Speedwatch

[Xranus]

Jeremy - give up mate.. anus and ralgex are morons! They don't know what they're talking about ! I think the "Priory" has turned the computers off for the night anyway and everyone will be safely tucked up in bed now with their Mogadon and strait jackets!

 

Jeremy -stay with us. I want to go through the alphabet with you. Mr A, B and all that stuff - it's interesting to find out how the minds of speedophiles work and it gives me a good laugh when I read all the lame and weird excuses they come out with for their lust for speed.

[Xranus]

Have you not? Oh, I apologise, I thought your repetition indicated that you believed ALL accidents were as a result of speed or speeding.

 

Is it not? Then what is it?

 

Answer me this - 31 mph in a 30 zone - dangerous/wreckless or not?

 

For goodness sake Jeremy, read my posts properly. I have never said that all road accidents are caused through speed. I have merely said that the seriousness of a road accident depends on the speed of the vehicle/s involved.

If you hit a tree at 60mph - you are going obviously going to do more damage, including to yourself, than if you had hit it at 30mph.

 

Everyone travels just over the speed limit at times - even me! (But only by a couple of miles or so and I try not to do that).

 

31 - 33mph in a 30 zone could hardly be called dangerous or wreckless (unless there is no footpath with pedestrians walking in the road etc).

[Xranus]

Sorry, but at the risk of repeating myself - 3 year old child crushed by her mothers car rolling back due to the handbrake not engaging or being faulty. Rolled 3 or 4 feet (not sure how that equates to an mph value).

 

Speed?

 

 

Can't follow you on this one Jeremy.

 

What has this got to do with speed?

 

Unless you are saying that all accidents aren't caused by speed - which everyone knows already.

[Xranus]

Do you chant a mantra in the mirror each morning?

 

I am great! I am right! I am above all people! I am a god!

 

 

Of course I do.

[SnailyBoy]

I have had three accidents in that time - none of which were as a result of 'speeding'.

 

Bet you've seen hundreds

[jeremyjh1]

Bet you've seen hundreds

 

I've seen my fair share, not many fatal.

 

I'vr also seen lunatic driving that had absolutely nothing to do with speed which could have resulted in serious fatalities.

 

But, in the mind of some, the report would record 'speed was the major contributory factor'.

 

Funny, I cannot get my head around the fact that, at 30 mph you could have an accident and, statistically (statistics that some quote when it suits and ignore when it undermines their bent) you are less likely to kill a person. Yet, if you go 1mph over or 2 or 3 - the odds suddenly and dramatically increase.

 

This appears to be what some are saying with their 'speed kills' mantra.

 

Imagine someone driving at 26 mph, loses control, let's say because they were 'speeding' in the loosest sense of the word (to suit the argument of some), the car mounts the pavement, ploughs in to a group of people waiting at a bus stop, pinning one or two against a brick wall. Both, tragically, died.

 

An example from experience - a man I worked with many years back happened to be in that queue next to his wife. She was one of the two.

 

Funnily enough, the police asked for witnesses. They didn't look at the scene and simply write down 'speeding', job done, case closed.

 

The outcome of the investigation was that 'speed' had nothing to do with the cause of the accident. It was a combination of factors, an oil spillage on the road leading to lose of control (skidding), a young, inexperienced driver who panicked and insufficient crash barriers around/near the bus stop.

 

I asked the husband some time after what he felt about it - did he blame the young driver and think that allowing someone to drive legally at 17 or 18 was too young an age. He said, no, he did not blame the young driver. Experience is something you gain over time by doing things, making mistakes and learning from them. The accident could easily have happened to an older, more experienced driver. Who knows how a person will react in any given situation.

 

Odd really, he had every right to hold some seriously emotional views on the subject. He could have spent his life chanting 'young drivers are a menace on the road' (statistically, I believe this could be said even today). He could have spent his life saying that speed limits should be reduced (although, the coroner's report of the accident concluded that, unless the car had been travelling at less than 20 mph, the outcome would most likely have been the same; the only difference may have been that the people at bus stop may have had a second or two longer to react.); the two people who died died as a result of the injuries they sustained by being crushed against a solid brick wall.

 

I guess, when it comes to emotions, you can act completely irrationally and accept no devaition from your own point of view or not.

 

By ignoring all other factors involving road traffic accidents and simply focussing on speed as the major cause or chanting stuff about 'the faster you go blah blah' means you avoid many other reasons and, therefore, potential solutions.

 

Make drivers slow down and road deaths will be eradicated. Er, statistically, only 5% of road deaths will be eradicated, 95% will still happen because the focus is on the wrong factor.

 

What is even more annoying, with some of the 'all speed kills' brigade, is that I am not entirely disagreeing with them. I do, though, seem to have a much more open mind on the subject, they appear to not.

 

If, by driving at 30 mph you are less likely to kill a person in an accident - and let's be totally clear wbout this, we are talking about either a car to person collision or a car to cyclist collision, not a vehicle to vehicle, then doing 3, 4 or even 6 mph over the limit, although breaking the law, is unlikely to dramatically increase that percentage, is it? Really?

 

As I have said before to deaf ears and blind eyes - I agree that excessive speed can kill (if an accident ensues whilts doing that speed), but doing an excessive speed (i.e. any speed over the speed limit), apart from breaking the law, does NOT make you a dangerous driver - not in reality, only in a legal sense.

 

This, I am sure, will bounce off the forehead of the closed mind. I can hear the trusted response now;

 

'Speed kills, speed kills.'

 

Yes, yes it does, that's why there are so many deaths due to road traffic accidents every year. If you look at the stats 100% of those killed on the road die as a result of the accident.

 

100%!

[SnailyBoy]

I've seen my fair share, not many fatal.

 

I'vr also seen lunatic driving that had absolutely nothing to do with speed which could have resulted in serious fatalities.

 

But, in the mind of some, the report would record 'speed was the major contributory factor'.

 

Funny, I cannot get my head around the fact that, at 30 mph you could have an accident and, statistically (statistics that some quote when it suits and ignore when it undermines their bent) you are less likely to kill a person. Yet, if you go 1mph over or 2 or 3 - the odds suddenly and dramatically increase.

 

This appears to be what some are saying with their 'speed kills' mantra.

 

Imagine someone driving at 26 mph, loses control, let's say because they were 'speeding' in the loosest sense of the word (to suit the argument of some), the car mounts the pavement, ploughs in to a group of people waiting at a bus stop, pinning one or two against a brick wall. Both, tragically, died.

 

An example from experience - a man I worked with many years back happened to be in that queue next to his wife. She was one of the two.

 

Funnily enough, the police asked for witnesses. They didn't look at the scene and simply write down 'speeding', job done, case closed.

 

The outcome of the investigation was that 'speed' had nothing to do with the cause of the accident. It was a combination of factors, an oil spillage on the road leading to lose of control (skidding), a young, inexperienced driver who panicked and insufficient crash barriers around/near the bus stop.

 

I asked the husband some time after what he felt about it - did he blame the young driver and think that allowing someone to drive legally at 17 or 18 was too young an age. He said, no, he did not blame the young driver. Experience is something you gain over time by doing things, making mistakes and learning from them. The accident could easily have happened to an older, more experienced driver. Who knows how a person will react in any given situation.

 

Odd really, he had every right to hold some seriously emotional views on the subject. He could have spent his life chanting 'young drivers are a menace on the road' (statistically, I believe this could be said even today). He could have spent his life saying that speed limits should be reduced (although, the coroner's report of the accident concluded that, unless the car had been travelling at less than 20 mph, the outcome would most likely have been the same; the only difference may have been that the people at bus stop may have had a second or two longer to react.); the two people who died died as a result of the injuries they sustained by being crushed against a solid brick wall.

 

I guess, when it comes to emotions, you can act completely irrationally and accept no devaition from your own point of view or not.

 

By ignoring all other factors involving road traffic accidents and simply focussing on speed as the major cause or chanting stuff about 'the faster you go blah blah' means you avoid many other reasons and, therefore, potential solutions.

 

Make drivers slow down and road deaths will be eradicated. Er, statistically, only 5% of road deaths will be eradicated, 95% will still happen because the focus is on the wrong factor.

 

What is even more annoying, with some of the 'all speed kills' brigade, is that I am not entirely disagreeing with them. I do, though, seem to have a much more open mind on the subject, they appear to not.

 

If, by driving at 30 mph you are less likely to kill a person in an accident - and let's be totally clear wbout this, we are talking about either a car to person collision or a car to cyclist collision, not a vehicle to vehicle, then doing 3, 4 or even 6 mph over the limit, although breaking the law, is unlikely to dramatically increase that percentage, is it? Really?

 

As I have said before to deaf ears and blind eyes - I agree that excessive speed can kill (if an accident ensues whilts doing that speed), but doing an excessive speed (i.e. any speed over the speed limit), apart from breaking the law, does NOT make you a dangerous driver - not in reality, only in a legal sense.

 

This, I am sure, will bounce off the forehead of the closed mind. I can hear the trusted response now;

 

'Speed kills, speed kills.'

 

Yes, yes it does, that's why there are so many deaths due to road traffic accidents every year. If you look at the stats 100% of those killed on the road die as a result of the accident.

 

100%!

 

 

Wooooooshhhhh

[jeremyjh1]

Wooooooshhhhh

 

Was it over your head?

 

Maybe I should use less long words.

 

Or do you have a closed mind?

 

Oh well - I tried and, as with some others, it was a waste of time.

 

Bye then.

[SnailyBoy]

Was it over your head?

 

Maybe I should use less long words.

 

Or do you have a closed mind?

 

Oh well - I tried and, as with some others, it was a waste of time.

 

Bye then.

 

Lol....Please stay.

 

I'm fascinated by your pontificating on driving in general and you wear your record like a badge of honour. Yet your observational skills appear to be shocking.

 

1. Having stopped at a crossroads, I drove across when I believed the road was clear and was hit by a car from the left. Only just in second gear.

 

2. Slipped on frost on the road whilst turning around a 90 degree corner. Again, only just in second gear.

 

3. (Which, chronologically, should be first) was a week after I had passed my test (first time). Car rolled 10 feet or so in to the back of another car on Putney Bridge - forgot to put the handbrake on.

 

Add to that not being able to correlate the speed of your vehicle and the posted limit, one of the basic requirements of the driving test.

 

Only been caught 3 times speeding.... more luck than judgement.

 

I'd say open your mind......take some refresher lessons.

[jeremyjh1]

Lol....Please stay.

 

I'm fascinated by your pontificating on driving in general and you wear your record like a badge of honour. Yet your observational skills appear to be shocking.

 

 

 

Add to that not being able to correlate the speed of your vehicle and the posted limit, one of the basic requirements of the driving test.

 

Only been caught 3 times speeding.... more luck than judgement.

 

I'd say open your mind......take some refresher lessons.

 

My observational skills!!! Are you seriously disputing my ability based on the three accidents I have had?

 

The crossroads in Mitchum was an 's-bend'. It was raining. There was a van coming along the road from the right. It passed, I checked right and left and, due to the road conditions, pulled away slowly (as I was taught to do by a qualified driving instructor). A small car that was 'lost' in the blind spot hit my car.

 

Notice the words 'blind spot' - if it is a 'blind spot' how can you 'observe'? And if you believe the road is clear to proceed, why wait any longer? You trust what you see because you believe you 'see' it. Up to that point, in that make of vehicle, I did not know there was a 'blind spot' where it was.

 

Certainly, since that accident, I take a deal more care when observing at road junctions - that's how normal people learn. Others, I guess, are born genius'

 

Funny how, being such a terrible driver, I did manage to pass my driving test, first time, with no mark downs. I suppose either the instructor was a fool or I bribed him or something. Oh well, watch out when I'm on the road because, statistically, I wont injure you or crash in to you. Well, actually, I might, just to give you a sense of satisfaction in being oh so right.

 

As for the second accident - how was that observationally deficient? I wasn't driving fast, I was only in second gear, just. If I had driven any slower the car would have stalled. While I was waiting for a tow, three other cars did the same, though not with the same consequences.

 

And for the third incident - youthful inexperience and nothing more.

 

And, yes, I do wear my driving record with a sense of pride. I have driven the equivalent of 70 years worth of average driving mileage. I have had three minor accidents and I have been caught speeding (sure, more luck than judgement) 3 times.

 

There are many who have driven less and had more accidents and been fined more times for speeding than I. Just the same as there are many who have driven more miles and had less accidents and fewer fines.

 

If my driving record is bad, then I fear you are condemning a very high percentage of drivers.

 

So, what's to be? (Oh, and be careful that you do not base you opinion on a couple of facts whilst ignoring everything else, like how many 'years' I have been effectively driving).