tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 And i call the fact that none of these wonder drivers have hit a kid...lucky. maybe certain events occur much the way the laws of physics prescribes that certain events occur and luck has nothing to do with it Maybe had they been going 5 mph slower the kid that leaps out into the road behind them would have copped it ..so by going faster they avoided him ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 it's the same with drink driving .. 1 in 6 deaths on the road are down to drink drivers , so that means 5 of them are caused by people who are sober That's a great campaign: "Drink and drive. Most deaths on the roads are caused by sober drivers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 And i call the fact that none of these wonder drivers have hit a kid...lucky. maybe certain events occur much the way the laws of physics prescribes that certain events occur and luck has nothing to do with it Maybe had they been going 5 mph slower the kid that leaps out into the road behind them would have copped it ..so by going faster they avoided him ?? Thats a joke...right? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 The biggest risk on the road are the people so convinced they're driving safely they stop paying attention to the road and drive like it's a formality. Usually that's the people who drive within the speed limits and think they're driving perfectly. People who speed (other than the retard boy racers) are generally more aware of the fact they're a risk, and act accordingly. couldn't agree more it's the same with drink driving .. 1 in 6 deaths on the road are down to drink drivers , so that means 5 of them are caused by people who are sober Do me a favour Tony...find out how many of those remaining 5 deaths were due to speeding. ignoring my facetious post for a second Only one in every 20 road accidents is caused by the driver breaking the speed limit, the Government has admitted. guess you can view that stat how you like Accidents were far more likely to be caused by drivers failing to pay attention and making mistakes, or pedestrians not looking properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 The biggest risk on the road are the people so convinced they're driving safely they stop paying attention to the road and drive like it's a formality. Usually that's the people who drive within the speed limits and think they're driving perfectly. People who speed (other than the retard boy racers) are generally more aware of the fact they're a risk, and act accordingly. couldn't agree more it's the same with drink driving .. 1 in 6 deaths on the road are down to drink drivers , so that means 5 of them are caused by people who are sober Do me a favour Tony...find out how many of those remaining 5 deaths were due to speeding. No one is saying speeding is always fine, what is is an appropriate speed for the conditions, and often that can be above the limit. Especially when on a motorway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 In fairness though Tony, those are all issues that we should be looking to eliminate, rather than advocating one, or any, because they cause fewer accidents than other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 The biggest risk on the road are the people so convinced they're driving safely they stop paying attention to the road and drive like it's a formality. Usually that's the people who drive within the speed limits and think they're driving perfectly. People who speed (other than the retard boy racers) are generally more aware of the fact they're a risk, and act accordingly. couldn't agree more it's the same with drink driving .. 1 in 6 deaths on the road are down to drink drivers , so that means 5 of them are caused by people who are sober Do me a favour Tony...find out how many of those remaining 5 deaths were due to speeding. I would guess at a tiny %. I was in the passenger seat of a car that hit some clearing in the woods in Erdington, he came though the window half way and then the brakes came on a he went rolling down the road for 30 ft. It's no laughing matter I can tell you. Point is, it was 100 % his fault and was totally unavoidable by any driver on the planet. Even the Police said so, so total deaths on the road mean F all unless clearings in the woods are excluded (and little jonny :-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 And i call the fact that none of these wonder drivers have hit a kid...lucky. maybe certain events occur much the way the laws of physics prescribes that certain events occur and luck has nothing to do with it Maybe had they been going 5 mph slower the kid that leaps out into the road behind them would have copped it ..so by going faster they avoided him ?? Thats a joke...right? :? no ...the drink driving stat one was in case you missed it but this post was perfectly serious I'm just using the same flawed logic that you are At 10:25 fate decrees that little Johnny is going to jump out in the road for some reason and X marks the spot ... at 10:25 at 30 mph you will be at point X , at 10:25 at 35mph you are going to be at X+ Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 30, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 30, 2011 Speeding: more and more severe accidents Speed is at the core of the road safety problem. In fact, speed is involved in all accidents: no speed, no accidents. In around 30% of the fatal accidents speed is an essential contributory factor. Firstly, speed affects the risk of being involved in an accident. At a higher speed, it is more difficult to react in time and prevent an accident. Secondly, speed affects the injury consequences of an accident. At a higher (impact) speed, more energy is released when colliding with another vehicle, road user or obstacle. Part of this energy will need to be absorbed by the vulnerable human body. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk and severity. Excess speed and inappropriate speed are very common Speed limits provide information to the drivers about the safe speed to travel in average conditions. Exceeding the speed limits is very common. Typically, 40 to 50% of the drivers travel faster than the speed limit. Typically, 10 to 20% exceed the speed limit by more than 10 km/h. In addition, drivers adapt their speed insufficiently to local and temporary conditions related to traffic and weather. They often choose a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions. Speed choice is related to the drivers' motives, attitudes, risk perception and risk acceptance. Furthermore, speed choice is affected by characteristics of the road and the road environment and by characteristics of the vehicle. European Road Safety Observatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 And i call the fact that none of these wonder drivers have hit a kid...lucky. maybe certain events occur much the way the laws of physics prescribes that certain events occur and luck has nothing to do with it Maybe had they been going 5 mph slower the kid that leaps out into the road behind them would have copped it ..so by going faster they avoided him ?? Thats a joke...right? :? no ...the drink driving stat one was in case you missed it but this post was perfectly serious I'm just using the same flawed logic that you are At 10:25 fate decrees that little Johnny is going to jump out in the road for some reason and X marks the spot ... at 10:25 at 30 mph you will be at point X , at 10:25 at 35mph you are going to be at X+ Y Tony, its **** all to do with fate. The point is little Johnny has more chance of surviving if he is hit at 30mph than he has at 40mph. By the way, what flawed logic have i used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 And i call the fact that none of these wonder drivers have hit a kid...lucky. maybe certain events occur much the way the laws of physics prescribes that certain events occur and luck has nothing to do with it Maybe had they been going 5 mph slower the kid that leaps out into the road behind them would have copped it ..so by going faster they avoided him ?? Thats a joke...right? :? no ...the drink driving stat one was in case you missed it but this post was perfectly serious I'm just using the same flawed logic that you are At 10:25 fate decrees that little Johnny is going to jump out in the road for some reason and X marks the spot ... at 10:25 at 30 mph you will be at point X , at 10:25 at 35mph you are going to be at X+ Y Tony, its **** all to do with fate. The point is little Johnny has more chance of surviving if he is hit at 30mph than he has at 40mph. By the way, what flawed logic have i used? what chance has he got at 70mph? what chance has he got at 80mph? i dont see why little johnny has been brought into this, i happily go over the speed limit on the motorway, doesnt mean i do it outside schools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 An Extra 10MPH on motorway speed limits is nothing more than a headline catching statement from a Gvmt who are trying to hde more economic bad news. The reality is still that people like Clarkson are seen by some as some sort of hero, when the reality of what he is preaching regarding speed is a complete disregard to the safety of others for his own pleasure. If any Gvmt were serious about speed they could make it law that limiters were fitted to cars that stopped them going above the max speed limit. They would invest more in cameras and Police to track people's speed and prosecute when laws are broken. The simple fact is raising the speed limit on a motorway will achieve nothing at all other than give some people an idea that they can drive faster with little concern. A lot of cars and their drivers are not capable of dealing with high speed and what is needed to keep it safe for others on the road. But of course Clarkson et al say that its fine and we can make jokes about it so it's all hunky dunky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 And i call the fact that none of these wonder drivers have hit a kid...lucky. maybe certain events occur much the way the laws of physics prescribes that certain events occur and luck has nothing to do with it Maybe had they been going 5 mph slower the kid that leaps out into the road behind them would have copped it ..so by going faster they avoided him ?? Thats a joke...right? :? no ...the drink driving stat one was in case you missed it but this post was perfectly serious I'm just using the same flawed logic that you are At 10:25 fate decrees that little Johnny is going to jump out in the road for some reason and X marks the spot ... at 10:25 at 30 mph you will be at point X , at 10:25 at 35mph you are going to be at X+ Y Tony, its **** all to do with fate. The point is little Johnny has more chance of surviving if he is hit at 30mph than he has at 40mph. By the way, what flawed logic have i used? what chance has he got at 70mph? what chance has he got at 80mph? i dont see why little johnny has been brought into this, i happily go over the speed limit on the motorway, doesnt mean i do it outside schools The point is people making out that its ok to speed in residential areas becuse they have superior skills behind the wheel, that they can see round corners, see reflections in windows, slow down time etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 i happily go over the speed limit on the motorway, doesnt mean i do it outside schools this is something that is being quoted often (and not picking on you V4E). Firstly how do you know where a school is? Why is it that you only employ that "rule" around a school, do people in other areas not count? What about the ability of you and your car to react to for example a blow out, is that easier because you are going faster or harder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 The point is people making out that its ok to speed in residential areas becuse they have superior skills behind the wheel, that they can see round corners, see reflections in windows, slow down time etc. is it ? the title was Motorways and as far as I am aware nobody on this thread has mentioned anything about driving in residential zones at break necks speeds .. the "for" camp have been talking about motorways ... I think the against camp are guilty of making a few assumption as I'm fairly sure it hasn't been said Edit .. had a look back and you brought up little Johnny and i even replied a while later to stress I was talking motorways ... think little Johhny has a lot to answer for in derailing the thread :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 And i call the fact that none of these wonder drivers have hit a kid...lucky. maybe certain events occur much the way the laws of physics prescribes that certain events occur and luck has nothing to do with it Maybe had they been going 5 mph slower the kid that leaps out into the road behind them would have copped it ..so by going faster they avoided him ?? Thats a joke...right? :? no ...the drink driving stat one was in case you missed it but this post was perfectly serious I'm just using the same flawed logic that you are At 10:25 fate decrees that little Johnny is going to jump out in the road for some reason and X marks the spot ... at 10:25 at 30 mph you will be at point X , at 10:25 at 35mph you are going to be at X+ Y Tony, its **** all to do with fate. The point is little Johnny has more chance of surviving if he is hit at 30mph than he has at 40mph. By the way, what flawed logic have i used? what chance has he got at 70mph? what chance has he got at 80mph? i dont see why little johnny has been brought into this, i happily go over the speed limit on the motorway, doesnt mean i do it outside schools The point is people making out that its ok to speed in residential areas becuse they have superior skills behind the wheel, that they can see round corners, see reflections in windows, slow down time etc. No, what people are saying is its ok to speed when conditions allow it. Very rarely is that in residential areas where you have lines of parked cars to deal with. And even in those areas I'd rather have someone more aware of their surroundings than a 30mph dawdler that just focuses eyes down on the road ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 i happily go over the speed limit on the motorway, doesnt mean i do it outside schools this is something that is being quoted often (and not picking on you V4E). Firstly how do you know where a school is? By law they have to have signs warning that you're approaching a school a certain distance down the road. Check the Highway Code if you've forgotten! But in any case, I've yet to see one on a motorway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunther Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Why not only allow certain cars to use the fast lane? As a policeman told me when he pulled me over for speeding, my car at the time was built to go fast and had the necessary braking systems etc, a Citroen Saxo was not. Not sure if anyone's replied to this in the subsequent four pages, but it does my nut in . The reason is, because it's not a frigging 'fast lane'. There isn't a fast lane or a slow lane. There's a lane for driving in, an overtaking lane, and a second overtaking lane. If chappy is doing 50mph in lane one, and chappette is doing 60mph in lane 2, overtaking, then chapsmash is perfectly entitled to overtake at 65mph in lane 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 They would invest more in cameras and Police to track people's speed and prosecute when laws are broken and maybe an ID card whilst we are at it as everyone knows they also prevent crime :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Edit .. had a look back and you brought up little Johnny and i even replied a while later to stress I was talking motorways ... think little Johhny has a lot to answer for in derailing the thread :-) Mischievious little bastard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts