Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

I see the government have obviously succeeded in brain-washing you that it is speeding that causes ALL the accidents, when in fact their own research concludes differently .

Considering that the accident would have to fall in the 7% of being speed related BEFORE he thought that slowing down might have helped .

If it wasn't speed related (like 93% aren't ), why do you assume that slowing down would improve things?

It has actually been PROVEN that slower speed limits INCREASE accidents. In the States where the limit has been 55mph, accidents actually increased in some areas, because people felt that as they were driving below the limit that they didn't need to concentrate as much (the other 93%) .

The only way to significantly improve the accident rates is with better driving standards. A license should be difficult to attain, not a God-given right to have, that is basically gifted to you .

tonyk

Lads give the girl a break she is entitled to her view. I dont believe speeding is the major contributor to accidents, i think its egotisim and poor driving in what people think are invincible cars. This extract is lifted from the governments own website and is based on statistics from the english counties.

"There are a number of factors that increase the risk of a road user having an accident, including speeding, drink driving and the use of illicit drugs. It is estimated that excessive and inappropriate speeds are the major factor in around a third of all road accidents. In 1998 there were 16 thousand casualties from road accidents involving illegal alcohol levels in the United Kingdom, 3 per cent of which were fatal. Deaths have dropped substantially over the last decade, reflecting long-standing drink driving campaigns. In 1998, 13 per cent of people dying in road accidents in Great Britain tested positive for illegal levels of alcohol. "

Using the year 1998 as an example 13 percent of deaths in road accidents where down to people over the "limit" so bear in mind this could be somebody 5 times the limit or somebody just a couple points over it. This means that 87 percent where killed by drivers in perfectly good state of mind. Yet everybody jumps on the drink driver bandwagon. Yet it states that a third (33%) of accidents are down to inapproapriate speed, which may mean 40mph in a 30 or 101mph in a 60mph. So using these facts it clearly shows speeding a higher risk than drink driving so why or how can you feel badly towards these drink drivers, surely they are safe to drive, just like some are safe to speed? (irony, sarcasim)

rog

iTrader: (2)

Hope it works out for you, some good advice above. I just another 5 points and a Ł200 fine last month, if i'd known what was written here, then, maybe it would have been less.. I don't have a problem with exceeding the limit as long as it is done in a responsible manner, i.e relatively quiet/no cars and it's not a built up area. I was on a dual carriageway with no cars anywhere, but i thought best not to contest it because they are REALLY hard on people up here so thought best just to co-operate. But i seriously think you should NOT admit it.

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Tony,
I agree with some of what you are saying, but I would point out that it is a known fact that the above 33% that you have quoted are the government's own "guesstimates", the actual figures acquired by the Transport Research Laboratory do not back this up . The government has chosen to "massage" the figures to suit their current thinking (which is another thing that really gets me in a rage, but that's another story ).

I think from my own personal view that if the slogan was "Inappropriate speed kills", then I would support this 100%, but to make a sweeping statement that speed in itself kills, is just bullshit.

vroooom ptssssh

You sure that was a mate? your a glutton for punishment grant, one day if not already they'll take that bit of pink paper off you!!

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

if the government were REALLY serious about cutting road deaths, they would
1) actually train drivers to drive, not just how to operate a car
2) put some money into the crumbling road system
3) put speed cameras where they are actually needed, not on a deserted motorway at 3am
4) as mike said, its far far too easy to get a licence, just look at maureen off driving school, everyone is laughing but it just proves that anyone can get a licence, no matter how appaling you are , why is there no high speed driver training involved in getting a licence?? you can pass your test in the middle of a town going 30MPh, then go and jump on the m25 in rush hour after

But the sad fact is, they would rarther collect billions in fines and LIE about facts, and continue to rape the motorist as we are excellent cash cows

jamieslittleracer

AND all i was saying is that i used the figure 100 as that was what the driver was doing!! you cant adjust speed limits for the car you are driving!!!

you cant accuse people of things like that... bollocks have i been brain washed i am intelligent to make up my own opinions. you cannot condemn me for believing that it is right to be prosecuted for travelling at over 100mph. the reason i first brought this up was so i didnt like the way people always say 'oh well the camera wasnt in the right position.. surely they cant do me' or 'surely they have to give me a caution first' or such like. i just feel sometimes we are so wrapped up in our rights and what we feel we are owed, that we forget the simple basics... im not saying that the speed limits are always right, but there are never going to be 100mph speed limits on the roads, so you jsut ahve to accept it. its not safe, and you cant exactly say oh so do a advanced driving test, those who get this grade can do X mph those who get this grade can do Y. its jsut not feasible... if you want to do 100mph then take ur car to a track or a private road.

and i realise that this is a frustrating topic for you but im afriad im not the one to take this out on, and please dont accuse me of being brainwashed when all you ahve heard of my view are a few posts over the internet. its hardly a realistic portrayal of my personality and beliefs!!!

i didnt want this to turn into an argument. i know there are some shocking drivers on teh roads, and i agree that more should be done to teach people to drive rather than how to steer a car, but thats now what im saying. i wouldnt think schumaker or such like would be justified to drive at 100mph, if they were caught doing that on a road then they should be banned/fined too.

tonyk

Mike, I know that speeding isnt the only cause of accidents as said poor driving is obviously a big factor. I just lifted those figures from that website as an example and a source that was cannon. My point in relation to this thread is: If you got caught at say 36mph in a 30mph then you could grumble bad luck, bit of doubt etcc... but when your doing 30, 40 or 50 mph more for whatever reason then I dont think you have 1 ounce of comeback, cause you know the laws, limits etc..

RWD wil, how many points do you have? Cause with all the in your post you seem very distraught.

Some of your points are very flawed in there thinking:

1. put speed cameras where they are actually needed, not on a deserted motorway at 3am. These motorways are full of cars at the other hours of the day though.

2. Actually train drivers to drive, not just how to operate a car. There is only so much the government can do, people must accept responsibility for there on actions. Though a harder test is a good idea.

3. why is there no high speed driver training involved in getting a licence?? you can pass your test in the middle of a town going 30MPh, then go and jump on the m25 in rush hour after. So who taught you to drive safely at high speed? Do you have your pass plus certificate, ARDS racing licence or the same UK licence as everyone else.

However I do agree on placement of cameras is obviously a concern and agree there should be more money put back into roads etc..

Btw just stating facts in a cool relaxed manner, etc.. I dont judge this fellow that got caught speeding any worse than the next person. I just cant see his point though.

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

JLR,
I was only jumping on your comment where your automatic assumption that if Wil had an accident it would be speed related. It is that blind belief that speeding is the root cause of all accidents that gets my goat, and your natural assumption made me think that you believed the same bollocks.

That was the ONLY thing I was picking up on, and I feel no malice towards your views .


Tony,
I must confess that my own driving has calmed down a massive amount (due to age, experience and maturity) and whereas before I would not be content to sit behind people, I am now VERY careful with overtaking and very rarely venture into three figures on the road.

However, I AM a habitual speeder, if the dual carriage-way / motorway is clear enough, then I will cruise at an idicated 90mph in the Freelander (probably a true 85mph) and have NEVER been stopped for doing so. If the conditions deteriate, I will obviously drive slower than the speed limit (if this is what the conditions dictate), where-as others drive at 70mph what-ever the conditions, with the mind-set that they are not breaking the speed-limit, so that's alright (twats ).

I personally think that speed limits should not be fixed and should be raised and lowered to suit weather conditions / time of day. For example, it should be a 20mph limit outside schools during the periods that children are in the school and obviously more than 70mph on motorways in good weather, as this was set in the days of Ford Anglia's with a 1,000,000 metre stopping distance from 70mph .

As to attributing deaths from accidents reducing being ANYTHING other than the improved safety standards now available in cars is moronic (and yet another massaged statistic by the government to pat themselves on the back that their schemes are working) .

jamieslittleracer

no what i was saying is that regardless of his driving ability... if something did happen then high speeds makes a problem less easy to deal with, ie mechanical failure, a bloody cockatoo flying out infront. i know theyre small % of accidents, but it was jsut a point that you cant guarentee your saftey at such high speeds.

R4N SS

iTrader: (6)

well i got 6 points for 102mph on motorway

then 2 yrs later got done for 80 in a 30 charged with dangerous and eventually got knocked down to careless driving. And before you all get your knickers in a twist I was speeding for a total of 20 secs on a empty road with no cars or pedestrians and I did slow down for the speed camera

My point is speeding can be dangerous in the wrong conditions.

RS Grant

iTrader: (1)

Thread looks to have gone a wee bit out of control...

Div, the Solicitor has got friends off those charges.. and it appears I may well be handing over my green and white piece of paper

Saph_Cossie - I cant remember exactly how fast they were going, however we had been travelling at varying speeds (30-45) for some length of time. If I was to guess, then I would say we were travelling around 45/50mph when I pulled out to overtake.



Grant

Ratty

iTrader: (1)

We can and already do set different limits for different vehicles, van lorrys cars etc all have different speed limits but thats not the point

Why do people continue to believe that an increased speed = increased risk, its true the consequences are potentially greater due to the laws of physics which states that the faster a body travels the greater the momentum but no where does it state that the faster you go the greater the risk

The increase in deaths on the roads last year (first time in 15yrs) is due to policing with cameras and removing traffic cops from the roads. Although more drivers were caught speeding last year than ever before the death toll went up - maybe thats because speeding isnt the cause of accidents its claimed to be, maybe if we had more plod on the road removing dangerous vehicles, overloaded vehicles, drunk, drugged, tired, bad, tailgating drivers etc the roads would be a whole lot safer

essexrsturbo

fink about it like this little girlracer who set the speed limits? and who says they are safe? how do they no there safe?

it makes me laugh the things you have to learn in the highway code for your test, stuff like stopping distances. wot bloody car did they use for messuring them?

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

tony K, some good questions, heres my answers

1) I was talking about the piggy wiggys sat on a bridge or embankment at 3am with a hand held device (roll eyes to piggys, not you) , yes the motorways may well be full of cars, but do the "safty cameras" photo tailgating, middle lane-no-brain's and lorrys bullying cars and dickheads weaving in and out of traffic?? my point is yes, do people for speeding WHEN their speed is innapropriate, as mike R said, drive to the conditions, I have been down to 30-40MPH in thick fog many times, and there are ALWAYS tossers in lorrys sat blindly on the 56mph limiter, and dickheads flying past doing well over 70 IMHO thats whats dangerous, not 110 on an empty motorway in a decent car

2)yes, very true, but why not introduce a structre to the training. To obtain a private pilots licence, you have to complete a minimum of 45hrs flying time, and pass 7 exams on all aspects of flying. Now, this might seem a little extreme, but I wonder how many lads have have 5 or 6 lessons, then pass the driving test and go out and drive like complete coonts, cos they think they are ace cos they passed 1st time??
why not have say, 5 hrs basic driving , ie controls, moving the car etc, 5 hrs town driving, 5hrs medium stuff like national speed single carridgeway etc, then 5 hrs fast duel carridgeway/motorway work with all the units still covering basic stuff like observation and roadcraft built into them?? the theroy test is far far to simple at the moment IMHO, although it is a step forwards, as is the hazard perception test
at least this way, if people still going to drive fast, they have some training and are not just going for it

3) As I have said before, I know I am not the perfect driver, far from it, and yes I have matured a lot (passed 17, am 24 now) in the time I have been driving, as most people do. As regards training, I passed my motorcycle licence first, which is excellent training for roadcraft and hazard awareness, then I passed my car test 4 months later, I was lucky because I had a very good instructor, who actually commented on how good my observation and awareness was (which I put down to the bike training) , then did my pass plus, which again was with the same instructor, I have done a few observed runs with an IAM instructor, never got round to doing the test though. I have always had a keen interest in driving, and a lot of my drving techniques have been developed through reading mags/watching videos etc, and practicing, also I have been into karting since I was 14, and I have done lots of competetive driving in the RAF in the motor sports association, which is up to national level. But, most of all, I try and apply common sense and concentrate when I'm driving

I have 0 points at present (touch wood ), I get so because I as much as anyone want to see 0 road deaths/injurys , but I get soooo sick of seeing brainwashed people talking bollox about speed kills etc, it makes me mad lol
no offence to JLR, as we had a chat on pm anyway , but you can see what I mean when I quote this from her last post

but there are never going to be 100mph speed limits on the roads, so you jsut ahve to accept it. its not safe,

WHY isn't it safe??? yes, speed in itsself is inherantly dagerous, but 20MPH is dangerous in the wrong place, thats the issue we need to address , INNAPROPRIATE SPEED and bad drving, not speed its self

anyway, I'm not having a go at anyone, just discussing it, so please no-one take offence