| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 2:12:56 AM | I dont think that its "tired old mindless rhetoric" to say that accidents that happen at slower speeds are more survivable, its physics, with a bit of common sense thrown in, and to say that bringing children into the mix makes it an "idiotic" argument, really shows how little you know about the subject, if you can drive around all day without thinking of the possibility of a child walking out from behind a parked vehicle then I'm afraid you should'nt be on the road, and to say that accidents are caused by bad driving is not true either, there are allsorts of different causes of accidents, as I'm sure you know.
While I can sympathise with the o.p. about speed limits on empty roads, I personally would rather have to stand on the brakes at 30, and have a good chance of avoiding a hazard than try it at 40 or 50 and live with the consequencies. | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 3:13:15 AM | msg 49, hmmmm actually that's not a bad suggestion, I like the idea of different lanes for different scenarios.
My VR4 has amazing acceleration and handling but rubbish brakes, so that would be in the "fast but leave big gaps" lane.
The 220 has awesome stopping power but understears so that'd be in the "not quite so fast, but ok to tailgate" lane
And my Mondeo would be in the "never goes fast enough to run someone over" lane which it could share with caravans.
wow, the M42 is gonna be 50 lanes wide at this rate | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 3:22:02 AM | | And whilst we are at it how about a lane for those that can handle their drink. I mean some people get sloshed quite easily yet others can easily handle 10 pints and not feel in the slightest bit giddy. So why have the same limits for everyone. When breathalysed, the policeman should ask you after you have failed it if you think you are fit to drive, and if you say yes he should just let you on your way! | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 3:37:50 AM | I dont think that its "tired old mindless rhetoric" to say that accidents that happen at slower speeds are more survivable
Speed is one factor of an accident, it's not the be all and end all. If you smack your head into the kerb as the result of an accident, do you really think it matters whether it's at 30 or 35? Or drive past a bunch of closely parked cars on a tight street at 30mph, do you really think that's "safe" driving?
to say that bringing children into the mix makes it an "idiotic" argument, really shows how little you know about the subject
Why, do you think a child's life is somehow more important than an adults?
Using children as an emotional leverage is the refuge of an idiot.
and to say that accidents are caused by bad driving is not true either
Now you're just having a laugh.
there are allsorts of different causes of accidents
And, without fail, they are invariably all the result of at least one party driving badly (assuming there are no external circumstances such as mechanical failure). Drive too fast for the circumstances; you are driving badly. Drive without thought for stopping distances within visible limit and road conditions; you are driving badly. Usually it's the fault of both parties - because, unless they were rammed from the rear, then they weren't paying proper attention to the road and actively looking for risks. Just because you aren't driving badly does not mean you are driving well.
But yes; there are people who drive badly because they are speeding, but a bit of extra speed alone does not make someone a ticking time-bomb. A speed limit is just a meaningless number, in terms of actual relevance to visibility, braking distances, and circumstances. It's perfectly possible to drive safely at 40mph on an urban road, as it is to drive dangerously at 20mph.
EDIT : VVVV
carry on driving like a lunatic, and ignoring the dangers of children on the move
Heh, toys and pram?
So, to summarise, we have assumptions that someone who does not strictly adhere to speed limits is a "lunatic", and more use of children as emotional tools. If this is your idea of "a reasoned argument", please refer to my previous comments on idiocy.
or are you going to be one of those hit and run merchants that always seem to get away with it?
No, as a member of family who ran a driving school for many years, I'm one of those people who helped to teach people to drive safely, whether that meant paying attention to a speed limit, or to any other risk that was relevant.
HTH
| |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 3:44:21 AM | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You obviously have issues, and love to pitch your worthless drivel into a reasoned argument, carry on driving like a lunatic, and ignoring the dangers of children on the move, but dont expect sympathy when the inevitable occurs, or are you going to be one of those hit and run merchants that always seem to get away with it? | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 4:03:20 AM | It scares the crap out of me to think that there are people on the road , taught by your family driving school that to worry about children on nthe roads is the refuge of an idiot, I dont know if you have any children yourself, but you seem to find them just an idiotic sidetrack to your soap-boxing on this forum, god help them!! A spped limit is just a meaningless number?-lmao, I'd love to be in court the first time a solicitor throws that one in as a defence! The lunacy I refer to is driving without consideration for others, children especially! And if its ok to break the speed limit by just a few miles, is it therefore ok to rob a bank of just a few quid?, thought not!
This is my last post on this subject, as I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 4:46:11 AM | It scares the crap out of me to think that there are people on the road taught by your family driving school that to worry about children on nthe roads is the refuge of an idiot
Life is what matters, not how old that life is.
The lunacy I refer to is driving without consideration for others
Driving with consideration for others is exactly what I have advocated.
You just seem to believe that revolves solely around an arbitary number though.
A speed limit is just a meaningless number?-lmao, I'd love to be in court the first time a solicitor throws that one in as a defence!
He wouldn't need to, it would not be an option - as the charges involved in a court case where a person was hit would be careless driving or dangerous driving. You can be charged with either of those, regardless of whether you are driving above or below the speed limit. Hopefully that will tell you something, but I'm not holding my breath.
This is my last post on this subject, as I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Probably for the best, as an inability to recognise anyone else's point of view apart from your own as being valid doesn't really classify as "reasoned argument".
| |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 5:37:31 AM | Lawbreakers, the lot of you.
Speed Limits are there for a reason, for the protection and convenience of other road users and local residents. I am sure that you would not want YOUR sleep disturbed by a Scooby with a boom box exhaust at 60 mph past your window at 2:30 am ......
Speed limits are there to cater for the lowest denominator using the roads .. just be grateful that the limit has not been reduced to 20 ... after all (as you all know ) EXCESS SPEED is a major factor in 55% of all KSI accidents if you believe certain dodgy statistics from the Police .
Actually the above is bollox, excess speed is only a major factor in something less than 10% of all accidents ( lack of attention is the biggest cause) but even that 10% represents 300 people a year killed by excess speed.
So there you go , you drive fast if you wish, safe in the knowledge that "it" will never happen to you.
If you must speed or drive fast ( maybe even as fast as 50 mph .. ) take it to the track
respect speed limits, respect life.
(did anyone spot the tongue in cheek there ...?) | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 5/31/2008 6:42:54 AM | ^^^ at last a voice of sanity {insert salute here}
EXCESS SPEED is a major factor in 55% of all KSI accidents if you believe certain dodgy statistics from the Police
Indeed.Someone who thinks they are driving safely, solely because they are within the speed limits, is a little deluded. The main road at the end of my street is long, bendy and full of closely parked cars on both sides all the way down for almost a mile, leaving no manouevring room or leeway whatsoever on the highway for traffic going in opposite directions. I hate it with a passion, pedestrian vision is largely restricted, and I generally don't do more than 15mph down there. Seems to annoys the hell out of other drivers who pile up on my rear wanting to do their "safe" 30mph.
There is nearly always more to an accident than just speed. Bad driving and/or lack of attention is usually the cause, speed just defines the severity of the consequences.
just be grateful that the limit has not been reduced to 20
Won't be long, it's already happened in one major UK city...
I'm sure other local authorities are closely watching it...
respect life.
I thought we were just respecting children's life in this thread? 
| |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 12:55:08 AM | ^^^^^
I think the point that is trying to be made by others about children is that they are far less likely to survive being hit by a car than an adult would. Not only that but adults are responsible for their own actions. If a child crosses a road, it is difficult for them to judge the speed and distance of a car. An adult on the other hand, is just careless.
In a 4x4, drivers CANNOT see a 2 year old standing in front of their car. I know this because a) there have been a number of accidents where this was the case and b) a lady very kindly proved my theory by backing straight over a bollard without even blinking. My point is that children are considered a vulnerable sector of society. No one is saying their lives are more important, but the element of responsibility makes all the difference.
Car accidents. My friend was travelling at speed (not illegally), hit a stone in the road, veered (unavoidably) into a hedge and killed the only person in his car not wearing a seat belt. Accidents means just that. Lots of contributing factors.
Driving at speed tends to mean that the driver is not being particuularly rational/sensible. I see many a business man overtaking like a lunatic at high speeds on a morning. Regardless of whether or not they cause accidents, they are being irresponsible and endangering other people's lives.
At the end of the day, people are ALWAYS going to break the law, regardless of wat happens to speed limits but I dont think they should be changed because a minority thinks its unfair that they have to travel at the same speeds as everyone else at stupid o'clock in the morning.
Rant over!
| |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 1:04:41 AM | They have nothin g better to do than see everthing as fair game for stealth taxes,
surely by having different level of fines would be fair,
getting caught at 100mph at 1 oclock onwards on motorways with no traffic or your situation should be looked in a different light to say in the daytime when theres millions of cars on the road? but the labour have no idea wats so ever about anything,
just zealous little hitlers | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 5:27:16 AM | i must admit even at 3-4am i will pretty much stick to the speed limits when driving through towns and larger villages round here simply because they are hot spots for the police, even if the place is like a ghost town and thats due to the fact of getting caught on a dual carriageway with a 70mph limit doing 80 and touching 85mph at 11:30pm on a thursday night and there was hardly any cars about. infact the copper agreed i wasnt driving dangerously but because i was speeding i had to get the points and fine(which i accepted and didnt kick up a fuss) but he pointed out had he not been in a panda car and it was a traffic cop with video car i would be going to court which i felt was a little harsh.
so that has made me slightly more paranoid about cars behind me as i didnt see the cop car behind me and assumed it was another car overtaking traffic in the slow lane(no road lighting as the bypass is in the countryside).
i know the roads round here pretty well now and where i can and cant speed, on the desserted wide and generaly straight A roads i will open it up, through the bigger villages and any towns then its just not worth going a speed that is clearly above the given limit for that road | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 5:32:25 AM | | So your reasoning for not speeding, and speeding, is not safety or consideration for other road users, but purely down to getting caught! | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 6:17:01 AM | As I previously stated I don't have a problem with speed limits, I just thing some of them are wrong for the road both too high and too low in places.
But I also strongly feel that all the "road furniture" contributes to accidents, the amount of paint now on the roads and different surfaces's (some of them incredably slippery) and the amount of signs everywhere are just a constant diversion from watching your mirrors and the road ahead.
At the local school where I used to live the parents campained for years to get speed bumps put outside the school and the speed limit reduced to 20. But then it is these same parents that at 3pm just park everywhere and anywhere blocking the road to one lane and blocking pavements just to pick up the children they say they care so much about. Double standards the lot of them. And where are the traffic cops or wardens at this time? They are hiding away because and a quote from a friend who used to be one "We are told by supervisors to keep away because of the local backlash from giving a mum a ticket"
Sorry to go off topic a bit | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 6:17:54 AM | Like all statistics they can be manipulated to reflect a viewpoint.
For instance that is all 'road traffic accidents' (and incidentally RTA's are now no longer called 'accidents', but are now Road Traffic Collisions), which I presume includes all the incidents where someone backed in to someone else in a Supermarket car park. Take the statistics for major road collisions, and especially those involving death and I am sure excessive speed (perhaps not actually speeding but driving too fast for the conditions) will play a larger contributory factor. | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 6:27:31 AM | Most supermarket carparks are private property and so are not included in RTA or RTC figures.
Be careful if you have a prang in one because often your insurance only covers you on the public highway and not in a private carpark. | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 6:46:14 AM |
So your reasoning for not speeding, and speeding, is not safety or consideration for other road users, but purely down to getting caught!
no, maybe i worded it wrong, i wont speed through towns or villages regardless what time it is. i wont in the day due to safety of others with kids playing far too close to the road, people trying to cross the road, dizzy drivers etc and i wont at night even if nobody else is about due to my license.
i will happily open it up on the wide, mainly straight and flat rural A roads at night time if conditions allow as you can go for miles and not pass anyone and if i should have an accident the only person that i will hurt is myself | |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 8:30:13 AM | Most supermarket carparks are private property and so are not included in RTA or RTC figures.
Be careful if you have a prang in one because often your insurance only covers you on the public highway and not in a private carpark.
This is a very popular myth, but it's not even remotely true.
Car parks, private roads, bridleways, footpaths, cycle paths, and anywhere where the general public is allowed free access are all classified as an extension of the public highway and are covered by the Road Traffic Act. No matter who the owner is, or who maintains the property, you are still required to follow all aspects of motoring (or cycling) law with regard to them. And your insurance is still valid.
The only places that are excluded are those where the general public are not permitted access, and are equipped with a closed gate.
| |
|
| 30 mph at 05.30 - what's that all about?
Posted: 6/1/2008 8:58:56 AM |
WHY, at 5.30 in the morning, does someone have to drive at 30mph ?
I understand the relevance of the limitation in peak hours: 0700 till 1900, say - but after that, when there is next to no traffic and/or people around - why can't the 30mph restriction be not applicable?
The UK is the most heavily traffic restricted country in Europe, with street furnishings and road markings treating motorists like imbeciles - denying people their natural instincts to observe and drive safely under the circumstances.
The accidents happen regardless !
So.. let's argue the toss about being free to drive as per road conditions, accordingly, from 8pm till 7am .
Do you ignore speed restrictions when there is no obvious danger to all ?
The law's there because some (some not all) people are far too stupid to be given the option of using their own judgement. It's to protect the rest of us. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
