OK, following on from our recent speeding/idiot coppers threads I think this should be very interesting...

The simple question is this...

'When was the last time in this Country that there was any single or Multiple death caused or attributable to any car involved travelling at more than 100mph'

Now bear in mind that thousands every week will bust through 100mph... 99% of that will be on good 'A' roads or M'ways...

I have the date... and also the 'regularity' of this 'terrible crime' let's see if you can guess/find out.

[Edited by Mycroft - 6/16/2003 8:50:06 AM]

OK seen as no-one else will guess I will have a go at about 3 years ago!!! Just an assumption as I reckon 99% of accidents are caused through due car/not paying attention etc!!!

Edited for spelling as usual

[Edited by 248SPG - 6/15/2003 11:17:03 PM]

Good on yer matey... and not far wrong!...

Just out of curiosity can you email me the stats??

I reckon most accidents are caused by a combination of too fast (NOT 100 MPH) and not enough attention to whats happening in front, to the side or even behind you.
I imagine the percentage of accidents caused by the said 100MPH is something in the region of 2% and about 4 years ago at that .

Well, I'm not sure if calling people "dopey coppers" will solve anything, but my guess is 2 years ago.

30 MPH is too fast when you are not paying attention, 125 MPH is perfectly OK when you are feeling fine, but most of us have know that for quite a while now ?

The German Autobahn messes up the "speed kills" tantrum, doesn't it ?

its a pointless point.... if you let everyone go over 100mph there would be crashes. its like saying when was the last time a shop had to close down because of shoplifters yet there are thousands of them about....so lets leaglise it!

As far as I can remember it was a couple of idiots racing two Porsche 911s way, way too fast down some unfamiliar roads after some sort of meet. They crashed and killed another motorist. I think they survived?

Davegt is getting closer...

Bevel, I thought dopey to less nasty than idiot, but fair enough, I will edit to the original.

Surely it's not "top speed" it's "inappropriate speed" :)

No, the question is not that, the question is quite clear...

'Inappropriate' is rather too broad a question... let's have some facts... and besides if you are found doing 100mph you stand a good chance of losing your licence... let's see just how dangerous this arbitrary cut-off really is...

[Edited by Mycroft - 6/16/2003 9:28:15 AM]

I'm all for the "appropriate speed" argument, however in the interest of fairness I will point out that there tend to be more deaths in accidents on the German autobahn, perhaps due to the high speeds involved.
The idea of some of the morons I meet on a daily basis on UK roads having carte blanche to do whatever speed they please is worrying. Most drivers are not fit to be driving at all never mind doing speeds of 100mph+. I think there should be different levels of driving licence with different speed limits applied. Easy to work out- SPECS sees driver on M25 doing 120mph in middle of night- checks category of pass against database- user is authorised for that speed, no fine issued. In fact while I'm on a roll there should be a seperate licence for driving on M-ways- no new drivers at all for first 2 yrs, then another test to ensure they have the skills needed.

I'd like the scooby-cops input here... as it does effect them...

Ironic thing is, that will all the speed cameras popping up all over the place, the place where you're least likely to get caught speeding is round the streets.........

There are plenty of speed cameras on the *fun* roads round here, but absolutely none on the streets, outside schools, near old peoples homes etc.

Philz... that is too true... where the real risk is, none of us disagree with their sighting... but we are all so law abiding in those areas that the revenue from the Cameras is less than the initial cost and maintainance... they now have to be sited in places to cover the costs... we are extra-ordinarily law abiding... the last time earlier this year when a driver killed a child outside a School it was a copper driving cop-car... ironic in a sad way don't you think?

[Edited by Mycroft - 6/16/2003 10:03:24 AM]

NACRO,
how about if you borrow somebody else's car that isn't registered to do the speed? :eek: Or somebody borrows your car and cannot handle the speed? Would you suggest a new licence disk, of reg number for the driver and not the car? nicce idea, but too many problems ;)

Gus

I'd be willing to wager that a lot of crashes that the Government attribute to "speed" are mainly due to other drivers misjudging the speed of another vehicle (i.e. pulling out of junctions, changing lanes on the motorway).

Crashes over 100mph are going to be rare due to the fact that a relatively small percentage of drivers do 100+mph.

However, come the next election, we all need to be looking for a Government that knows the difference between inppropriate speed and speed (some hope). It's about time we had a decent transport strategy in this country that helped the population rather than hindered it.

Mycroft, do you have statistics on where the majority of road deaths occur (i.e. motorway or 30 zone) and also how many HGV's are involved in road deaths (as a percentage)?

If you can provide a stat showing the number of incidents involving HGVs it'd be very interesting. Especially with the recent crashes on the Motorways this past week involving HGVs.

Personally I think the Government should look to ensuring all HGVs are restricted to 55mph, and have similar systems to those on some Mercedes cars, whereby the distance between the vehicle in front and the HGV is kept at a safe level. (Before I get abuse from HGV drivers - yes, I appreciate there are numerous instances where the car drivers are at fault...)

good point GU5- how about this for an idea then. we ban everyone from driving (over a controlled period) then we all have to retake a much, much harder test covering automotive theory as well as roadcraft. I would be quite willing to undergo retest and re-education for this- I'm betting a lot of the a55holes who litter our roads wouldn't be able to pass the current test never mind my idea of a much harder test. Too many people have the benefit of using a car, we need to take that away from the majority of ill-informed p*ss poor drivers.
Also raise the minimum age to 21, maximum age 65 with stringent medical tests.

I personally think that everyone should have to do a compulsary re test every 5 years or so and have much stricter medical restriction eg compulsary eye testing for those that wear glasses (know to many people that wear glasses and forget to wear them for driving or get the wrong pair on) and the elderly.

Richard

I know that this will upset a few, but I really think that you shouldnt be allowed on the road until your 21.

17 is just too young & too immature for the responsibility of driving.

My nephew is 16 - he learns to drive next year. He basically is still a child!!

I know I probably didnt think this when I was 17 - but looking back I realise the stupid things I did then it's a wonder I'm still alive. Looking back now i'm 30+ I see its bordering on irresponsible to allow such young drivers.

I appreciate that at 17 a lot of people are leaving school, need jobs, have to travel, but this is where a decent transport system is required.

Maybe there should be some form of restricted engine size too for the first 2 years or so, and WHY isnt motorway driving part of the test?? This is one serious oversight. I remember the first time I drove on a motorway I was ****ting myself!

Anybody else feel the same way?

Or am I turing into an old fart? LOL:)

engine size doesn't matter, i.e. 1litre-1.4 is wot most kids can only afford and get insurance on and you can wind them all up to 100mph. obviously if you are 17 and driving something like a scooby turbo, then i hope you are super sensible or you will die.

Crashes at over 100mph are rare because driving at this speed would constitute (a) a very small proportion of the driving of (b) a very small proportion of drivers. (a) - because of other traffic, road conditions etc and (b) because of wanting to keep one's licence.

Therefore I don't see the point of this question.

Gary.

Don't think a compulsory re-test would work :( There are already a lot of people who drive without insurance, tax MOT etc, etc. The only thing that would stop them would be something that physically stops the car going, authourisation from a tracker? Although who's to say that the licenced person will be driving?
Just because people's licences have run out, or they cannot pass the re-test, will not stop them driving.
It appears the people who are willing to do the re-test are the ones that it isn't aimed at :( How many knowingly bad drivers would be happy about having to do a re-test knowing that they would fail because they're a bad driver :(

###
Therefore I don't see the point of this question.
###
You will.

Yes, but is that a question of youth or inexperience? In other words, would you have been any better if you'd learnt to drive when you were 21?

Nacro.

What special information do you base those age limits on? The average 17 year old has got very good reaction times and is capable of learning easily. I have taught many people of that age to fly military aircraft and they were safe and capable pilots. It is all down to the right kind of education in the first place. As far as the older driver is concerned, why do you say 65 years old. Once again, the average 65 year old still has good reactions and also has a wealth of experience. Believe me, experience can't be bought and is more valuable than you can ever realise until you see it for yourself. Works in the air too! You will be that old eventually, worth remembering.:)

Extra driving tests etc will do nothing to improve driving standards of qualified drivers. You are dealing with the person's personal mindset, and if he decides to drive like a maniac that is what he will continue to do after any course and test that you give him. Only adequate penalties for misbehaviour will maybe make a difference. Very difficult to train selfishness out of someone.

Les

[Edited by Leslie - 6/16/2003 2:03:42 PM]

I think the 'qualification' for the 17yo flyer is 'maturity' and you select only those with the comensurate level of maturity...

That selection process is too exclusive, involved and expensive for general use, as in driving.

Old age is also a problem in that I believe a simple GP review would answer.

Restricted cars is easy cheap and simple...

So what are the numbers you drama queen?

reaction times have nothing whatsoever to do with road safety. It's all about hazard perception and young people are proven risk takers. Combine that with poor hazard perception, peer pressure and a sense of invincibility then you have a recipe for disaster. 17 yr olds are basically still children and need some life experience before being let loose on our roads. As for the OAP's we will all be that old one day hopefully- let's all agree that we need to be tested if we wish to carry on driving as it is a fact that our faculties start to fail as we get older.