Speedwatch

[Xranus]

At 2am in the morning, when it is dark, your speed should be slower than the maximum speed permissable in broad daylight. The speed restiction of 30mph that you mention is the absolute maximum speed limit safely and legally allowable for that stretch of road in ideal conditions.ie: Dry roads and good visibility. Your visibility is poorer in darkness and although you may think there are no people about you do not know that for certain.

Use your common sense and keep your foot off the accelerator.

[jeremyjh1]

'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.

 

To summarize your bias, er, point.

 

Car moves forward = speed = speed sinlge contributory factor in ALL road accidents and road deaths.

 

Like saying if someone drowns it's the fault of the water.

 

Or, if a plane crashes it's the fault of gravity.

 

No point in arguing the point with an immovable object, eh?

 

You keep your mind narrow and everything'll fit just nice and dandy.

 

Like they say, don't let the facts get in the way - just skew them to suit.

[jeremyjh1]

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.

 

Sadly, this kind of 'sensible' argument will not wash with the draconian brigade who hang on the 'speed kills' club like a comfort blanket.

 

A car moves ergo it 'speeds' ergo speed kills.

 

Simple.

 

To extend and expand the theory of speed limits (which, I'm convinced, the 'speed kills' mob would like to set at 1mph!! ) - if you drive at 29mph that's ok and no one will get killed (or, if they do, that's bad luck). If you drive at any speed over the speed limit - 31mph in a 30 zone, you are breaking the law, you are a dangerous driver and the penalty for such an offence should not be just 3 points and a £60 fine.

 

Oh no, no, no!!!

 

Nothing sort of a spell at Her Maj's pleasure. Might knock some sense in to those self b*****ds, eh? Flaming dangerous lunatic drivers.

 

Lock 'em up and throw away the key. Make the roads safe for us to walk on.

 

Come on Gordon, listen to the 'good' people; the 'safe' people. Ban cars. Lower speed limit to 0 mph everywhere.

 

Oops! Getting carried away.

 

I don't think any of them are really, er,...

 

Forget it - face it, they're righteous and we're the devil's off-spring

[Xranus]

There seems to be a lot of childish and irrational remarks and thinking by the 'speedophile brigade' on here. People who know they are wrong in a discussion or argument usually resort to such measures.

It all boils down to common sense really, something sadly lacking in most speedophiles who think that they have a god given right to speed and risk lives. Perhaps if they put their brains into gear instead of their cars their common sense would tell them that (I repeat) the faster a vehicle is travelling at the point of impact in a road accident, no matter what causes the accident, the more serious will be the result of that accident.

How would these people, with a lust for speed regardless of safety, feel if one of their family were killed by a speeding driver? A driver who could have driven more slowly and consequently more safely but didn't because he didn't feel that he had to?

No doubt these people would soon change their minds and attitudes towards speeding.

[jeremyjh1]

There seems to be a lot of childish and irrational remarks and thinking by the 'speedophile brigade' on here. People who know they are wrong in a discussion or argument usually resort to such measures.

It all boils down to common sense really, something sadly lacking in most speedophiles who think that they have a god given right to speed and risk lives. Perhaps if they put their brains into gear instead of their cars their common sense would tell them that (I repeat) the faster a vehicle is travelling at the point of impact in a road accident, no matter what causes the accident, the more serious will be the result of that accident.

How would these people, with a lust for speed regardless of safety, feel if one of their family were killed by a speeding driver? A driver who could have driven more slowly and consequently more safely but didn't because he didn't feel that he had to?

No doubt these people would soon change their minds and attitudes towards speeding.

 

There you go again, making assumptions.

 

Speedophiles Good one. Pedsterophile, you!

 

You assume anyone who drives 'fast' is a danger on the road.

 

You assume any car moving in a forward (or reverse) motion is 'speeding' (by the laws of physics I guess - any object moving is moving at a speed ergo it can be defined as speeding.

 

You assume anyone who drives a car at 'speed' assumes a God given right to drive fast, irrespective of other road users or pedestrians.

 

You assume, despite 'facts' to the contrary, that all speed kills (if someone is hit by a vehicle travelling at speed they will more likely die as a result of that collision [despite facts not really baring this out].

 

I made a point about travelling at 36 in a 30 and you came back with (an assumption) that I was a dangerous speedophile (I really like the way that is associated with paedophile - really clever, well done!). You claimed that if someone was hit whilst travelling at 36 mph then they would most likely die.

 

So, what if I am driving at 36 mph in a 40 mph zone? I'm not breaking the law. But if someone should run out in front of my car and I hit them they will most likely die (to use your assumptions). But I'm not breaking the law.

 

I conclude (here's where I make an assumption of my own) that, for you, the law is a bit of an obstacle really and that anyone driving at 'speed' is a danger on the road, a speedophile, and should be condemned by all.

 

Am I right? I'm sure I am.

 

It's great living in a world that's black or white.

 

Funnily enough, a while back, I read about a cyclist who ran into a pedestrian crossing the road without 'seeing' the cyclist (who was predicted doing around 15 to 20 mph). The pedestrian was knocked to the floor, cracking their skull on the kerb, died as a result of those injuries.

 

'Speed' was the single factor in the fatality.

 

Yes?

 

Yes....

[Xranus]

How would these people, with a lust for speed regardless of safety, feel if one of their family were killed by a speeding driver? A driver who could have driven more slowly and consequently more safely but didn't because he didn't feel that he had to?

No doubt these people would soon change their minds and attitudes towards speeding.

 

I note Jeremyjh1, that you did not answer my question.

[jeremyjh1]

I note Jeremyjh1, that you did not answer my question.

 

No point - you already 'know' the answer (see the generic labelling speedophile).

 

Actually, if you refer back to a mention I made about an unfortunate incident involving a 3 year old and a car rolling back and crushing her to death.

 

'Speeding' car (yes, I'm stretching it, but there you go). Child dies.

 

Now, if I had been the parent of that child would I have changed my views on 'speeding' or, in that case, poor maintenance of the vehicle (as the handbrake did not engage properly).

 

Yep, most definitely.

 

Speed and speeding are two different things, except in your world, they are one and the same.

 

Like I said, it's great living in a black and white world, eh?

[Xranus]

You are just evading my question jeremyjh1....

 

How would these people, with a lust for speed regardless of safety, feel if one of their family were killed by a speeding driver? A driver who could have driven more slowly and consequently more safely but didn't because he didn't feel that he had to?

No doubt these people would soon change their minds and attitudes towards speeding.

[jeremyjh1]

You are just evading my question jeremyjh1....

 

How would these people, with a lust for speed regardless of safety, feel if one of their family were killed by a speeding driver? A driver who could have driven more slowly and consequently more safely but didn't because he didn't feel that he had to?

No doubt these people would soon change their minds and attitudes towards speeding.

 

See previous post - you 'know' the answer, your answer. My answer is irrelevant to you. Judge, jury and executioner.

 

Speed and speeding are two entirely different things.

 

I could be driving at 36 in a 40 zone, hit someone running out in front of my car and they would most likely die or be seriously injured.

 

I was driving within the law, not lusting for speed (as you put it), but, and I'm pretty sure in your mind, I would be 'speeding', driving wrecklessly, a danger to the public, a speedophile and beneath contempt.

 

So, how fast is acceptable? When is it acceptable to drive at whatever speed you deam is acceptable?

 

Also, seeing as you say I'm evading your question (I'm not, I just can't be bothered to give you my answer because, surprise surprise, it does not coincide with yours - so, I'm wrong [in your eyes], but I'll get over it).

 

Repeat my question to you - cyclist riding on road at approx 15 mph, hits pedestrian crossing road (didn't see cyclist). Pedestrian is knocked over, hits head on curb, dies as a result of those injuries. Assume the pedestrian was your son or daughter - do you know loathe cyclists and condemn them all as speedophiles?

 

Do you?

 

Black and white (ignore the grey, it just confuses things)

[waldershelf]

Xranus - Can you give us some information as to your motoring history. Do you drive? How long have you been driving? What do you drive etc.You have made some pretty off the wall comments about speed and speeding. I am genuinely interested in how you come to your conclusions and attitudes and what qualifies you to present yourself in such an authorititive manner.