Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: henryandlesley on July 10, 2008, 22:50:43
-
Who aggrees with me that if this goverment pays more attention to reducing the speed down to 70 mph in cars by fitting a speed limiter.
-
Totally disagree.
Why is someone doing 80 who is looking where they are going in a well maintained car more likely to have a crash than someone paying no attention to anything smoking a fag in a clapped out car.
The person who cut me up an the roadabout today was not speeding, if I had not guessed he was an idiiot then maybe me 6 week old child would be in hospital tonight.
Why did I see to old people step out in front of cars today without looking
Why did I see a fat old woman strep out in front of a car so she could get to he parked car, she was only 10 feet from a crossing but it was too much effort.
Why do people drive 10 feet from my bumper on the middle lane instead of over taking me.
Id put a metal spike in front of everyones setting wheel and have national run soemone over days. There would be a lot more care shown by people.
-
Nope. Speed does not kill - poor driving (which includes the inappropriate use of speed) kills and it's mostly (i.e. 90+%) the driver that is the cause of crashes. When a car crashes into kids on a crossing at 40mph it's not the speed's fault - it's the driver!
IF any government was truly concerned about reducing road deaths they would make professional tuition compulsory for learners, make the L-test FAR harder than it currently is, include motorway training at learner stage and have re-tests every 10 years. Oh yes, they'd also increase the number of traffic police by about 100% to the levels they were at 10 years ago.
Damn, where did that soap box come from :lol:
-
No, totally not.
Firstly, how would you do it?
Who would pay for the limitier to be fitted to EVERY vehicle?
Secondly, most road deaths actually occur in urban areas where the speed is often less than 40mph. Logically therefore you should limit speeds to that.
Thirdly, most road fatalities are actually caused by pedestrians being hit by cars, so it doesn't matter what speed they are doing.
What we actually need is Policemen back on road patrols, stopping and warning bad/poor drivers, plus better education and tuition.
And if you are thinking of the RTC last night, I have to ask what were 6 young people doing in a Sierra/Mondeo? That has invalidated the insurance automatically.
-
And on top of all that..................better education for pedestrians, and realistic interpretation of health and safety laws.
That way you would not have to ban bull bars et al, the idiot jumping into the road in front of you would know that cars hurt when they hit you!!
-
The best way to stop most road deaths is to actually look before you cross the road. Surprisingly, if you wait for that tonne of metal and plastic on wheels to pass you before you cross then you won't get run over.
It is rather ironic that the local spotty scrotes will walk out into the road when I am driving Kim's Jazz expecting me to stop (little do they know) but IF I am in the Disco they suddenly observe the the green cross code.
Speed is a factor but if I hit someone whilst observing the speed limit - be it 20, 30 or higher whilst I am in the Disco then it is going to upset their day to some degree. By fitting limiters, you will end up with lanes one and two of the motorway driving at 58 (ish) mph and lane three at 70 mph. If you haven't got the acceleration (due to the limiter), can you imagine the accidents caused by vehicles leaving lane two in order to overtake.
Better lane discipline would lead to less problems on the motorway. There is nothing more frustrating than having to cross 3 lanes of empty motorway to overtake the idiot driving at 60mph in the middle lane. The self righteous idiots that sit at 68mph in lane 3 also deserve to be shunted into the afterlife
-
Well I wouldn't care if they introduced a speed limiter that was activated by satellite, and the maximum speed automatically limited by what road I'm on, the weather conditions, road works, or the Police. I never go over the speed limit, and never drive over 60 mph on any road, and touch wood, I've never had points on my licence.
1. I can't afford to waste the fuel
2. I've done all the blasting around public roads at 135 mph+ it's old news
3. I don't see the point in rushing around
4. I generally don't give a sherbert
-
There are two sides to ever vehicle/pedestrian incident
Please dont surmise that you know all the permutations that could happen believe me you dont, even the Police are shocked sometimes, speeding in urban areas does and will kill, doing below the speed limit in urban areas will kill, fact, just be aware and look.
Motorway speed are another story, but my peneth worth is 80mph is plenty, though the minimum speed should be raised.
-
If every motor on the motorway was at 70 it would be disaterous. because people would just switch off. jam the foot to the floor and fall asleep.
Try driving at night when the motorway is dead, its hard driving at 70mph because it requires no concentration (when conditions are good) thats when cranking it up to 90-100mph keeps you alert. wouldnt reccomend it but its true.
-
With all the 4x4 going 70mph as oppose to 60mph is a huge increase in fuel for that little extra speed as already stated.
-
As I've said before, the main cause of death amongst drivers is inexperience. That can lead to them driving too fast for the conditions, their vehicle, or their capabilities, but it's inexperience that killed them. However, parroting the mantra "speed kills" seems far more popular with this government - anything to do with the way that excess speed is easy to detect and prosecute, with a high conviction rate and steady income from fines?
Bring back the Green Cross Code. Let's see some adverts saying "If you step in front of a car and get hit, it's your fault". It seems to have been completely forgotten about in real life too judging by the mob who I saw standing in the middle of the main road through town yesterday. They were more than old enough to know better. Road safety is everyone's responsibility, not just the car driver's.
We've seen what limiters do with lorries already - they're the cause of trucks taking half an hour to pass each other and causing the dual carriageway to back up.
-
As a few people have mentioned... education is the key.
Whoever we are, average joe, safety minded person or uncaring scroat... we all make decisions while driving and it's the underlying knowledge that allows us to make these decisions. Some people can make the right decision in a situation (i.e. checking yer blind spot!) while others need more underlying knowledge.
Also, the way people learn differs for each of us. For some of us, an instructor (be it uncle dave or Mr BSM) syaing, "Check yer blind spot for other cars" is enough... for some of us... this needs to be experienced (though pulling out in front of an arctic and smelling the adrenilin might not be the safest way to learn). Some of us will need extensive explanation, demonstration, and incentivising to learn that lesson.
Until a driving course exists in this country and people are retested regularly, and much better monitoring systems are in place, nothing will improve.
I'd much rather see "Black Boxes" that can be used to rebuild an accident or to highlight poor driving decisions.
As someone mentioned ealrier speed itself is not the issue, or as I have been putting it for years...
'taint speed that kills... it's the idiot behind the wheel!
Skibum
-
It's sad.
Pedestrians don't seem to have to read the HIGHWAY CODE, or for that matter cyclists now. We had to do a proficiency test, which involved learning the highway code. Where's that gone, oh yes government cuts.
I bet they think the highway code is just for cars :(
Oh and limiting cars to 70? Madness. Why do it? Many performance cars are already limited (granted to 140mph etc), sit a car on the limiter and see just how boring it is. Might as well drive trains - because no-one will catch up with anyone, gaps will get dangerously close, and the minute something odd happens to car 10 in front, 20 cars are piled up wondering what happened.
-
Personally, I think better education is required.
Firstly a much more stringent test system
1) Highway Code
2) Pass a Medical
3) Learning car control off the road (Test to a standard) (including skid control and basic machanics)
4) Leaning to drive in Urban and country roads (tested to a standard)
5) Learning to use Motorway (and in Coventry the Ring Road)
After every 5 year having passed your test
1) Eye test
2) Repeat of highway code (failure to pass requires you to pass will require a complete retest)
3) Pass a medical to prove you are safe to drive.
I have spent 20 years in automotive design and fair amount of that involve development information on points impact for the human occupants of cars. As a result I've heard lots of stories from the various litigations claims made against the industry. Less than 0.5% are manufacturer related the rest is human stupidity (Me included there).
Mobile Phones (even with hands free system) should require a 2 year ban and a complete retest, This now a bigger problem than drink driving and causes the highest rate of death on the road.
Better Education of pedestrians particularly those between the age of 10 and 20
If you design a car for safety you don't inform the person buying it how safe the car is. it a fact the safer the driver feels the dangerously they drive.
-
I've long felt the driving test should be more like the PPL. As I understand it you get that by flying hours with an instructor and demonstrating competence in various fields. This would make it easier to spot people who lack the right attitude or even any mechanical aptitude, plus ensuring that they notch up some experience before going out solo.
I believe that those "1 week intensive courses" are a bad idea. Yes people still have to pass a test but I don't think a week is anything like long enough. The fact that someone with no previous experience could (legally) take one of those courses and buy a new Porsche the following Monday is disturbing. Yes I know insurance would be fearsome but there are clueless people with money out there!
-
I have a limiter on mine - Cruise Control.
Ideal for those camera limited bits of road.
However I'm finding, since getting the caravan, that 60mph in the inside lane is quite liberating - everyone just bobbies off into the distance to leave the road clear for me and I'm getting 25% more mpg than the same journey at 80mph.
-
If you design a car for safety you don't inform the person buying it how safe the car is. it a fact the safer the driver feels the dangerously they drive.
Volvo managed to get away with it, seemed to cause the opposite for quite a few years. :doh: :lol:
-
Here's a thought.
As we are all aware speed and momentum are linked. At equal speed a heavier vehicle will do more damage than a light one to the same object.
So given that hgv's are roughly 40 times heavier than cars lets have them travel at one fortieth of the speed.
That would work for the environment too as goods would need to go by train to get anywhere on time and as we know one train 5 times a week is equivalent to 800 truck journeys.
Alternativly cars could go forty times as fast, yay!
-
Here's a thought.
As we are all aware speed and momentum are linked. At equal speed a heavier vehicle will do more damage than a light one to the same object.
So given that hgv's are roughly 40 times heavier than cars lets have them travel at one fortieth of the speed.
That would work for the environment too as goods would need to go by train to get anywhere on time and as we know one train 5 times a week is equivalent to 800 truck journeys.
Alternativly cars could go forty times as fast, yay!
This is Disco womans Hubby...the government actually considered a bill that would ban vehicles over 25 tonnes off the UK roads - until somebright spark actually pointed out that 1 x HGV carrying 44 tonnes is a lot better than 44 x Transit vans carrying 1 tonne each...Thats the brains of the people, as for speed limiters - im an EX hgv driver so used to them, but I still sit at 56 when im in the car, saves fuel and the average 15-20 minutes it adds on to a journey is more than made up for by the fuel saving - and also less stress (also notice that when the traffic is snarled up - the inside lane is usually still movin )
-
I have read al the posts on this thread and I'm amazed at the sweeping generalisations in it. No one one this thread has had to do any of the draconian measures suggested on here, and yet they seem to think that the comments they've made would never apply to them. In fact if they got a letter through the post saying that the government was introducing these measures and retrospectively applying them to every driver in the country. They would probably be up in arms and ranting about the unfairness of it all. Have they forgotten that they were once learner drivers who had a handfull of lessons and then took their test. And managed to stay alive this long. If they can manage it then so can millions of other drivers/learners.
-
my sportraks lucky to get past 55 with the wind behind it going downhill! :dance:
-
I've always maintained, and said on here many times before, that speed does not kill. 'Speed' is not an object. The 'object', in this case a vehicle with it's driver, is what does the damage. Therefore, it is the misuse of that vehicle that is the trouble. That misuse might be using inappropriate speed for the circumstances. But speed in itself is not a problem.
If you are on a totally empty motorway with no junctions and clear visibility and good weather, what is wrong with 80mph? Or 100mph? On the other hand, if it is congested 70mph is often too much simply because of speed differentials between vehicles.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people drive at 30mph in a 30mph limit even when the circumstances mean it's more appropriate to be doing way less. My wife was with her brother when he visited and had to have a go at him for his driving. She asked him to slow down on the single track lanes around here. His answer was it wasn't a 30mph limit! he seemed to think he had a right to drive at the speed limit regardless of road conditions :shock:
-
completely agree V8moneypit. i live in deepest darkest Wiltshire and am surrounded by country single track lanes. proper ones with grass growing in the middle!!it never ceases to amaze me that when city slickers see the 60mph sign they start hammering it whatever the conditions or weather. and the fact that theres lots of blind bends ahead doesn't seem to deter them either! its a limit not a target in the words of the wife!(never thought i'd say that)!
-
how to get products to consumers?
easy. reinstate the missing rail links such that every population center has a connection and then use these as distribution nodes. seem to think that system worked very well for rather a long time as little as 50 years ago.
would do wonders for congestion too as people could use it for traveling between places too. i know i would.
-
how to get products to consumers?
easy. reinstate the missing rail links such that every population center has a connection and then use these as distribution nodes. seem to think that system worked very well for rather a long time as little as 50 years ago.
would do wonders for congestion too as people could use it for traveling between places too. i know i would.
Invest money in a cheap sustainable reasonbly environmentaly friendly transport system. Are you MAD??? What government in it's right mind would do that?
-
Well of course this is the problem with any government policy. There will always be a conflict of interests over taxation income vs. vote winning. They have little interest in the environment or public transport unless it has an effect on getting more tax or votes at the next election. It's simply not in their interests to do anything like this as Redhand quite rightly points out.
-
I dont know about road deaths, but the best way to stop acccidents is to go on a rabbit cull.... youd be amazed how many people tell me that the reason there cars in a ditch, upside down or spread in a dozen pieces accross the road is because a cute, lovable fluffy bunny was in the road way and they couldnt possibly run over it! Cats are almost as bad!
Me personally, i think its all to do with speed, there either going to fast for the road, the conditions, the environment, there own limited abilities or the cars got 3 bald tyres and cant achieve any grip at any speed.
How to fix it? hope they grow up before they kill someone... it doesnt matter how much you tell someone, what the penalties are they will only slow down when theyve figured out there going to end up in a wheelchair or worse!
-
I had a friend and her three year old daughter killed 8 years ago by a speeding driver (driving too fast on a lesser A road, too fast for a bend and ran wide: hit my friend's car head on).
If they (the other car) had been travelling at the speed limit (50mph), my friend would still be alive, her daughter would be 11 now and her husband and son would still have a wife and mother.
Don't tell me speed doesn't kill.
-
it amazing thou when you are out and about and you see such lazy or stupid things that peaple do like, zebra crossing on road and about 10 feet away old granny or mum with push chair is barging on road to cross. and numptys like kids standing in roads and you turn a corner and they look at you like its your fault
-
No Speed itself doesn't kill it's Irresponsible behavior of the driver behind of the wheel driving at stupid speeds, You can not remove there responsibility. Yes speed makes it more likely but it itself is a small problem relatively.
1mph can kill, You can fall over when walking and die as a result (you would have to be unfortunate I guess).
Most accident that kill don't involve speed just poor judgement on the behalf of the driver. In fact the highest kill if the information I have received is people using mobile phone and Sat -Nav (watching the Sat Nav not where they are going), Both of which could be solve by people pulling over to the side of the road it a safe location.
-
No Speed itself doesn't kill it's Irresponsible behavior of the driver behind of the wheel driving at stupid speeds,
I disagree.
You are travelling down an empty motorway and you have a blow out/fox runs across in front of you/there is something in the road. If you are travelling at 60mph you have a damn sight more chance of controlling it and avoiding a crash than you do at 100mph (no matter how good you are).
An irresponsible driver at 20mph in an urban area is going to kill less people than an irresponsible driver at 40mph. Speed and driving like a nutter are two different things: the difference is speed can make a normally good driver a killer.
Speed killed my friend and her daughter: if the other car hadn't been speeding, it wouldn't have lost control on that bend, end of story.
-
No Speed itself doesn't kill it's Irresponsible behavior of the driver behind of the wheel driving at stupid speeds,
I disagree.
You are travelling down an empty motorway and you have a blow out/fox runs across in front of you/there is something in the road. If you are travelling at 60mph you have a damn sight more chance of controlling it and avoiding a crash than you do at 100mph (no matter how good you are).
An irresponsible driver at 20mph in an urban area is going to kill less people than an irresponsible driver at 40mph. Speed and driving like a nutter are two different things: the difference is speed can make a normally good driver a killer.
Speed killed my friend and her daughter: if the other car hadn't been speeding, it wouldn't have lost control on that bend, end of story.
Rubbish the driver was an idiot but he could have been doing anyone of a dozen different things that would have caused the accident. from tuning his radio in to talking on the phone to reading a map. I followed an idiot up the m56 at 65mph recently she was wandering all over the inside and middle lane of the motorway and forcing everyone to get out of the way. The reason for this erratic driving??, she was talking on her mobile whilst applying her makeup using the rearveiw mirror as a vanity mirror.
-
Just a tad bit insensitive regarding Boddle's loss me thinks.
You can't catch the idiots, unless you have a big brother state with a camera on each corner (maybe we're getting somewhere near), but you can enforce speed limits in certain high risk areas to cater for the idiots in society.
Unless you've picked up the broken bodies yourself, many times, you're in no position to make sweeping statements.
Speed Kills.
-
Rubbish the driver was an idiot but he could have been doing anyone of a dozen different things that would have caused the accident.
The police stated it was SPEED which caused the crash. The other driver was done (and sent down) for it. It all went through Court and the COURTS and the POLICE stated it was EXCESSIVE SPEED which caused the other driver to lose control on the bend: he wasn't doing anything else, his car was legal and well looked after, he just was going too DAMN FAST.
Trust me: SPEED KILLS!
-
You are travelling down an empty motorway and you have a blow out/fox runs across in front of you/there is something in the road. If you are travelling at 60mph you have a damn sight more chance of controlling it and avoiding a crash than you do at 100mph (no matter how good you are).
This is exactly the point when the phrase SPEED KILLS is used. Arguing that 1mph can kill is missing the point entirely and statements like Most accident that kill don't involve speed just poor judgement on the behalf of the driver
need backing up.
FACT is the faster you are moving the less time you have to respond, just look at how far down the road you travel when braking from different speeds - and that's when you are expecting to have to brake. Non of us can expect the unexpected but FACT is you have a far better chance of responding at lower speeds - it's probably why the speed limits are what they are and mostly where they are.
-
What ever happened to the saying "Drive accordingly to the conditions of the vehicle and the road"? :undecided:
My understanding of speed limits is to help try to prevent clowns racing through areas that should be driven at slower speeds, because as people have commented there are some rather silly folk who race about in the country lanes and end up coming head to head with other vehicles. Sometimes though, "revenge" can be sweet as the charging vehicle dives off into a ditch or something to avoid having a head on with a big tractor. :lol:
-
Speed does not kill in and of itself. If you travel at 100 mph you don't die. This is a fact.
If you are however hit by a sufficiently massive object moving at a sufficiently high speed you will die.
What causes such an impact is an almost infinite variable.
-
Drinking and driving does not kill by itself.
Texting and driving does not kill by itself.
Speed, drinking and texting increases the likelyhood of an accident/death.
-
What ever happened to the saying "Drive accordingly to the conditions of the vehicle and the road"? :undecided:
My understanding of speed limits is to help try to prevent clowns racing through areas that should be driven at slower speeds, because as people have commented there are some rather silly folk who race about in the country lanes and end up coming head to head with other vehicles. Sometimes though, "revenge" can be sweet as the charging vehicle dives off into a ditch or something to avoid having a head on with a big tractor. :lol:
I sometimes wonder whether people would drive at more appropriate speeds if there were no speed limits. In the example I gave earlier, he was driving at a speed based on the limit signs, not the road conditions.
I guess the limit signs are there to help people who struggle to make the correct judgement of what speed they should be doing. Frankly, if they need that type of help, they shouldn't be allowed on the roads at all.
-
Speed killed my friend and her daughter: if the other car hadn't been speeding, it wouldn't have lost control on that bend, end of story.
I'm sorry for the loss of someone you obviously miss but it's not possible to say that had the other driver been doing the speed limit he wouldn't have still caused the collision and killed your friend. Unless you are saying that it's not possible (due to the laws of physics) to get around that corner at more than 50mph (in which case the limit should be set well below that and maybe the local highways authority should shoulder some of the blame) then the reason the driver lost control was lack of ability and that lack of ability might just as well have manifested itself at 30mph as it did at 60 (or whatever).
Speed may well have been a contributing factor but the over-riding reason for the collision was driver error.
-
Rubbish the driver was an idiot but he could have been doing anyone of a dozen different things that would have caused the accident.
The police stated it was SPEED which caused the crash. The other driver was done (and sent down) for it. It all went through Court and the COURTS and the POLICE stated it was EXCESSIVE SPEED which caused the other driver to lose control on the bend: he wasn't doing anything else, his car was legal and well looked after, he just was going too DAMN FAST.
Trust me: SPEED KILLS!
You have to be mistaken about the reason the driver was imprisoned. There is not custodial sentence for speeding ~ causing death by careless or dangerous driving yes; but not speeding.
-
it's not possible to say that had the other driver been doing the speed limit he wouldn't have still caused the collision and killed your friend. Unless you are saying that it's not possible (due to the laws of physics) to get around that corner at more than 50mph (in which case the limit should be set well below that and maybe the local highways authority should shoulder some of the blame) then the reason the driver lost control was lack of ability and that lack of ability might just as well have manifested itself at 30mph as it did at 60 (or whatever).
Speed may well have been a contributing factor but the over-riding reason for the collision was driver error.
Can I make something clear please?
The road is (was: it has been years since I was there) a 50mph with fast bends. You can drive most of it at 50mph safely. I can't remember what speed this person was doing (it was eight or so years ago now) but it was considerably more than 50mph. He went into the corner too fast, understeered and ended up on the wrong side of the road, directly in the path of my friend's car.
The POLICE and their accident investigation department (whatever they are called) stated (in Court) that excessive speed was the cause of the accident. Nothing else, just excessive speed I haven't said it, they did.
Speed may well have been a contributing factor but the over-riding reason for the collision was driver error.
OK, I will agree with you: driver error, by driving too bloody fast!
You have to be mistaken about the reason the driver was imprisoned. There is not custodial sentence for speeding ~ causing death by careless or dangerous driving yes; but not speeding.
If you kill someone through speeding (and this person killed two), you damn well should end up in jail. I cannot remember what he was charged with, and it was years ago, but I do remember he was sent down and the cause of the accident was excessive speed.
Death by dangerous driving? I can't remember.
-
FACT is the faster you are moving the less time you have to respond, just look at how far down the road you travel when braking from different speeds - and that's when you are expecting to have to brake. Non of us can expect the unexpected but FACT is you have a far better chance of responding at lower speeds - it's probably why the speed limits are what they are and mostly where they are.
I understand what you're trying to say but in the strictest sense you're wrong. The TIME it takes you to react to a situation is generally the same irrespective of speed, although it varies with concentration levels. The DISTANCE you travel in that time is, of course, different and increases with speed which is why ALL advanced driving organisations adopt the mantra from Roadcraft (the Police bible on driving) that you should never drive so fast that you cannot stop safely, on your own side of the road, in the distance that you can see to be clear.
Putting that into real world terms it means that as you increase your speed you have to a) look further ahead and b) anticipate what may happen at bends, junctions, etc., further up the road. I train a lot of drivers to pass the both IAM and RoSPA's advanced tests (all ages from all backgrounds) and the single biggest "fault" they have when we start is being reactive to situations rather than thinking about what others might do and becoming pro-active.
Better training is the only solution to the (generally) poor quality of driver on our roads.
-
Just a word of warning guys before things get decidedly out of hand (I can see the warning signs flashing up)
I think the key point we all need to appreciate is that speed in and of itself doesn't kill anyone, however it is a contributing factor, that is to say it is one of a dozen variables which can easily make the difference between life and death.
Clearly, there are things that can be done to affect the other 11 and great pains should be taken to be wary of them. However, speed is perhaps the one factor we can have more control over than the others, there is always the possibility to slow down; however the options for "not losing grip" or "not having something break" tend not to be so predictable, if in doubt, drive slower it's always an option.
Anyhow, I'm not going to preach, but remember that in an accident there are a thousand factors which make it lethal or otherwise, the specifics vary from each accident to accident and from each victim to victim. In a world where there are no absolutes we have to make generalisations, and one of the convenient generalisations that can be made is that regardless of the circumstances speed rarely makes things better.
-
I agree.
Also, there are 3,000 people killed on the roads each year. What would happen to that number if everyone was limited to 10mph? It would drop to almost nil. What would happen if the speed limit was doubled (ie: 140mph)? That figure would go right up. The one thing which is varible and directly affects accidents figures? Speed.
I don't want a falling out. I choose not to speed. Everyone else can do what they want (as long as it's not near me and mine).
-
Interesting fact. The number of road deaths has stayed fairly stable for the last 15 odd years despite the number of road users going up lots.
-
Drinking and driving does not kill by itself.
Texting and driving does not kill by itself.
Speed, drinking and texting increases the likelyhood of an accident/death.
Unfortunately you are very badly wrong there, Both Text or using the phone and drink driving are and bigger causes for accidents at this moment in time than speeding is.
not to sure of the figures but last I heard phone use was nearly 20% of accidents drunk drive(which may or may not include speeding) 10% Speeding was about 5% most incidents are cause by people drive without due care and attention. Hence my earlier statement about better training and more sevear penaties for the use of mobile phone along the line of dangerous driving EI a minimum of 2 year ban £1000 fine a retest and 6 points on your licence for 2 years when you get back driving.
Please note if the phone is found to be the cause of an accident you be done for dangerous driving now.
Phone usage does not just kill those involve in the incident, it has taken many lives of those who where on the other end when the accident happened, People have been unable to live with that fact afterwoods and taken there own lives.
-
The main factor is not paying proper attention to the traffic. This can be by not looking at the road at all (while sending or reading text messages) or by concentrating on other things while talking on the phone, sorting out which CD to put on next, re-tuning your radio!, etc. If you are speeding it means that you have less time to react when you start paying attention again and find that you are about to hit someone... assuming that you start paying attention before you hit them.
When driving, the act of driving should have your undivided attention.
-
Who aggrees with me that if this goverment pays more attention to reducing the speed down to 70 mph in cars by fitting a speed limiter.
i can tell your a trucker ;)
ridiculous idea. :shock: [-X
-
Jumbobeef - your example shows that speed kills and I agree. BUT, speed itself does not kill, it takes other factors. You need to take into account things like driving experience, type of car blah de blah. If Lewis Hamilton was recorded on film as avoiding a particularly nasty accident spot then he would be regarded as a hero because of his driving style. However, if a gifted chav ( fairytale time I know) did the same manouvere (sp) and lost it would be a completely different story.
We all drive under the banner of "There but for the grace of god I drive" and fortunately we get home BUT sometimes we don't and it is the reasons we don't that we need to examine. Statistics can be warped to mean what we want
Imagine,, the time period is Jan to March 2007. Crime is running at 100 incidents in inner city Salford. But in Worsley, it is running at 1 incident
Fast forward to Jan to March 2008. Crime is running at 101 incidents in inner city Salford but in Worsley it is running at 3 incidents
Based on those figures, Inner City Salford has seen a crime rise of 1% but Worsley - an affluent area has seen a rise of 300%
Where would you buy a house based on statistics?
-
I've never been a great believer in statistics, especially relating to a 'discussion' such as this. Figures can be 'massaged' to suit which ever situation.
As one of those that picks up the pieces, both in the actual and metaphorical sense, I would say that the use of speed does kill, usually combined with other factors, which has already been mentioned.
When I worked in Norfolk, the A47 Acle Straight was known as a dangerous killer road. The road in fact was perfectly safe. It just lay there being driven, as opposed to leaping up and stabbing someone.
It only became a dangerous killer when you put humans on it, either on foot or in a vehicle.
The causes of the greater majority of accidents, or incidents as they are now known in Emergency Service parlence, is the human factor. Lack of experience, bravado, cockiness are all factors to be taken into consideration, along with health, age, state of intoxication etc etc.
I'm not a great believer in fixed speed cameras. I personally think it would be best to take a step back to the time when there were no cameras, but plenty of Traffic Police armed with lazer speed guns, going out and hiding up to catch people. Call me a Facist Pig if you like, but nobody ever knew where they would be, hence it was more of a deterrent.
Also when not 'gunning' someone, the patrols would be on the roads booking those who chose to drive like idiots, use phones etc etc.
Limiting all vehicles would create more problems than it is worth. It would lead to more frustration and more bad driving.
Alternatively, we could take the laid back approach. If everyone chilled out and decided to live a less hectic life, we would feel forced to drive everywhere quickly.
Ask yourself what is causing you to rush about? I see it with colleagues at work. There are so few officers there to deal with the jobs coming in that everyone is under pressure to get stuff down quickly. This leads to stuff not being investigated properly, which leads to hassle from the bosses and Public. This in turn leads to more rushing from job to job, which causes more prangs.
Me? I drive according to the law of the land and the law of L S-P, namely "the job will still be there when you get there".
Drive safely according to your ability, the condition of the road and condition of your vehicle. That way you won't have a nasty flourescent BMW pop into your rear view mirror.
Have a nice day, y'all!
-
LSP, I agree wholeheartedly about getting shot of the cameras and putting much more traffic cars on patrol. As you say, they can spot the eejits and book em, rather than some piece of metal and glass that just takes a piccy of someone and sends a standard letter that gets tied up in beaurocratic nonsense for a couple of months!
I've been nicked once by a camera, it was on the motorway in a restricted speed area and all I did was follow all the other cars at the same speed, I assume we all got done! I am now anal about following the restricted limits on Mways! yes it drives the ones behind me crazy, but I don't get a ticket!
I've also been stopped 3 times by mobile radar units and each time I have been let off with a caution after the car has been checked out etc. That is proper policing in my book!
(this is in 23 years of driving incidentally! so not bad I suppose??)
-
I've also been stopped 3 times by mobile radar units and each time I have been let off with a caution after the car has been checked out etc. That is proper policing in my book!
(this is in 23 years of driving incidentally! so not bad I suppose??)
Thats not bad odds really.
I saw a report the other day, about the intention to cut down a 200 year old oak tree, that is situated at the apex of a bend. The tree has apparently caused numerous deaths over the years, as it has been hit by numerous cars which has resulted in deaths.
So,obviously the tree is to blame. It must be removed to prevent any more deaths! Naughty tree! Of course the other way to deal with it is for drivers to slow down in bad weather, therefore not slide off the bend and hit the tree.
Ridiculous state of affairs.
I got called to a bike accident in the early hours of this morning. A guy was speeding, went into a roundabout too quick, possibly lost it on some gravel/road debris on the exit and off he goes and bowls off down the road like a tumbleweed in a gale. He was stretchered away.
Causes? Speed, and the unknown entity of 'foreign objects'.
I picked a 6" heavy duty bolt off the road the other day. Its scary whats lying about out there.
-
It was on the radio the other day that they can now jail someone for 14 years (iirc) for killing someone whilst your on the phone. Now this scares me, i never talk on the phone whilst im driving but i could see my self answering it if it was to be very important, if only to say 'ill ring you back'. now at this moment if a kid stepped out im knackered! jail for 14 years, my whole life ruined.
I suppose my point is that there arent many of us who havent broken the rules in exeptional circumstances, be it an urgent journey to casualty or late for somthing important when we have exceeded the speed limit where we saw fit.
So as was mentioned earlyer about someone going too fast round a bend and hitting an oncoming car, killing the occupants. Everyone saying he should have his head chopped off for being the scum of the earth, when really it could have been anyone of us who lost control around that bend that we werent expecting.
I could list a dozen times that ive done somthing stupid on the road, maybe a dodgey overtaking manouvre or pushing it a bit around a tight bend. But lucky for me on those occasions the road wasnt that bit slippyer than it usually is or whatever else can push you past the limit of control.
They are called 'accidents' for a reason. everyone is fully aware of the damage that can be done by their actions, no one sets out to take a life. Imagine having to live with yourself after causing a fatal accident, worse than anything the government can do to you.
I was amazed when i watched that advert that said you could hit a kid at 40mph and there was a 20% chance they would live. that is phenominal. i always figured if they hit you at 25mph you were brown bread. no excuse to go faster like but i found it interesting.
-
.....everyone is fully aware of the damage that can be done by their actions.......
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's true though. When you see the way many people drive, it is patently obvious they have little or no idea of what they are capable of inflicting with their car.
Just yesterday morning, we were being followed by a small van. The driver was all over the road as he caught up with us. We passed a cyclist. He then did the same, but by then he was far too close to a blind bend. When he caught us, he was driving far too close, so I slowed down to allow more stopping distance (making allowince for his stopping distance as well as mine :roll:). At which point, he just drove even closer! then we got to roadworks signs and I slowed. When we got to the traffic lights he still hadn't slowed and he had to swerve out to avoid running into the back of us! ........ All this time he was rabbiting on his mobile :evil: he didn't even take it away from his ear as he swerved out behind us :shock:
-
Use hands free with auto answer and you'll never be justifying the emergency nature of your call to a court.
I'd still be quite happy having my maximum speed limited to the road I'm on by satellite control of the speed limiting device, I see nothing wrong with this at all.
I don't think the majority of collisions can be called accidents, since someone is virtually always to blame, this is the thinking behind emergency service parlance moving to calling vehicle collisions 'incidents', rather than 'accidents', RTC rather than RTA.
I've been driving 26 years and only ever had a Parking Ticket, and even that was contested and revoked.
I agree with crazymac, I religiously follow restricted speed limits on Motorways, and remember driving on the A53 through the small village of Baldwins Gate, which has an unusual 30mph limit that starts well away from the village, I had this Audi up my arse looking to overtake for about 1/4 of a mile, and I refused to speed up, then we rounded a blind bend and there was the mobile speed camera vehicle sat there waiting for impatient Audi drivers. Lo and behold, the Audi decided to drop back through the rest of the village.
I can honestly say that the only dodgy thing I've ever done behind the wheel is wear a pair of driving gloves when I was 17, but this only lasted 10 minutes because;
1. my hands started to sweat
2. there was a lack of feel whilst steering
3. maybe driving gloves didn't suit the Austin Allegro anyway
-
It was on the radio the other day that they can now jail someone for 14 years (iirc) for killing someone whilst your on the phone. Now this scares me, i never talk on the phone whilst im driving but i could see my self answering it if it was to be very important, if only to say 'ill ring you back'. now at this moment if a kid stepped out im knackered! jail for 14 years, my whole life ruined.
If you don't have a hands free, switch the phone off. No call is that important!
Just think how we all lived just 15 years ago or so and none of us had mobiles yet we all still got to work, got home and did everything else without being no more than 10 second away from the nearest telephone.
-
Who aggrees with me that if this goverment pays more attention to reducing the speed down to 70 mph in cars by fitting a speed limiter.
So everyone is driving in a catatonic state because they have their foot to the floor and nothing is keeping their interest on the road.
I will emigrate before I have a speed limiter on my vehicle.
-
Interesting, when people wish to retain the right to break the Law, which is either because they feel they should be trusted not to, or because they are better drivers than the rest of us and are better able to set their own speed limits when they feel like it.
Anyone prone to a catatonic state behind the wheel really needs to take more breaks from driving, since if LGV drivers can manage an 8 to 10 hour day at 56mph, I'm pretty certain the rest of us can manage 70mph for a couple of hours in a car using cruise control.
Threatening to leave the country does no good either, since there's plenty if immigrants wanting to get in.
-
To be brutally honest id rather you all went out and hand crashes, just not ones where anyones injured/killed... works been bloody quiet the last couple of weeks and the old finances are suffering! so if a few of you could just pop round this way and have a few little shunts, itd be appreciated!
-
Phew... have just read the entire thread and am now going to add my "When I'm Prime Minister..." bit...
Firstly - speed limiters... NO! The comment about driving in a catatonic state is just so accurate - cruise control, aircon, comfortable chair, favourite music on CD... it's just asking for trouble as I nearly discovered one day driving a 12m motorhome and we'll gloss over the fact that you can spin a captain's chair round a fair way before you realise that you also need to steer. Ooops - the phrase "I only wanted to get a soft drink from the fridge," soooo nearly entered the book of classic excuses! :oops: [-X
Question though (and yes, I do have a Class 1)... why, when the highest speed limit for trucks is actually 60mph, did they set the governed speed to 56mph? The danger now is caused by the lack of a speed difference when overtaking, thereby exacerbating the speed difference between trucks and passing cars, vans etc.
And so to speed...
It is an unfortunate fact that owing to greed and/or incompetence successive governments have decimated our public transport system to such a degree that it is now uneconomic, unpleasant and frequently in the wrong place.
So.. if I lose my licence, I stand every chance of loosing my job (witness the publican advert on telly), following which I will probably lose my house and (no sense of drama here...) my wife and children... (??? :dance: )
The unfortunate fact is that speed cameras are a fund raising project - my biggest gripe is that it is frequently unclear what the prevailing speed limit should be as I travel throughout the country. When you drive in Europe, they have clearly posted limits, with repeater signs - it seems to be down to the budget and the whims of each Highways Authority on how well areas are signed.
I would prefer to see LSP and his colleagues dishing out a stiff talking to or tickets as required - educate at the point of the crime and keep the traffic police out looking for all the other idiots who help foul up our driving days by tailgating, phoning, applying make-up or with unsafe loads.
Back to the cameras though - given that they are here for the duration, have clearly posted speed limits (with equally clearly defined scales for fines) and time bound reductions outside schools (20mph... any transgressions and your fine is doubled... [-X )
If you should end up at (say) 10 fines, then the 10th fine is the sum of ALL fines to date and you spend a week on a driver training programme, split three days witnessing video footage of the carnage caused by speed and bad driving and four days litter picking along our roads and motorways wearing lurid hi-viz - the sight of this 'community service' might also help alert others to the risks of speeding.
Imagine getting home and telling the wife that you had just blown the holiday budget on a speeding fine and that you wouldn't have the time to spend with the family anyway... I'm not saying it's perfect, but you would keep your job, the camera based fines would fund LSP and his ilk who would patrol our roads to keep us from further foolery and lurid hi-viz is just not your colour...
Like I say... when I'm Prime Minister...
:-#
-
It's a worry... particularly as the tacho test involves a 'calibrated' check!
I understand that 'sat-nav' speed is the correct one...
-
Sat nav is not very good at working out speed if you are on an incline/hill ....it has to do with 3d nav - and they are getting better, but are not that good. So *never* trust a sat nav reading. In basic terms if you go up a steep hill - some sat navs work out your speed on distance travelled - i.e. for example say 1/2 a mile, but you've also gone UP as well .. ans it doesn't know. Simple trig....
-
Sat nav is not very good at working out speed if you are on an incline/hill ....it has to do with 3d nav - and they are getting better, but are not that good. So *never* trust a sat nav reading. In basic terms if you go up a steep hill - some sat navs work out your speed on distance travelled - i.e. for example say 1/2 a mile, but you've also gone UP as well .. ans it doesn't know. Simple trig....
I'd have to agree with that. We have a satnav fitted to the response car as well as speed check system which runs off a direct drive from the propshaft.
The satnav is mot as accurate as that, but more accurate than the standard speedo. Mind you, the sat nav doesn't like high speeds. I had to go on a blue light run down the motorway a few days that involved high speeds. The satnav got confused as it couldn't keep up. Poor thing! :D
-
The satnav is mot as accurate as that, but more accurate than the standard speedo. Mind you, the sat nav doesn't like high speeds. I had to go on a blue light run down the motorway a few days that involved high speeds. The satnav got confused as it couldn't keep up. Poor thing! :D
So you was speeding then did you get your points for it
[/quote]
Bit difficult really. I tried to give myself a ticket, but told me to 'sod off'. This resulted in an arrest, which was somewhat difficult to explain, especially as I was trying to fight and and handcuff myself. Fascists!
I am now at the home for Officers who are mentally bewildered.
-
Being a young driver, just thought Id chuck in my three pennies worth...........
The generalisation that young drivers are bad is not wholly true. YES a large proportion of accidents do happen with young drivers at the wheel but like all things this is down to experience. I am of the opinion that a milage limit ought to be placed under supervision before taking a test, taking into account all different fields of driving, or that the pass-plus scheme should be reduced in price and made obligatory.
It annoys me comments like 'youngsters should be banned from tuning or owning higher performance vehicles' Are we not penalised enough with high insurance?!- maybe inspecting these vehicles more effectively and ensuring said modifications get declared would put up premiums enough that they would be discouraged anyway?
I currently drive an H regd BMW 3series (e30 318iS M42) which Im sure a lot of you would consider a high performance car. But I use it responsibly and I also keep up with the relevant consumables and maintenance to make sure it is a safe high performance car.- heres a list of my upgrades:
Ferodo High performance brake pads
Vented Disks
Quality Tyres
Hi output Bulbs in the front
And yes, I know I am unusual in actually bothering to upgrade the most important parts and not your usual saxo VTR barryboy with an exhaust so big you can fit your head in it, big wings, big wheels, a bag of nails under the bonnet and drakes as big as beer mats! and I do drive it quickly from time to time!
I have now had my full license 4 years, and in that time (touch wood) I have not had an accident.- before anyone says 'yes but you probably do no milage' I have averaged 17,000 a year over that time, driving a variety of vehicles, although the largest being a Luton Van. This is reflected also in my social group. We are all motor enthusiasts, and of the 5 of us, only one has had an accident and it wasnt his fault (van cut a blind corner and collided with him).
I think the key is with driving is driving as conditions allow. As we all know there are conditions where there is no way you would even dream of driving on the speed limit, but equally on modern road surfaces, in modern cars with modern brakes and safety technologies it MAY be safe to go faster (empty motorway, clear dry day yada yada yack yack yack) but we shouldnt, as common sense should prevail. Yes the faster we go the more likely our reactions are to let us down, BUT the genralisation that speed kills is not always correct. The issue is behavioural, if we all drive responsibly, appropriately for the conditions and be observant, looking for the clues in the, conditions other drivers/pedestrians behavious a lot of lives could be saved. So, it is driver behaviour and bad decisions that cause accidents. I would also echo the view already stated that there are a lot of complete wrecks on the road, with poorly maintained brakes/tyres, suspension componetry that also contribute, but again people need to be educated to spot these things rather than overlook them. End Of.
Rant Over
-
Totally agree with you Chris we are penalised enough through insurance, I'm 22 and on my 416 it was £1,600 TPO!
Admitted this was with performance enhancing modifications mainly a K & N which although it made a nice noise it didn't stay on long as it suffered terribly from heat soak, I also had a full stainless exhaust with a 6" by 3" oval back box, sounded lovely and went like stink for a Rover. I have been involved in 3 accidents in the last year alone.
The first was actually my dad driving the Land Rover up to Manchester to drop my grandparents off at the airport, a white van undertook us nearly hit the sign for the sliproad and cut straight back in smashing into the front nearside wing, he then proceeded to accelerate away into the night, never to be seen again after hearing of something similar we looked into it and found that something very similar happened 2 nights earlier, but this incident left a lorry driver dead. Exactly the same thing but 2 days earlier!
My second was my car and me driving someone tried to reverse out of the local Asda filling station while I was waiting in a line of traffic to exit the car park he reversed into my side at around 25mph...he hadn't bothered looking and actually confessed this!
The third was totally my fault, got on an unfamiliar bike didn't familiarise myself with it very well and hit a wall at about 40mph leaving me with numerous injuries two of which will never go away.
-
My suggestion on the truck limiter thing - if they really are needed (and I think they cause more problems than they solve) how about an over-ride button on the steering wheel that makes an audible buzzing noise? You'd just press this when an extra burst was needed to overtake then release when past, at which point the annoying buzzing would stop.
I say scrap the limiters. I see more lunatic driving from the smaller trucks that don't have to have a limiter than the bigger ones. Witness one almost-local frozen foods firm whose trucks were a regular sight glued to your back bumper at 60mph...
-
Who aggrees with me that if this goverment pays more attention to reducing the speed down to 70 mph in cars by fitting a speed limiter.
Because it'd be political suicide for the Government of the day, that's the main reason
-
Hokay,
Hows about fitting EVERY vehicle with a GBFO stainless steel spike in the center of the steering wheel??
Reckon that'd make people a bit more responsable etc dont you??
(when I rule the world that'll be decree *2 after cheezeburgers for all)
-
I did wonder when the spike comment would pop up.
Oh well.
-
I did wonder when the spike comment would pop up.
Oh well.
OPPS :oops: