Times article speed limiters
 

The times has a debate on speed limiters today

From article.

"72% of drivers would have limiters for cheap insurance"

"12% would have them anyway"

"A third of accidents are speed related" "we know that for every 1 mph reduction in speed casualties reduce by about 5%"

"Speed limiters would reduce crashes by 20%"

They can be contacted at the following address


Debate@the times

I wouldn't.

If I can't drive sensibly then I shouldn't have this car.

You can still injure people if you drive slowly and badly. :(

Quite right, if people cannot be trusted to drive correctly i.e. at the right speed then they shouldn't have passed their test. That is why I wouldn't be safe in an HGV because I don't have an HGV licence.

Been shown to be rubbuish, it's nearer 3%:mad:

Statistics:mad:

So from the above, if I'm doing 90, and slow to 70, I won't have ANY casualties?:mad:

Just goes to show the trite nonsense these w@nkers trot out:mad:

Alcazar

What these tossers who come up with these stats never take into consideration is, what exactly "speed related" means. :mad:
It can mean anything from failure to judge other persons path or speed, following too close, slippery road, aggressive driving and all the way to weather.
It has been proven that actual speed related accidents are around 7.3%! Third my ar$e. :mad:
I don't believe people like this can get away with nonsense, oh no sorry they can it's called Labour!
Speed is simply not the issue it is made out to be. Sheer bad driving is the cause of most accidents, and travelling at excessive speed for the conditions is just another form of bad driving. Yet the government does virtually nothing to improve general driving standards. It even takes experienced police patrols off our roads, which makes the situation worse!

The government is not really interested in improving road safety, it is only interested in making life hell for drivers.


That's it, whoever the daft muppet was who wrote that article I'm going to explain to him/her what "speed related" actually means and then ram it down their throat!
I'm sick of hearing it!

Sorry about the rant, just makes my blood boil.

Agree wholeheartedly with the above post:mad:

Unfortunately, the government brain-washing of people over speeding, in order to make the gathering of extra taxes from them as speeding fines, has had the effect they wanted:

Last week on one of the breakfast TV shows, they were doing a bit about motor insurance dodgers, and some nesbit from Belfast rang up to say that insurance dodgers weren't the real problem. Nor, in his opinion, were tax dodgers, unlicensed drivers, OR DRUNK DRIVERS!!!!!:(. No, in his opinion, the real menace these days were speeders:mad:

Talk about brainwashed..............if that guy had two braincells TO wash:mad:

Alcazar

I'm glad to see people get angry about these lies. We were told that speed cameras would save lives, same with road humps and width restrictions and yet despite greater numbers of cars having air-bags, side impact protection bars, better designed crumple zones etc. the gov. should be made to explain why road casualties have gone up!