DrEvil

Geezer,

Pedestrians, I agree mostly they dont follow the green cross code as much as they should and could do with re-educating.. infact along with a lot cyclist who seem to think they dont have to look before they pull round a parked car etc... But at the same time there are a lot of motorist that equally dont try and judge what the vehicle/person infront is likely to do next and don't leave themselves adequate room to manouver.

As for speed, you are right, speed is never the ONLY factor involved, it is always a consideration.. I would be extremely ignorant if I thought there were never any other factors involved.. At the end of the day everybody that is on or around roadways need to act responsibly when other individuals are around be they in vehicles or on foot.

rgds, Alex

RonaldoH

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Geezer:
<B>


I recently hit a young lad who came out of a junction in a housing estate on his bike like a bat out of hell. Luckily for him I was only doing about 15mph, but I still couldn't avoid him.

Geezer[/quote]

So it was a she man/transvestite then....him/her etc etc

Not trying to get anyones backs up just touching a nerve with some bad experience where speed killed three very good friends of mine...this was down to a lack of judgement granted, but had they been going slower they would of survived...

Thanks for your replys all
R

AndyMc

The problem about the speed kills message is that your average driver does not think that they actually speed (to any great extent anyway) so don't think they are in anyway responsible for the carnage on the roads.So they never get to understand about concepts such as 'appropriate speed' and continue to drive at 45 in 60's and 45 in 30s etc.

The Blokes at work think its me,the owner of a fast car, that does the damage and yet they are the ones who are always crashing.

Another thing I hate about the speed kills message is that speed is only ever given as a cause of car crashes(whoops I nearly typed accidents which they are most definitely not).

When a Jumbo crashes at 500 mph the devastation is unbelievable yet the fact it was doing 500 mph is never mentioned.It seems to me it was more of a cause than speed is to the majority of car crashes.

That plane crash would also be investigated for as long as it takes to find the cause and steps are taken to prevent a reoccurance.The same is true of train crashes,Two Jags promised a public enquiry after the Southhall train crash yet the same number of people were killed in that crash as are killed in one day on the roads,Why no public enquiry about that!

Andy

DavidRB

Speeding kills, speed doesn't.

boomer

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyMc:
<B>When a Jumbo crashes at 500 mph the devastation is unbelievable yet the fact it was doing 500 mph is never mentioned.[/quote]

Andy,

excellent example! If the plane had hit the ground at 2mph, probably nobody would have been killed or even injured. But nobody says "the speed that the plane was travelling at was the _sole cause_ of the accident/crash/deaths".

mb

Dave T-S

"Jumbo doing 500mph" - LOL

What sort of comparison is this???

If they all did 2mph they'd all stall and fall out of the sky. They HAVE to do 500mph or whatever to stay up there!!!!

Dream Weaver

DavidRB

"Inappropriate" speed(ing) kills rather than just the blanket "speeding". Doing 80 on the mway is speeding, but if it is empty then it is not inappropriate.

The police do have a tough job to some extent, but I am sorry to say that each one I have met has been a bit of a t*sser. Simple as that, very generalistic, but in 10 years driving and a couple of burglaries, true.

I have police friends that admit to some of the ridiculous stunts that they pull, and they also say that although the job can be hard, it can also be **** easy.

Sorry Stuart

At the end of the day it IS the government that is at fault, and I have to say that Blair is starting to **** me off with some of his ideas. The latest news about the new points system for driving offences is ridiculous!!!

What can we do though??? Once again the crims get away with everything, and we have to keep paying more insurance, and more for motoring.

KF

Just wondering how much deep vein thrombosis would be a problem if you had to spend 240 days in a plane flying to Australia at 2mph

Police are there to protect and serve the public. The public (or publicly voted representatives) are telling them that they need to protect the public from those that exceed the speed limit (and also happen to be the majority of the population, (ironic, no?)). The police willingly oblige, as it is cheap and gratifying.

Stuart has published the address of the sentencing authority at the home office elsewhere on this board (which should be a good indicator to you about his feelings on the matter). Write to them. Join the ABD. The police are but pawns in this sick game our government plays.
KF.

Bernmc2

Traffic Cops eat their young.

BarryK

That's if any woman let's them near enough to "dooooo it"!

Nah, they (the police) are being pushed by the politically astute who are getting their own way, while we all whinge on the sidelines coz we don't have time to take over our own democracy, AND THEY KNOW THAT TOO!

DavidRB

We ceased to live in a democracy several years ago....

BarryK

And we're being spied on by Major League Baseball......

The truth is out there....

Drone buzz.

scoobysnacks

I'd like to see some statistics on the main causes of car accidents. Anyone got any? Anyway, I believe that lack of concentration, taking stupid risks, driving too close to the back of somebody etc etc - summed up as 'generally crap driving' are the cause of most accidents, so why don't we see adverts stating this? The best they can come up with is 'kill your speed' or 'don't drink and drive'. Good sensible points obviously, but probably only the cause of a relatively small number of accidents compared to the above.

robski

how about "dont watch the road, watch your speed, cos if you go too fast we will nick ya!"

I can see it now:

"Mrs smith, Im sorry to have to break the news to you that you [son/daughter] has been involved in an accident with a car. Im sorry to have to say that little johnny/jenny has been killed, but Im sure you will be pleased to know that the driver was concentrating on not speeding, by closely monitoring his speedo 75% of the time."

or even better "Yes Im sorry it took so long for us to get to your house Mr smith, and I understand that you are upset that you have been burgled and that they have trashed your house. However Im sure that you will agree with us that its far more important that we have just stopped 2 motorists for speeding at 4am for going 80mph on a virtually deserted motorway."

In my opinion if the government are serious that speeding should be stopped, they should be making it compulsory for all cars to be fitted with speed limiting devices. Im not talking about a super satellite system, but something that simply allows the driver to limit the car to 10/20/30/40/50/60/70 mph, by pushing a few buttons.

Then if your caught speeding its a matter of choice as it would be simple to stop yourself, at the moment, unless you drive around in a very low gear its very difficult to keep your speed controlled that well.

robski

Mike Rainbird

I'm sorry I don't give a toss who this offends, but I cannot stand sanctimonious barsteward's who get on their high horse about speeding, especially when they don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant!

A government-funded research organisation, the Transport Research Laboratory in conjunction with the Department of the Environment Traffic and Regions liaised with eight police forces to produce a six month study to find out "What causes accidents". The results produced were not entirely what the government want you to know (as they expected different figures), but according to the report, excessive speed was one of many contributing factors in ONLY 7.3% of the accidents in the six month test period. The study concluded that excessive speed was only a definite cause of an accident in 6% of all those investigated (so why not concentrate on resolving the other 94% !).

Higher up the list were "failure to judge another person's path or speed", "careless, thoughtless, reckless behaviour" and "inattention and failure to observe other road users".

Another study by the TRL reported that "it cannot be assumed that reductions in speed by a particular driver will result in any accident reductions".

Given that these reports were funded by the government to prove their point that "speed kills" it came as a rather a bit of shock that it would appear that introducing hundreds of new speed cameras will have little or no effect on reducing the number of accidents. However, that hasn't stopped the government, as it is politically suicidal in our ill-informed country to state that accidents are caused by the majority of people that just don't know how to drive and need better training, when they can blame it on the few speeding motorists and the gullible believe them.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that 30mph limits are wrong (in fact at school arrival / chucking out time, I think in these areas it should be 20mph at those times), but speed does NOT kill. Driving like a t w a t and not observing the conditions is what kills and that's a PROVEN fact - no arguements or discussions.

The real reason for speed cameras / traps is purely as a revenue earner. If they wanted to just stop accidents, you would have cameras / traps at every accident black spot in the country. Instead, the majority of them are placed where they can generate the most revenue NOT where they can do the most good. The government want to fleece more money out of the car owner. None of it then goes back into making these accident black spots safe, instead the additional money will be used to purchase even more cameras (according the gov't)!

My advice would be for EVERYONE in the country to buy one of those Geodesy devices / Radar / Laser detector (before they become illegal as well) so that the governement goes bankrupt from forking out for all the cameras and then no-one gets nicked .

Anyway, get ready for having your trousers pulled down and being shafted left right and centre in the future - it is only going to get worse....

Drive safely and as the conditions dictate.

[This message has been edited by Mike Rainbird (edited 12 January 2001).]

Ian Cook

Hmm, in the States at the minute, and have noticed that they seem to have a good idea with regards the schools issue.

35mph limits, with signs with orange flags on, that say School Zone, 20mph limit while children are present. They are also brutally into upholding their speed limits, the police cars have instant on laser (no way of detecting it until its too late), that can be used while the vehicle is moving, and can catch you speeding going the other direction !!!!!!! They are also known to stop whole groups of cars at a time, not one at a time like the UK police do.

I have heard about the report Mike mentions above, and it does make a mockery of what the govt tells us. Shouting at the Police officer that pulls you over for 95 on the motorway is not going to help, he is following orders, its their job, whether they like it or not ! Most Police have discretion, and turn a blind eye (within reason), unless you are being stupid/dangerous as well as speeding.

We have all heard some of the stories of people being stopped for 80 on the motorway etc, maybe this is wrong with todays cars, but its still breaking the law as it stands at the moment, at the end of the day, its your decision whether you speed or not, if you get caught, theres not a whole lot of point whining about it ! Take the points and fine, and either learn from it, or not, again the choice is yours !

Oops, someone has nicked me soapbox, wheres a copper when you need one LOL

DavidRB

Mike: Exactly.

That's what really upsets me, that innocent people are dying and will continue to die unnecessarily for years to come because the so called "safety measures" do nothing except generate revenue. Until we address the real causes of accidents, then this carnage (and 10 deaths a day can be described no other way) will continue.

If controlling speed actually reduced deaths and accidents, then great, but how long have cameras been around now? At least five years, but no major drop in road-deaths.

Traffic light cameras are great, they catch people who perform a highly dangerous manouevre. Nobody complains about them because there is a direct correlation between discouraging people from running red lights and stopping accidents.

Catching vehicles travelling too quickly (but not recklessly) on an empty motorway has little correlation with stopping road accidents.

Again, it is not the police who are at fault, but the "law makers".

Bringing up emotional cases like "I know someone who was killed by another car" doesn't change the facts that in most cases, the speed is irrelevant.

boomer

Mike,

well said - i totally agree!

mb

BarryK

DaveD,

No it's not, you just said so.

Well, in future when you occassionally stray up to 35 in a 30, you will get nicked and have points on your licence. They are taking away any common sense or leeway.

DaveD

iTrader: (2)

I can't understand why soooooooo many people complain about it being difficult to stay within the 30mph speed limit!

How do you know you are make it round the next corner?
You judge your speed by looking at your surroundings, listening to engine speed and reacting accordingly.

Amazingly enough it *is* possible to remain within the 30mph speed limit - even in a Scoob.
I can maintain 30 - 35mph without problem. I can judge how fast I am travelling down the road, I know that when in 4th gear I only need a small amount of pressure on the throttle, and yes, I occasionally look at the speedo.
Admittedly sometimes I stray up to 35, but then I glance at the speedo and slow down again. I ignore the speed of traffic in front or behind - if people insist on carrying on at 45mph, then I let them go.

30 limits are generally in built-up areas, where there is a potential risk of people coming into the road or there are many side roads or driveways. At speeds of 30mph and below seriousness in injuries is considerably less than at a speed of 40mph - one of those square-law things.

Also 30mph is a LIMIT! You don't have to drive AT 30mph!

In conclusion therefore, it is possible NOT to speed within a 30 WITHOUT having to resort to constantly looking at the speedo!

Rant over.

Obviously 60 and 70 limits are a different matter!

DaveD

iTrader: (2)

I think the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that you can drive close to the 30mph limit and still be observing the road and not the speedo.

Hopefully (and currently) under these circumstances, if there is a police speed trap (and it isn't camouflarged (sp?)..er hidden) then you should hopefully be able to spot it, and a momentary lift off of throttle should bring you back under the limit.

Also I would think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of the population would think nothing of travelling at 40 in a 30 zone, and I would imagine that these are the ppl that the police are mainly interested in.

I think you would be unlucky to be done for doing 35 in a 30 - but I stand to be corrected.....