Speedwatch

[Xranus]

Perhaps they should be trying to get people enthused to do something about the issues that actually affect their community. Rather than using them as free help to tackle a perceived problem that should solely be that of the law enforcement agencies and arguably should be way down those agencies' list of priorities.

 

More people are killed annually by speeding than by any other crime.

It does not matter what causes a road accident, speed will determine the seriousness of that accident and as to whether it is fatal or not.

For this reason speeding must be treated far more seriously by the police and courts.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

More people are killed annually by speeding than by any other crime.

It does not matter what causes a road accident, speed will determine the seriousness of that accident and as to whether it is fatal or not.

For this reason speeding must be treated far more seriously by the police and courts.

 

 

I get the feeling you would only be happy if everyone drove with someone with a red flag walking in front of them!

[jeremyjh1]

Speeding at 36mph in a 30mph zone would mean that if you hit someone at your excessive speed you would more than likely kill them. By speeding you are endangering the lives of others and therefore are driving dangerously.

Speed limits are there for a reason ie: road hazards like bends or junctions and for when caution is needed such as near built up areas, schools or where there is no pedestrian footpath etc. etc.

You say that you drive around 12,000 miles per year. If you are speeding most of this time you should consider yourself very lucky not to have had an accident caused by, or made worse, through your bad driving.

 

Read the post - average mileage is assumed at 12,000 miles per year.

 

I have driven the equivalent of 70 odd driving years over the last 15 years. (around 55,000 miles per year).

 

You assume, because I have been 'caught' doing excessive speeds (36 in a 30 zone) that I drive that fast ALL the time. (Wrong - but don't reality get in the way of your bias!!).

 

I claim that doing 36 in a 30 does NOT constitute bad or dangerous driving. You do. Fine (I'm not going to argue with a solid lump of stone - you are what you are).

 

There is a road where I live that has these speed zones - 30 for half a mile, 40 for a mile and a half, 50 through an S bend (?!?!?), then straight down to 30 (half a mile later).

 

Insane, but there you are. Now, if you say doing 36 or 37 is dangerous, what about doing 45 in a 50 zone? It is within the speed limit, sure.

 

But, the 50 covers a severe S bend with one side solid stone. The fastest you could actually drive that safely is 40 (and that's on the edge of safety, unless you have a racing car and slick tyres!!!).

 

The other week there was a report of a young child being killed by her mothers car when the handbrake failed and it rolled back a couple of feet, crushing the child.

 

Not sure of the actual speed, but it certainly did not break the law, but, tragically, a child died from the accident.

 

Speed kills? Always?

 

So, why not have 20 mph (which is, alledgedly, a 'safe' speed) across the entire country - B roads, A road, dual carriageways, motorways?

 

That way no one will ever be killed again by the army of reckless, dangerous, selfish speed merchants that endanger the good, safe population of this country.

 

Perleeassee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jeremyjh1]

More people are killed annually by speeding than by any other crime.

It does not matter what causes a road accident, speed will determine the seriousness of that accident and as to whether it is fatal or not.

For this reason speeding must be treated far more seriously by the police and courts.

 

Provide link to your source of statistics please.

 

I have managed to find stats for road traffic accidents in the US attributing 'almost' a third of fatalities caused by excessive speed.

 

Or, to put it another way, 66% were NOT a direct result of excessive speeding (i.e. driving beyond the legal limit for the road the accident occured).

 

I assume, by your logic, if you get in to a car and move it forwards that equals 'speed', therefore this is 'speeding', therefore if you have an accident it is down to 'speeding'.

 

I'll keep digging to see if I can find stats that correspond with your claims.

[jeremyjh1]

More people are killed annually by speeding than by any other crime.

It does not matter what causes a road accident, speed will determine the seriousness of that accident and as to whether it is fatal or not.

For this reason speeding must be treated far more seriously by the police and courts.

 

Found something.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/29/transport.lifeandhealth

 

The guardian. Quote:

 

'Drivers' failure to pay attention, rather than speed, is now the main cause of road accidents, according to government figures published yesterday.'

 

'Exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for the conditions was said to be a contributory factor in 15% of all accidents and 26% of fatal accidents.'

 

15% in ALL accidents (hardly a very high figure) and of that 15%, 26% of fatal accidents were caused by excessive speed.

 

'Overall, deaths and injuries on Britain's roads continued to fall, with 3,201' Of course, this is deaths and injuries.

 

'Exceeding the speed limit was the sole factor in 5% of all accidents and 12% of fatal accidents last year'

 

5% as the 'sole' factor.

 

It is difficult to compare like for like - i.e. how many people were murdered in the UK versus how many died in road accidents - estimates, where manslaughter is assumed to be murder, suggest around 2000 people are murdered in the UK.

 

So, total deaths (in 2006) and injuries were 3,201 (let's not get too clever and just say, for arguments sake, total deaths (2006) were 3201.

 

5% of those were as a sole result of exceeding the speed limit, which equates to: 160. Take the higher figure of 12% and the total is 384 (far below the estimated number of people murdered per year).

 

Kind of blows your claims out of the water a bit.

[kayneybob]

dbb 5555555555555555555

[HeadingNorth]

If it's all about awareness and reducing accidents then making someone instantly aware that they are speeding is a considerably better solution than hiding someone behind a tree.

 

Actually, it tends to be no solution at all. The vast majority of people, presented with such signs, only slow down until they've gone past the sign and then speed up again. Similarly with cameras; they only slow down till they're past the camera, then speed up again.

 

Such measures do virtually nothing to prevent speeding, and in any event, we already have signs warning people to slow down. They're called "speed limit signs." If people are ignoring those, the next logical step is to punish them, which will make them think twice about ignoring them in future.

[HeadingNorth]

I claim that doing 36 in a 30 does NOT constitute bad or dangerous driving.

 

 

If that's true of a given road (and I know several where it is), then it's a good argument for changing the speed limit. It is no argument at all for being allowed to break the law as and when you see fit.

[Xranus]

'Drivers' failure to pay attention, rather than speed, is now the main cause of road accidents, according to government figures published yesterday.'[/i]

 

Regardless of what causes the road accident - speed is the biggest factor as to the seriousness of the accident and to whether the victim/victims will survive it or not.

 

[i

 

Speed is a contributory factor of all road accidents. The faster vehicles involved are travelling the worse the consequences of the accident will be.

Speed is responsible for over 25% of all fatal road accidents and the speed of the vehicles involved in a road accident determines the end result of that accident and to whether it is fatal or not.

 

[quote=jeremyjh1;5105918.

15% in ALL accidents (hardly a very high figure) and of that 15%, 26% of fatal accidents were caused by excessive speed.

 

I would certainly not dismiss 15% as 'hardly a very high figure.'

The fact that over 25% of road deaths are caused solely by speeding is horrifying and far more than I thought. That means that all of these road death victims would probably be alive today if someone had not been speeding. This convinces me even more that the 'speedophiles' should be dealt with much harder by the courts.

 

[quote=jeremyjh1;5105918'

Overall, deaths and injuries on Britain's roads continued to fall, with 3,201'[/i] Of course, this is deaths and injuries.

 

Speed cameras have played a significant part in reducing road accidents related to speed. Any driver caught by them is breaking the law and has only themselves to blame.

[waldershelf]

I live near a school, when the children are being delivered or collected from the school the road is lined wth cars both sides and there are parents and children crossing the road, highest speed you can drive at sensibly is 10mph. At 2am the road is deserted, its wide and there are no people about, you could and people do drive quite safely at 50mph. The speed limit is 30mph, at 3pm on a school day, driving at the speed limit would likely result in an accident, at 2am 30mph seems unnecessarily slow.

 

The posted speed limit is not as some people suggest the absolute solution to road safety. To say driving at 36 in a 30 zone is a heinous crime but 29 is fine is frankly too simplistic. The conditions at any given time on a road are far more important than the speed limit as to what is a safe speed to drive at.