DT Ralge Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 But by the same logic, we can argue that cars doing 20mph would result in practically zero deaths. But it would make modern life a little difficult. So that's the rub, is the increase in risk worth the additional benefits in time saved? No idea. And before anyone says, no amount of monetary benefit is worth a life I will then expect you to say you walk everywhere because any other mode of transport is more likely to kill someone else than walking and the sole reason for using other forms of transport is that they are quicker and more convenient, so you have put your own convenience above someone else's life. As do we all, every single day. I agree but you have shifted onto a different argument. I have written before that you will not catch me saying "speed kills". But there are those on here that regurgitate the Jeremy Buffoon argument that (because speed in itself doesn't kill) the Germans have got it right in allowing those who can afford it to get into seriously high speeds and there can't be any negative consequences (worth mentioning) of these speed choices. My point will always be that the German stats disagree with the Buffoonery and no amount of wishful thinking will alter that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Its quite simple really, dont speed... And saying "everyone does 90 on the motorway" is pointless... Its like saying "everyone kills someone once in their life" just cause others do it doesnt mean its right What? that's probably the worst analogy I've ever heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbyTup Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) I think there's a lot of folk on here who would benefit from going on a speed awareness course. I've been on one recently. It's made me think again about speeding and it has changed the way I drive. I was caught doing 36mph in a 30 btw. When I opened that letter from the Police my first reaction was the same as some of you on here...I felt angry about it and felt it was just a rip off. I don't think that now. Just to point out one thing... A small increase in your speed can make a massive difference in terms of damage that you would do to yourself and others if you had an accident. It's the laws of physics. Some people think that it's just about the increase in speed. It's more complex than that. So for example, you might assume that being in an accident at 30 mph is twice the impact of being in an accident at 15 mph. It's not. It's considerably more than that. When we talk about "impact" we are talking about kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is determined by the square of the vehicle's speed, rather than by speed alone, the probability of injury, and the severity of injuries that occur in a crash, rapidly becomes greater with vehicle speed. Even a 2mph increase in speed massively increases the chance of injury should you be in an accident. It's quite scary when you think about it. Also, the faster you travel the less time you have to anticipate and avoid a crash. These are all inescapable facts I'm afraid. BTW - I'm no angel. I've been done for speeding loads of times in the past, but I like to think, at last, the penny has dropped for me, maybe it will for you too? I think I went through the same cameras a few months ago on the M1 near Barnsley and they flashed but I wasn't fined. But this doesn't help the OP at all because the situation then isn't necessarily the same as it is now. All I can say is, going over 90mph is risking a big fine and 6 points. If the OP has points on his licence already he's more likely to get 6 for this offence. I got clocked at 92mph several years ago now. I got 6 points for that. But it's also possible he won't hear another thing about it. Whatever happens, I think the main point for reflection is what advantage did he gain by speeding? What additional minutes did he save? What did he do with those minutes? When you think about it like that, it's really not worth increasing the risks to yourself and others by speeding. Edited March 17, 2017 by DerbyTup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 I agree but you have shifted onto a different argument. I have written before that you will not catch me saying "speed kills". But there are those on here that regurgitate the Jeremy Buffoon argument that (because speed in itself doesn't kill) the Germans have got it right in allowing those who can afford it to get into seriously high speeds and there can't be any negative consequences (worth mentioning) of these speed choices. My point will always be that the German stats disagree with the Buffoonery and no amount of wishful thinking will alter that fact. To be honest I'm playing Devil's advocate. I'd say there is a link with speed and damage caused, but is the increased benefits in getting places faster worth it? I can't really answer that as it's far too complex a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Wheres the limit though? It's a classic risk/reward curve. The risk of death or serious injury vs the reward of getting somewhere faster (and of just driving fast for pleasure). You could say that if you want to get somewhere fast that's what rail is for being as it's both faster (usually) and a lot safer. But it's less convenient. So there is a third reward, that of convenience.... As you say it's not a simple question. Now another way to look at it. Why is the speed limit 70mph? The motorway network is designed for 100mph - assuming everyone does that speed that is. Perhaps we should have a minimum speed limit on the motorway to keep average speeds up and get everyone into that speed bracket. Unlike many places in Europe there is no minimum UK motorway speed (although excessively slow vehicles are banned). The practical minimum speed limit would be 40mph to accommodate heavy lorries climbing a hill. Could enforcing this make it safer to go faster? Questions questions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Wheres the limit though? It's a classic risk/reward curve. The risk of death or serious injury vs the reward of getting somewhere faster (and of just driving fast for pleasure). You could say that if you want to get somewhere fast that's what rail is for being as it's both faster (usually) and a lot safer. But it's less convenient. So there is a third reward, that of convenience.... As you say it's not a simple question. Now another way to look at it. Why is the speed limit 70mph? The motorway network is designed for 100mph - assuming everyone does that speed that is. Perhaps we should have a minimum speed limit on the motorway to keep average speeds up and get everyone into that speed bracket. Unlike many places in Europe there is no minimum UK motorway speed (although excessively slow vehicles are banned). The practical minimum speed limit would be 40mph to accommodate heavy lorries climbing a hill. Could enforcing this make it safer to go faster? Questions questions.... What makes you say that m/w's are designed for 100mph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 This is doing the rounds on FB at the moment. Who has right of way? http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c134/gibbo501/row_1.jpg It scares me that so many people are getting it wrong, but justifying why they think they're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudds1 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 This is doing the rounds on FB at the moment. Who has right of way? http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c134/gibbo501/row_1.jpg It scares me that so many people are getting it wrong, but justifying why they think they're right. Id say c a b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Id say c a b I'd agree with that. If that's proving contentious with people its rather scarey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I'd agree with that. If that's proving contentious with people its rather scarey... I expect that some are claiming that "a" has priority as they are going "straight". Agree it would be scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now