beforehand, they suffered from poor memory and some form of attention disorder, both of which are generally independent of IQ. Handwaving your anecdotal evidence as a "talking point" (and really, talking point is one of those stupid buzzwords that barely means anything, like "paradigm shift" or "leveraging") does nothing to invalidate the results of the the study.

In fact, I'm not entirely sure what you're even trying to say. If it was just a random comment about a personal experience, why troll me, especially when you don't seem to understand what I was trying to say? Are you trying to cast doubt on the study? Are you disagreeing with my comment that anecdotal evidence is essentially irrelevant in statistics?

I'm really not trying to argue here. I'm just saying, doing pot and playing a random video game once while claiming a solid IQ does nothing to invalidate a study of, what, a thousand subjects over twenty or thirty years. It's not at all unlikely that either a) at least one individual in the study had at least an IQ of 130, b) at least on individual in the study didn't suffer significant negative effects, or c) even if taking pot on a single occasion can make you dumber, it doesn't make you so dumb that you can't play a video game reasonably well.

[eldargal]

It doesn't matter whether or not DarkLink is an expert in psychology, what matters is that increasing numbers of studies are finding that marijuana usage does lead to loss of intelligence. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, that doesn't change the facts. No offense to you Nutsy but I'm going to go with the researchers from King's College and Duke University and other studies over some random person on the internet telling me its ok.:) I did actually read the research paper, but I can't find it online now so I didn't link it. Another media article here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-cannabis-mental-idUSBRE87Q0ZV20120827).

Regardless, I don't care if it hurts intelligence or not, it should still be legalised (and taxed) because prohibition. I also think all drugs should be legalised and provided at cost by the state in safe injecting rooms with beige carpet, beige walls and operated by matronly, lunch lady type women who refer to everyone as 'love'. Then we sit back and watch the gloss of drugs dissapear faster than chocolate in a girls a school with organised crime profits to follow.:rolleyes:

[Psychosplodge]

Regardless, I don't care if it hurts intelligence or not, it should still be legalised (and taxed) because prohibition. I also think all drugs should be legalised and provided at cost by the state in safe injecting rooms with beige carpet, beige walls and operated by matronly, lunch lady type women who refer to everyone as 'love'. Then we sit back and watch the gloss of drugs dissapear faster than chocolate in a girls a school with organised crime profits to follow.:rolleyes:

That's exactly the way to do it. Then they know if they're getting pure MDMA not rat poison and baking soda masquerading as ecstasy etc...
Also it already costs us money anyway, so that way it should cost us less...
Slightly offtopic, how stupid is this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/19866191)?

[Deadlift]

That's exactly the way to do it. Then they know if they're getting pure MDMA not rat poison and baking soda masquerading as ecstasy etc...
Also it already costs us money anyway, so that way it should cost us less...
Slightly offtopic, how stupid is this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/19866191)?

I don't think many people could handle pure MDNA these days.

[Psychosplodge]

Probably not, but there's got to be sense in providing accurate taxable product of known origin

[Wolfshade]

Exactly, if you can tax it and legalise it then you then significantly decrease it's value as instead of being brought clandestine into the country or produced here you can then open it up to huge commerical practises which will lower its price. By doing so the street dealers will be out of a job and the "necessity" for crime to pay for the habbit lessens.
This reminds me of this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-12169711)

[Mr Mystery]

But.....could the price be set at a level which generates a high amount of tax, whilst still being lower than the criminal gangs can peddle it?

[Wolfshade]

Certainly, also, if it was totally government controlled then you could have it such that the entire profit would be in the general tax pot.

[Mr Mystery]

Has there even a 'study' or some such into a predicted impact on overall crime rates of a proposed legalisation?

[Wolfshade]

I don't know, I shall ask a woman who might know, she works for a drug and alchol action team...

I think the tought would be that as it was legal it would loose it's appeal and users would move on to something more elicit

[Psychosplodge]

Even if you have criminal sources post legalisation, you'd still be receiving more tax revenue than you are now, and you wouldn't be wasting time and money pursing users through courts for possession.

[Denzark]

1. Legalise the ganja.
2. Tax it.
3. Set those nasty Revenue and Customs on those who try and avoid the taxed stuff.
4. Use the tax money to by weapons.
5. Use the weapons in a war to reclaim our crown territories in France.

[Wolfshade]

Well you have issues with things like the CPS wish not to tackle things. New Yorks blitz on crime was mainly attributable to concentrating policing on small petty things like graffiti and vandalism, and by stopping them major crime decreased.
Certainly, how are you ever going to change behaviour if you do not enforce it. There is a direct co-relation between speeding and motor related deaths, jumping lights but rather than push through more of the irritating and potential life saving cameras they stop supporting them because it is not popular.
It is still technically illegal to have sex under the age of 15, when was the last time that we saw any 15 year olds or younger be prosecuted by the CPS?
Look at dog fouling, when was the last time you saw someone prosecuted.

[Psychosplodge]

There is a direct co-relation between speeding and motor related deaths
No there isn't, police generally say speed is irrelevant to 75% of road deaths.

Inappropriate speed is an issue, in the same way any inappropriate behaviour is an issue.

[Wolfshade]

No there isn't, police generally say speed is irrelevant to 75% of road deaths.

Inappropriate speed is an issue, in the same way any inappropriate behaviour is an issue.

The literature I have been reading would suggest otherwise. Certainly, on non-Motorways speed is even mroe significant a collision between pedestrian and car at 40 is very diffrent to 30 in terms of injuries sustained and death rates.
I would also say that the general policeman is unaware of the larger statistics involved.

Speed is an easy one to tackle as well as is red light jumpers, with an almost 100% conversion rate. Spotting inappropriate behaviour is harder

[eldargal]

1. Legalise the ganja.
2. Tax it.
3. Set those nasty Revenue and Customs on those who try and avoid the taxed stuff.
4. Use the tax money to by weapons.
5. Use the weapons in a war to reclaim our crown territories in France.
This. Still haven't got over the loss of Calais...

I recall reading something about Portugul or some area of said country legalising drugs and seeing a significant decrease in both drug related crime and drug related deaths but I'm not sure.

[Psychosplodge]

The literature I have been reading would suggest otherwise. Certainly, on non-Motorways speed is even mroe significant a collision between pedestrian and car at 40 is very diffrent to 30 in terms of injuries sustained and death rates.
I would also say that the general policeman is unaware of the larger statistics involved.

Speed is an easy one to tackle as well as is red light jumpers, with an almost 100% conversion rate. Spotting inappropriate behaviour is harder

What's the pedestrian doing in the road? Cameras are lazy policing.

http://youtu.be/5vfs5-TO5ro

[Wolfshade]

Cameras certainly are lazy policing. Peoples attitudes are interesting:

A THINK! survey (2009 annual survey) showed that dropping litter was considered more unacceptable (82% of people) than driving at 40mph on a 30mph road (71%).

Certainly it is easier and less resource hungry to enforce the law regarding speed than it is to catch someone littering.
Arguably, it is better to automate such trivialities than it is to either ignore them or have to do it manually. I am not saying that automatica cameras are the answer after all that causes issues of people checking their speedos rather than the road ahead, but certainly it is not a popular one to get.

The point is speeding is breaking the law and should not be tolerated in the same way taking shooting people shouldn't be tolerated.

[Psychosplodge]

The problem is, in parts of the peak district, where you get these idiots doing 90 on these country lanes and kill themselves/bystander, but then the rest of use suffer as the arbitrarily lower the speed limit to 40 or 50, and all the people who were doing 60 perfectly safely are now inconvenienced, and all the idiots carry on been idiots...

People break laws they see a irrelevant or wrong. If the speeds were more considered it wouldn't be seen a acceptable.

[Wolfshade]

Don't forget a lot of laws are arbitary.
I would be annoyed by this change, since the people who do 90 and kill themselves would do so regardless of the limit.
People break laws they see as irrelevant or wrong is still no excuse, I might think that the laws of personal property are wrong and so rob people, that doesn't make it right, I could cite that the distribution of wealth isn't right or fair but still it is acting outside of the law.

[Psychosplodge]

Indeed you could, but the majority would disagree to a greater or lesser extent, whereas you own point shows more people are bothered about litter louts than speeding motorists. I mean I wouldn't do 40 through an housing estate, but I would ignore the 30 limit on a straight road through an industrial estate on a sunday afternoon...

[Wolfshade]

My own source says that the majority of people think that doing 40 in a 30 is wrong.

[Psychosplodge]

Only the majority of people too stupid to avoid the person with a clip board.

[Wolfshade]

lol possibly. Either that or performed at a speed awarness course

[Psychosplodge]

I know when I was a new driver, I was behind some muppet dawdling so went to overtake, at which point he put his foot down, and meant i took longer to pass and caused an oncoming vehicle to slow down. Turned out the highbeam lights in my rearview mirror were a police landy. so after a nice friendly chat, the nice police people warned me about judgement and idiots like the one i'd tried to othertake and to be more paitent... and it's defiantly stayed with me longer than any camera and fixed penalty would have.

[DarkLink]

Funny stupid driver story: a friend of mine was driving in the city. The light turns green, so their lane starts to cross the intersection. However, there was a bus at the stop waiting to leave just across the intersection. The front car in the lane stops in the middle of the intersection to allow the bus to merge (how stupid is that?). Behind my friend's car, some lady speeds up to try to make the light, only to realize too late that the whole lane is completely stopped in the middle of the road, and rear-ends my friend. To top it off, there were literally like three cop cars that just happened to be at that particular intersection and all saw it happen.

Moral of the story: don't stop for busses:rolleyes:


The problem is, in parts of the peak district, where you get these idiots doing 90 on these country lanes and kill themselves/bystander, but then the rest of use suffer as the arbitrarily lower the speed limit to 40 or 50, and all the people who were doing 60 perfectly safely are now inconvenienced, and all the idiots carry on been idiots...


They're not (normally) arbitrary. I don't know what UK traffic code is, but there's a complex set of guidelines that civil engineers use to determine safe speeds on roads. And, yes, they do include factors to take into account that people won't follow the speed limit.

[Mr Mystery]

Depends. We have road laws, but then we have Case Law. Case Law has no logic, and you can tell which were the result a back hander to the judge.

Stationery, waiting to turn right? Start your turn, only to have a motorcyclist overtake and slam into your drivers side? (Change that to turning left to make sense in the US!) Clearly the drivers fault for failing to check for dickheads.

[Wildeybeast]

Seems like an appropriate thread for this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-19868327).

[DarkLink]

Depends. We have road laws, but then we have Case Law. Case Law has no logic, and you can tell which were the result a back hander to the judge.


Design code isn't law, it's the rules that engineers use to design stuff. So the engineer sits down and does a bunch of geometry and and calculates, based on the rate of curvature and average driver reaction time plus buffer and the size of possible obstacles what the speed limit on a curve should be, just as an example.

[Mr Mystery]

Ahhh! Gotcha!

Though I understand the US is starting to adopt the roundabout, rather than having every junction controlled by traffic lights. Seems the newer towns are using them, and traffic problems are much reduced.

[Deadlift]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-19868327

As we're talking weed, you guys have to read this, it's quite funny :)

[Mr Mystery]

It is a pretty cool story! Though how they grew that outside of a hothouse I will never know!

[DarkLink]

Ahhh! Gotcha!

Though I understand the US is starting to adopt the roundabout, rather than having every junction controlled by traffic lights. Seems the newer towns are using them, and traffic problems are much reduced.

We've had the code for it for quite a while, it's just a matter of traffic officials deciding whether or not to use roundabouts or regular traffic lights. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. They're becoming a little more common in some places.

[Psychosplodge]

They're not (normally) arbitrary. I don't know what UK traffic code is, but there's a complex set of guidelines that civil engineers use to determine safe speeds on roads. And, yes, they do include factors to take into account that people won't follow the speed limit.
Nah speed limits are 30mph built up areas and 60mph none built up. 70mph motorways and dual carriageways.
All this is then subject to local councils overruling to apply local signposted limits, case in point I drive down a road between two counties, identical conditions in both, one has it lowered to 50mph and likes to put a speed camera van on it.
Obviously roads are designed with particular sppeds in mind as well with regard to camber and angles of the bends, but that's a different issue, they tend to put a max speed xxMPH sign before the bend for that.




Stationery, waiting to turn right? Start your turn, only to have a motorcyclist overtake and slam into your drivers side? (Change that to turning left to make sense in the US!) Clearly the drivers fault for failing to check for dickheads.

Surely that's entirely dependent on if you're indicating or not? If the muppet passes you and you're indicating there's no_one to blame but the muppet...

[DarkLink]

Nah speed limits are 30mph built up areas and 60mph none built up. 70mph motorways and dual carriageways.
All this is then subject to local councils overruling to apply local signposted limits, case in point I drive down a road between two counties, identical conditions in both, one has it lowered to 50mph and likes to put a speed camera van on it.
Obviously roads are designed with particular sppeds in mind as well with regard to camber and angles of the bends, but that's a different issue, they tend to put a max speed xxMPH sign before the bend for that.


Huh, well, I guess it sucks to be in England. We only arbitrarily designate speed limits in places where it really does make sense, like school entrances and residential roads are 25mph because of all the kids running around.

[Wolfshade]

Roundabouts (islands) are great they are so much better for traffic flow than traffic lights, unfortunately most idiots don't use them correctly, or they stick traffic lights on them which really messes the whole through put up

[Psychosplodge]

Huh, well, I guess it sucks to be in England. We only arbitrarily designate speed limits in places where it really does make sense, like school entrances and residential roads are 25mph because of all the kids running around.

No they're essentially the default settings if there are no repeater signs, there are plenty of 40 and 50 mph roads in towns and cities, it's about location and signage...
Anyway I thought your fastest roads were limited to 55mph?


Roundabouts (islands) are great they are so much better for traffic flow than traffic lights, unfortunately most idiots don't use them correctly, or they stick traffic lights on them which really messes the whole through put up

you mean the idiots that look blankly at you after you've warned them of your presence cause they've drove straight across ignoring the lines?

[Wolfshade]

Exactly, becuase you have to take islands with a straight a line as possible ignoring signs and road markings

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah I have to contend daily with them racing up the right lane then trying to go straight across ¬_¬

[Psychosplodge]

O/T

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=3010&d=1349957704

[Bean]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intelligence-and-the-brain/201009/the-confusing-concept-iq

"IQ is only stable because of how IQ represents differences in intelligence across people - it is not a direct measure of how people perform on an intelligence test, but a comparison with other people of the same age."

If I was included in that study, I probably would have thrown that study for a loop seeing as my IQ was measured in the 130's. And yet, when I was stoned, I was able to play one of the most complicated games ever made for the PC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJbMqFbcqQ4) while giggling at the chaotic dance happening around me with george carlin playing in the background.

A fair point about IQ, though I don't think Descent was really all that hard. Admittedly, I never played it stoned...

[DarkLink]

No they're essentially the default settings if there are no repeater signs, there are plenty of 40 and 50 mph roads in towns and cities, it's about location and signage...
Anyway I thought your fastest roads were limited to 55mph?

We have roads with no speed limit in some places. It varies from state to state. Most places will have 70-75mph on freeways outside of cities and mountains, and 65 in the city. And realistically everyone tends to treat that as the minimum speed limit, so most people are driving up to 10mph over that. A lot of people go faster as well, but they're the ones who get a lot of speeding tickets. Small roads usually but not always, top out at 55, but 45 is most common. It depends on how windy the road is, and whether or not it's in the city as well.