BigJim

My nail argument applies at any speed? He was clocked at 120 in a forty limit. Are you seriously trying to argue that a tyre blow out at 150 would be no worse than a blow out at 40????
I cannot believe some of you people. How many threads are there where someone posts that their Scooby got broken into, then the replies come flooding in, advocating corporal punishment for petty thieves and vandals, yet for this guy, who blatantly risked many lives, is in your eyes, not doing anything wrong???

Mungo

Not disputing that 120+ through roadworks 40 limit is dangerous - there might be men working there (doubtful )

Re: trackday comparisons (CAPS FOR MY COMMENTS - I CAN'T DO BOLD, BUT I'M NOT SHOUTING!)
1. same direction - ASSUMING NOBODY HAS SPUN
2. People are more aware of speeding vehicles - AGREED
3. No bikes, pedestrains, herds of cows etc - IT WAS A DUAL CARRIAGEWAY! IF HE COULDN'T SEE THE 1/4 MILE OR SO AHEAD OF HIM THAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO STOP, HE SHOULD HAVE SLOWED DOWN. THIS APPLIES AS MUCH AT 50 MPH AS AT 150 MPH.
4. No side roads, pedestrian crossings etc - I'VE ALREADY STATED THE HIGH SPEED IN QUESTION WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE ON A ROAD WITH SIDEROADS. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WITH ENOUGH NOTICE - IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MARKED WITH A TRIANGULAR SIGN AS IT WAS A DUAL CARRIAGEWAY. PRETTY UNLIKELY ANYWAY - NORMALLY THERE ARE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES.
5. Marshals who will warn you of any hazard you may not be able to see - OKAY
6. Everyone who takes part does so out of desire,and fully accepts the increased risks of high speed driving - AGREED, AS LONG AS THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT
7. Run off areas and safety barriers enhanced to deal with high speed inpacts - HITTING ARMCO AT 150 MPH DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S ON A TRACK OR A DUAL CARRIAGEWAY
8. Incidents will be attended by emergency far quicker than on an A road in the middle of nowhere - IT'S A BIT LATE FOR THAT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PICKING UP THE BITS AND PUTTING THEM IN A BODY BAG

BigJim

THIS IS NOT A SPEED RELATED ACCIDENT THIS IS DUE TO A CARELESS DRIVER!
But if your doing 40, a careless driver can be avoided. If you doing 150.......
Accidents happen. But they are worse the faster you go. How can you stop someone having a momentary lapse in concentration? You cant, but you can set speed limits to reduce the consequences of any accident that occurs

NACRO

BigJim

Please try to read peoples posts before commenting on them

I said at any HIGH speed. Its all a question of where you draw the line really. Personally I believe that speed in itself is not dangerous, inapropriate(?) speed is ie 120 in roadworks.

the issue I was commenting on was not this case in particular but the bizarre notion that speed in itself is dangerous. Following the argument used by some on here to its logical conclusion it is safer to go back to walking and not use cars at all.

Skittles

Well said Big Jim... that is the point!

If others on the road are expecting cars other cars to be doing 70, they may see a car in the distance, and pull out with what seems like a safe gap. The other car is infact doing 80mph over the expected speed.

Isn't it scary standing on a road and a car goes past at 80? Well thats a pretty dangerous speed differnetial on a public road, in particular when it is not expected

Kosy

iTrader: (2)

Fact is:

1. He was doing over 150mph in a 70
2. Over 120mph in a 40 (deserves jail for that)
3. All this was done while being banned anyway

Definatly deserved jail.

Court has no other option, why ban him if he drives anyway.

Mungo

How did he risk "many lives" - how can you possibly quantify how many lives he risked? Do you know that he overtook anyone?
If the road managed to curve left for 4 mile, it must have been a bloody open curve, with almost unlimited visibility. A 4 mile constant curve covering 180 degrees (that's the tightest it's likely to be - it would start coming back on itself otherwise) has a radius of about 1.3 miles - I'm sure the visibility around this was greater than the 1/4 mile quoted stopping distance.

BigJim

But surely speed in itself is dangerous. If it takes a longer distance to slow down, and reduces your ability to react, then by definition it is dangerous. We are talking within the context of fallable humans operating fallable machines. Take land speed records on the salt flats. Go across at 5 mph in thrust SSC, and a wheel falls off. At 5 mph that is not dangerous. At 650mph it is. The danger comes from the speed, not the wheel falling off. (extreme example I know, but the principle works)

RS Grant

Nah, Yoda would say:

Priviledge is driving a, and comes it with responsibility much!! ;P

Cheers,
Grant

BigJim

Lol

Corpulent Tosser

Mungo

The road in question has no pedestrian walkways over it, it does have side roads onto it, it bypasses a town so there is traffic crossing it, the guy driving through the roadworks at 120+ is a ****, no sorry a dangerous ****. No licence, no insurance, I believe you may have had a different opinion of him if he had damaged you, your car, or one of your loved ones even if he had been within the speed limit.

As someone said earlier, speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speed is !

NACRO

OK big jim,

what is a "safe speed" then using your criteria?

As I said before where do you draw the line, if we accept that going fast involves increased risk should we all return to walking? Of course that's an extreme example but the logic hold true.

Of course we could carry on like this all day but both arguments are patently ridiculous. What can be said to be true is that we will use cars and that this will involve an element of risk. Similarly to using aeroplanes, trains and even a bicycle.

So do arbitary speed limits make our roads a safer place? Not at all, doing 30 in a 30mph limit nr a school in the wet at the end of lessons is obviously unsafe but no law is broken. At the other end of the scale doing 140mph on a deserted M-Way in a well maintained car is not inherently dangerous either.

It's all about appropriate speed and calculating risks not slavishly following an out of date and arbitary govt enforced speed limit.

I'll keep using my own judgement rather than relying on the state to tell me whats safe.

H7

.... but don't go doing 140+ in this country or they'll bang you up for it

BigJim

So now you advocate that breaking a law is justifyable because you dont agree with it? That doesn't wash. You cant selectively obey or disobey laws because of your personal opinion.
Safe speed depends on (quick list cos I'm heading home in a min)
car being driven
visibility
road surface condition
weather
width, straightness etc of road
traffic density
Urban/rural
type of road a/ b Mway, no. of lanes etc

H7

You CAN selectively obey or disobey laws because of your personal opinion. It's just that you're liable to a penalty for breaking whichever laws you choose to break. Basic risk assessment ....

NACRO

Quote: "You cant selectively obey or disobey laws because of your personal opinion."


Everybody does this all the time- its called personal choice. I'm not just talking about driving here. For people to obey a law they first have to respect it.

I also didn't say anywhere in my post that I broke the law, only that I would use MY OWN JUDGEMENT as to the safe speed to drive at. Can you try answering some of my questions and actually reading what I've posted before commenting if posssible. If you don't do that it weakens your whole argument.

As an interesting foot note I have driven above the UK's speed limit on trips abroad and to the Nurburgring where I achieved a maximum speed of 150mph. It was neither dangerous or reckless.

H7

Absolutely spot on.

Mungo

Now that Corpulent Tosser has added a few details, it does appear that driving at 156 mph on this road was dangerous. Whether it deserves jail is another matter. But the fact remains that the speed in itself does not constitute a danger.

BigJim - how exactly does speed reduce your ability to react? It might your ability to react IN TIME.

The fact remains that he didn't crash, kill or maim anybody's loved ones, etc, and he still got a pretty stiff sentence. Way more than people get for actually causing people harm, rather than just endangering them.

NACRO

Just to clarify my point of view for anyone who might be interested. He definately deserved punishment for what he did in the roadworks, insurance etc.

The thread seemed to have moved to a "speed is bad" debate which is why I chipped in.

Corpulent Tosser

Correct

I know the stretch of road this ocurred on and even before the roadworks were there, the limit had been reduced to 50 because of accidents caused by slow vehicles crossing the dual carriageway, so in a way lack of speed has been dangerous there in the past .

ozzy

BigJim's right. You can't just say that speed has no relevance when you mention freakish accidents like a tyre blowout or some muppet pulling out in front of you. The first may be freakish, but the second happens far too often for my liking.

If someone's doing 65 on a motorway and pulls out in front of me, then I've more time and space to react if I'm only doing 70 (unless I'm alongside him) than I have at double that speed. It's simple physics. OK the muppet has induced the accident, but my speed determines the outcome. Even if I can't avoid him or I have to swerve and hit the amco barrier, I'll probably walkaway unscaved at 70. I don't fancy hitting anything at 140.

The problem is you can't forsee every outcome and speed just makes the outcome worse. That's why limits are introduced. They're there so when things go pear-shaped, the results aren't as bad as they could have been.

I'm not jumping on the anti-speeding bandwagon as I've had enough points on my license too prove that I don't always listen, but anyone who says speed isn't an issue is quite frankly stupid or completely blinkered.

Stefan

ozzy

I agree with Corpulant Tosser too

Just like with the speed limit being reduced to 20mph in my street due to slow moving pedestrians makes them a danger to other road users I mean, I could crash having to swerve around one at 60 God forbid, I may even end up in someones front room if a football gets kicked in front of me

Stefan

carl

This is the problem. All speed is dangerous, and govt. set the speed limit to what they consider an acceptable level to minimize risk whilst also minimizing inconvenience. There is no safe speed, except 0. If the speed limit was reduced to 30mph nationally, there would be less accidents and the consequences of them would be less severe. But the country would grind to a halt

It's kind of like the 'govt. approved' radiation dose figures -- they set a limit which you're not supposed to exceed in a year, but the fact remains that there is no safe radiation dose.

H7

Are we talking about this government?

Mycroft

###
If the speed limit was reduced to 30mph nationally, there would be less accidents and the consequences of them would be less severe...
###

There would be more... I would have bought lots of guns/ammo and most BMW drivers would be dead... too low a speed limit actually is a bad for accidents... most happen at low speed... not high...

NACRO

well said carl its all about calculating the risk, I prefer to do this than blindly obey a limit that was set on an arbitary basis. Example I drive down a street which has a 30mph limit, I know the local kids play there so slow down to 20 or maybe less.

On an empty motorway where there are no issues with junctions etc I may choose to drive higher than the posted limit if its safe to do so.

Speed does not kill, excess and inappropriate speed does.

carl

This is entirely possible. But it doesn't take a genius to realize that the effects of an accident at 30mph won't be as bad as the effects of one at, say, 80mph. Kinetic energy goes up with the square of velocity

carl

Look, I can see both sides of the story here:You may say "who are the govt. to set an 'arbitrary' speed limit", but equally who are you to decide what's a reasonable level of risk? Remember you're not only dealing with your own life, but those of others.

I'm not trying to be a hypocrite -- I just understand that the argument isn't that simple. Sure, I've been known to "press on" on an open dual carriageway but what ultimately stops me driving at 120mph everywhere (apart from the cost of fuel ) is the threat of prosecution.

And, TBH, there are a lot of drivers on the road that are dangerous at 70mph, so I wouldn't like to see them driving around at 95mph legally. Fact is that the legislation is set for the lowest common denominator, not people driving high-powered, ABS-equipped, 4WD cars.

NACRO

Quote: "but equally who are you to decide what's a reasonable level of risk?"


errr I'm the person driving, if we all can't do this then the roads would be very dangerous places.

I think most people would accept that driving is a series of risk assesments not just an automatic process. At least I hope they do as I have to share the roads with them.

jaf01uk

I dont want to get bogged down by the "speed kills" argument but would just like to point out a few flaws in the "Highway Code" book. The stopping distances were set in about 1940 odd when cars had drum brakes and tyres made of leather! and the speed limit in the mid 60's when Jaguar kept using the motorways for speed testing, bear in mind that most cars in those days had maximum speeds LESS than what the limit was set at - Morris Minors and the like. My point - maybe its time these outdated figures were brought up to date,
PS. My dates are approximate so no pedantics please,