X Marks The Spot

Last Sunday I watched X Factor for the 1st time this season. I literally couldn't believe my eyes.

It was after a very heavy Saturday that had left me still standing at 6am. As the Sunday came round I was invited to join some friends that evening for an X Factor session. I said yes as I was up-country and had nothing better to do, plus it was my friends birthday so I thought it would be fun to spend some time with him. I spent an hour watching the show, not really knowing who was who because I hadn't seen it before.

I was presented with a 'results of a viewer-voting show' where every contestant, and I mean EVERY contestant was made to cry! mainly because the judges decided to eek out the wait for the contestants results, I think they got confused which show they were on, as they seemed to loose all control of human speech, like Chris Tarrant on 'Who Wants To Be A Millionairre'. manufacturing huge spaces of silence between words to try and induce terror, fear and suspense in the eyes of the contestants. I looked around the room and throats were full of lumps, my friends holding back the tears and laughter as they waited patiently for the judges final word.

For me it was pointless, I had no idea who any of them were, and this brings me to my point. I saw non of the contestants sing or perform whatsoever! NON OF THEM! I saw all of them cry, and I saw the judges cry, but not one ounce of performance. This meant I was completely unable to form any sort of opinion on the judges' decision. So I was left to judge them myself based completely on their looks and crying ability!

How can this be entertainment? I understand if you are an avid watcher, but surely it can't be that hard to make a show that also caters for the occasional viewer? A show where you can dip in and out  throughout the season and not worry too much about what you have missed. A few seconds from each singer would have been ideal. BUT NO, to watch X Factor these days you have to be part of the family, a disciple of the show who can't go to work on Monday morning without their X hit! Simon Cowell, you've lost me, I can't be part of this anymore, I want freedom over what I watch, and it doesn't include Louis Walsh wearing crap Raybans with a speech impediment!

80s The Limit, But Should It Be More?

It was announced this week that the government is looking to finally up the national speed limit to 80mph. I'm guessing that because I used the word 'finally' in this opening sentence, you already know I agree with this idea. For once!

Lets quickly look at the opposition though to see if they have a point.

Safety Freaks. 'ooooh speed kills'
What is it with the UK government? It seems that for a long while now there has been an influence embedded deep into the veins of road safety. an idea that takes total control over how we regulate our roads and what safety measures we have for different vehicles. Speed Kills!!! Apparently. Well I have news for you, Speed doesn't kill, dick heads who can't drive do!

I get it. If we had this accident at 30 no-one would have died, but because we were going 60 there has been a death. But if we were going 30 we probably wouldn't have had the accident in the first place. Was it the speed that made me crash, or that I can't control my car, or that I was driving too fast for the road / situation. Either way speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate decisions in the wrong area can cause accidents that might kill!


Environmental Freaks. 'You'll burn 20% more fuel'
I'm assuming they mean we'll burn more fuel / second, because in my car, if I drift over 80 it actually gets more economic. So to assume that all cars will burn more fuel is un-qualified. Secondly, a 10 mile an hour increase in speed from 70 is about 15% increase, so you would expect to burn more fuel per second anyway. Plus you'll get there quicker and have your engine turned off more, meaning generally less pollution anyway. Or is it more fuel per mile? either way the mile will take less time to complete.

If you look at modern cars they are so so so economic. To the point where they put a 3 litre engine into a transit van, with 2 turbos strapped on, just to get enough power past the ever more restricting emissions regulations to satisfy the drivers needs.

Why 70?
The 70 limit was introduced in 1965, 3 years after the first motorway was built. This was a time when you sat in your Morris and begged it to go faster, hoping that one day you would reach the dizzy speeds of 58mph. Or of course you strapped 4 carburettors onto your mini and flew your way down the new motorways, only to realise you only have 4 gears and the car was trying to take off as you bounced across the fast lane. Cars are faster and safer, they stop quicker and accelerate better, they perform better in a crash and save more lives than there are deaths in vehicles.

An 80 limit will help the economy, with people getting to work quicker, deliveries being shorter and the country just moving faster in their everyday life.

But why stop at 80? I want a dedicated fast lane on the motorways, where you have to drive over 70 to be allowed in them, this should be policed with cameras. If you can't do the speed, drive a different lane. I drive about 50,000 miles a year, so have had a lot of time to contemplate this idea. Like bus lanes in towns and cities, get a dedicated fast lane! In Germany they have the autobahns, unlimited speed limit on long and wide stretches of road, maybe this is a way forward. In France the limit is 85. In the UK we have the slowest roads in Europe. Everyone should be made to take an advanced driving lesson, if you fail you are not allowed on the motorways. This is the future, not restriction and censorship, but training, education, safety and skill-set!