Can't be any worse than the school system that shat you outas said before ...... its easy peazy to 'get off' ! ......... the beauty of our wuderfull leagal system.
Camera van on way to Scunthorpe
- Thread starter bricktop
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
- Banned
- #92
Surely a F1 driver has limits at which he is safe and limits at which he isn't - namely he runs off the road if he overdoes it? Often they do over do it - but the safety side fo things is now excellent and serious injuries are rare - certainly at the top level.
I completely disagree with your last point - or probably miss the point because you cannot be saying that it if I set off driving within the speed limit I have just as much chance of a reckless charge than if I sai dsod it I can drive at 90 because I am good enough and my car is new?
SoccerCynic
Member
Well Swiss I was not trying to get anyone to rise to what I said but I will discuss it further with you if you want. Is it not a contradiction that you state that cars are better constructed then go on to say that the main cause of accidents is driver error. Driver error must surely be magnified by excess speed. N'est ce pas?
By the way I believe that you are factually incorrect about the Police littering the roads with cameras. They must show that the particular stretch of road and driver behavior on it warrants the camera. http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_cameras_guidelines.htm
By the way I believe that you are factually incorrect about the Police littering the roads with cameras. They must show that the particular stretch of road and driver behavior on it warrants the camera. http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_cameras_guidelines.htm
as said before ...... its easy peazy to 'get off' ! ......... the beauty of our wuderfull leagal system.
Go on I'll bite - how is it so easy to get off?
Selly
Ask me about Updog...
Whereas everyone will walk away unharmed if you lose control and crash at 70???
SoccerCynic
Member
- Banned
- #97
No, I was trying to say you are in all probability less likely to get done for reckless/dangerous driving if going at 70 (on Mway obviously) than at 85 but Swiss seems to think otherwise. In otehr words more chance of crashing if driving at 85.
SoccerCynic
Member
Have a read if anyone is interested in risk of accident caused by excess speed...in particular
QUOTE "In Australia much research has been conducted into the effect of the speed of individual vehicles on the crash rate (Kloeden et al., 1997, 2001, 2002). These studies even show an exponential relation between speed and crash rate. Furthermore, Kloeden et al. (1997) compared the crash rates related to speed with those related to alcohol. The study concentrated on urban through roads with a speed limit of 60 km/h. The results showed that a motorist driving 5 km/h faster than this speed limit has double the risk of being involved in an injury crash than a motorist who keeps exactly to the speed limit. Exceeding the speed limit by 10 km/h has a four times higher crash rate and the risk is more than ten times higher at 15 km/h. On the roads studied, the increase of the crash rate due to exceeding the speed limit was about the same as that related with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.5, 0.8, and 1.2 respectively (Figure 2). However, for this comparison it must be noted that drink-driving is an almost constant risk factor, whereas speeding often is not constant. Drink-driving therefore has an effect on a longer part of the journey than speeding. Thus, given a certain journey, the risk of a crash is higher when the BAC is too high than when the speed driven (over part of the distance) is too fast."
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed.pdf
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
Which part Mic? which is the silly part?
Not sure exactly how it could work in practice alco, not given it much thought.
An idea would be number plate recognition (which the police already use). Of course this can be abused, but the law could have more time to sort out the more dangerous vehicles on the road if they moved their attentions to potentially dangerous vehicles.
True, but the F1 driver determines the safe limits through the information that he has doesn't he? All of the telemenitary he has shows how the mechanical parts of his car are, he should know the limitations of the car for the corners and so the errors here are driver error? But also F1 is the best example of what you can now do with a car and what impact slight modifications can have, such as a the DRS system.
Tyres are another good example. The Canadian Grand Prix this year ended up with a dry racing line but because of the rain there was a wet offline, so most drivers took the dry line, some of the reckless drivers risked the wet line with slicks, but can a cropper (either coming off or not getting the grip to complete the manoeuvre)
As for a reckless charge, you implied (and made a point) that losing control of a vehicle at 85 would result in more than 3 pts. I'm not sure it would. Doesn't it have to be proven that Speed was the cause.
A driver doing 50 in an 70 could just as easily perform an undertaking manoeuvre across 2 lanes of motorway which is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous.
85 on a motorway in a straight line, with a well maintained car, good weather conditions, alert, sober driver, keeping a safe distance from other cars is far less dangerous.
I wasn't sure if you wanted a rise or not, so that was just my disclaimer
Not sure what the contradiction is. Cars are better constructed nowadays, but drivers aren't necessarily any safer (perhaps more aware nowadays, but then again maybe not). So in its simplest form, as one factor has changed (the mechanical part) then you could say that the roads and the vehicles are safer( granted the drivers aren't and there is more traffic on the road nowadays). The highway code was written based on the technologies of cars at that time.
The highway code states a stopping distance of 73 metres at 60 mph (18 metres thinking time and 55 braking distance) my car will do it in 39 metres. To put that into perspective, the highway code states 36 metres is the stopping distance at 40mph, so in effect I should be able to drive at almost 60mph in a 40 zone, shouldn't I because I can prove I can stop in time?
Of course driver error is magnified by speed, but then again, speed can also be a massive safety buffer, when you need extra speed in an overtaking manoeuvre for example.
As for your Camera point, I didn't say cameras I said camera signs.
---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------
No Mic, You have misread my post, I picked up on the fact that you said lose control of the vehicle at 85 mph. The speed is surely not the root cause of "losing control" is it? The reason for losing control, such as a blow out caused by a bald tyre, using a mobile phone, changing the radio station etc could be a bigger factor and the main contributing factor for losing control.
Thanks for that, just read the quote, which doesn't mention different vehicles, road conditions etc etc
How would a change in the law work? Short of signs that altered as different vehicle types approached, I can't see how apparent recent advancements in technology could be factored in when there's still rust buckets like mine on the road?
As an aside, I noted the other day that your replacement tyre was worth as much as my car...
UTB
Not sure exactly how it could work in practice alco, not given it much thought.
An idea would be number plate recognition (which the police already use). Of course this can be abused, but the law could have more time to sort out the more dangerous vehicles on the road if they moved their attentions to potentially dangerous vehicles.
True, but the F1 driver determines the safe limits through the information that he has doesn't he? All of the telemenitary he has shows how the mechanical parts of his car are, he should know the limitations of the car for the corners and so the errors here are driver error? But also F1 is the best example of what you can now do with a car and what impact slight modifications can have, such as a the DRS system.
Tyres are another good example. The Canadian Grand Prix this year ended up with a dry racing line but because of the rain there was a wet offline, so most drivers took the dry line, some of the reckless drivers risked the wet line with slicks, but can a cropper (either coming off or not getting the grip to complete the manoeuvre)
As for a reckless charge, you implied (and made a point) that losing control of a vehicle at 85 would result in more than 3 pts. I'm not sure it would. Doesn't it have to be proven that Speed was the cause.
A driver doing 50 in an 70 could just as easily perform an undertaking manoeuvre across 2 lanes of motorway which is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous.
85 on a motorway in a straight line, with a well maintained car, good weather conditions, alert, sober driver, keeping a safe distance from other cars is far less dangerous.
I wasn't sure if you wanted a rise or not, so that was just my disclaimer
Not sure what the contradiction is. Cars are better constructed nowadays, but drivers aren't necessarily any safer (perhaps more aware nowadays, but then again maybe not). So in its simplest form, as one factor has changed (the mechanical part) then you could say that the roads and the vehicles are safer( granted the drivers aren't and there is more traffic on the road nowadays). The highway code was written based on the technologies of cars at that time.
The highway code states a stopping distance of 73 metres at 60 mph (18 metres thinking time and 55 braking distance) my car will do it in 39 metres. To put that into perspective, the highway code states 36 metres is the stopping distance at 40mph, so in effect I should be able to drive at almost 60mph in a 40 zone, shouldn't I because I can prove I can stop in time?
Of course driver error is magnified by speed, but then again, speed can also be a massive safety buffer, when you need extra speed in an overtaking manoeuvre for example.
As for your Camera point, I didn't say cameras I said camera signs.
---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------
No Mic, You have misread my post, I picked up on the fact that you said lose control of the vehicle at 85 mph. The speed is surely not the root cause of "losing control" is it? The reason for losing control, such as a blow out caused by a bald tyre, using a mobile phone, changing the radio station etc could be a bigger factor and the main contributing factor for losing control.
Thanks for that, just read the quote, which doesn't mention different vehicles, road conditions etc etc
- Banned
- #100
The silly thing is that you are saying speeding (in excess of 70) is OK and you shouldn't be getting tickets if you have a new car and if you are a good driver.
Totallya ccept your comments about undertaking etc but I'll try and explain again what I'm getting at - if I set off with the intention of never breaking the speed limit I am less likely to be charged with reckless/dangerous driving? For example, I can stop quicker than I would be able to do if travelling at 90 and hence am less likely to smash into something. If someone makes an error, crashes and becomes stationery in front of you and you plough into them at 90 causing serious injury or worse to others you'd get nicked for reckless/dangerous wouldn't you, if you were doing 70 you wouldn't - assuming you were a reasonable distance away?
Simple question Swiss - do you think speed limit should be 80mph and if so, do you think it would be safer all things considered? Surely safety is paramount?
Totallya ccept your comments about undertaking etc but I'll try and explain again what I'm getting at - if I set off with the intention of never breaking the speed limit I am less likely to be charged with reckless/dangerous driving? For example, I can stop quicker than I would be able to do if travelling at 90 and hence am less likely to smash into something. If someone makes an error, crashes and becomes stationery in front of you and you plough into them at 90 causing serious injury or worse to others you'd get nicked for reckless/dangerous wouldn't you, if you were doing 70 you wouldn't - assuming you were a reasonable distance away?
Simple question Swiss - do you think speed limit should be 80mph and if so, do you think it would be safer all things considered? Surely safety is paramount?
If safety were paramount the speed limit would be 15mph. No-one would get killed then. The speed limit is actually a trade off between our convenience in getting to somewhere in a reasonable time and what is considered to be an acceptable amount of casualties.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
The silly thing (as you call it) is a perfectly reasonable comment. Although I am not saying anything about being a good driver (what is a good driver?) I am just saying that a modern car is much safer at higher speeds (in excess of 70) because as I have demonstrated, braking distances are much improved on the Highway code recomendations.
ABS, ESP, Tyres, Brakes and other technologies (including the roads themselves) should mean that certain cars should be able to drive faster.
I will turn this around now to say that the speed limits must also be REDUCED in winter (below 7 oC) if cars are not fitted with appropriate winter tyres.
You're second para has changed what you said originally. You said that you lose control of your vehicle and crash at 85.
And if someone crashes and becomes stationary in front of you, surely it'd be them that was charged and not you?
If you crashed into someone at 70, would there be much difference to ploughing into someone at 85/90?
And to finally be pedantic, if you were driving at a safe distance and were alert, you'd surely not crash into them as regardless of 70, 85 or 90, the fact that you were at a safe (not a reasonable) distance would mean that you would stop or be able to manoeuve in a safe way to avoid the incident
I believe that the speed limit on certain parts of motorways should be unlimited, like on the autobahns. However, this would need a change to the driving licence system to include driving at speed, motorways and some "conditions" training.
The dutch, for example have a motorways part of their test. In UK we are not even allowed on the motorways until we have passed our tests...
SoccerCynic
Member
The facts are that the speed limit is 70mph if you exceed it you are exposing yourself to the risk of fines/points. I have pointed to the facts outlined by research which shows that you are more likelyto have an accident the faster you go. What makes you think Swiss that you are qualified to travel at speeds in excess of the legal limit. So what you are saying is...do away with the limit and let each individual decide on the safe speed for him/her. A recipe for carnage on our roads if ever I saw one.
What is your point about the warning signs? You dont want them? They are probably only relevant to those who exceed the speed limit anyway. As I understand it they are placed at locations where cameras may be placed at certain times.
What is your point about the warning signs? You dont want them? They are probably only relevant to those who exceed the speed limit anyway. As I understand it they are placed at locations where cameras may be placed at certain times.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
I accept that exceeding the limits exposes you to risks of fines and points, but I accept that risk.
I believe that this is my only risk, I think that driving a new car decreases the risk of an accident, the facts on braking distances support this.
I should clarify that when I answered Mic's question of increasing from 70 to 80 that I was answering with motorways in mind, not all roads. You may think that doing away with the limits is a recipe for carnage, but it works in Germany from what I have seen. I have talked about my experiences on German Motorways in the past and there is an etiquette that we don't have in the UK, whereby the fastest car is always at the front and their lane discipline is much better.
I think warning signs are fine, but in the area where there are actual or active speed cameras. The rest of the time they are just clutter. Go along the M1 nowadays between Chesterfield and London and they are on every new sign.
SoccerCynic
Member
If you had read further you will also see that an increase in speed on motorways has less effect on the accident rate than on other roads....but still does have an effect. The truth is, IMO, drivers in general can not be trusted to decide for themselves what speed they travel at and most think they are better drivers then they actually are. Better technology does mitigate the performance of drivers but it also lulls them into a false sense of asecurity. You should also drive at such a speed that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear but the capabilities of the car are affected by those of the driver...eg reaction times.
Do you have any facts to support your Autobahn theory
Do you have any facts to support your Autobahn theory
shorehamview
Pink Sambuca drinking World Champion.
You could be the best driver in the world, in the best car in the world, using expensive tyres made from ocelot foreskins, but it still doesn't alter the important thing. The speed limts are there for a reason, however much you disagree with that reason. Break the speed limit and you may well pay the price. Just because you disagree with the limit and how the limit is enforced changes nothing.
As far as the cameras being revenue machines, if nobody broke the limits then there would be no revenue, just as if nobody broke any laws then we would have no need for prisons. If you set off a bit earlier then you don't need to speed.
And if you do speed, and you get caught, tough shit.
As far as the cameras being revenue machines, if nobody broke the limits then there would be no revenue, just as if nobody broke any laws then we would have no need for prisons. If you set off a bit earlier then you don't need to speed.
And if you do speed, and you get caught, tough shit.
Muttley
Well-Known Member
I recently went on one of those courses as a result of going too fast.....my bloody fault, I knew there was a money box...erm camera there.
The AA who run the courses to Police guidelines said that statistically Motorways are the safest roads with the least accidents. There is also legislation due to be looked into by Parliament that could result in Motorway speed limits being raised to 90 MPH when conditions allow. They are also considering REDUCING the lower limits in certain areas. They said that cars are now much safer and the current limits are outdated.
If conditions are good for driving, the Police will not pull you on a Motorway up to 80MPH.
The AA who run the courses to Police guidelines said that statistically Motorways are the safest roads with the least accidents. There is also legislation due to be looked into by Parliament that could result in Motorway speed limits being raised to 90 MPH when conditions allow. They are also considering REDUCING the lower limits in certain areas. They said that cars are now much safer and the current limits are outdated.
If conditions are good for driving, the Police will not pull you on a Motorway up to 80MPH.
silverfox
Well-Known Member
I'd agree with this although I'm doing a load of motorway driving at the moment.
Driving any vehicle at any speed is a risk to yourself and others.
To think otherwise is quite foolish.
SoccerCynic
Member
If the law is changed as a result of responsible and supportable evidence....so be it....but you watch the maniacs then push the limits again...they'll do 100 plus and still justify it...and still complain when they get a ticket
BTW...about half the motorways in Germany have a speed limit and only about 2% of traffic travels on the unrestricted sections. It is not realistic to compare Germany and the UK but there are slightly less fatalities in the UK than Germany. There is,however, an advisory limit of 130kph (81mph) in Germany on the unrestricted sections.
- Banned
- #111
Swiss - another question for you if I may. On a 30 residential street with parked cars and kids do you drive at 40ish because you have a swanky new car with excellent brakes or do you stick to the speed limit (which hopefully is being reduced to 20)? If the former - which I have to logically assume is the case - don't come anywhere near my place.
Sorry if it seems like a grilling - know you can cope with me anyway - but I do find this interesting.
Sorry if it seems like a grilling - know you can cope with me anyway - but I do find this interesting.
Rustyblade
Active Member
Everything you say is perfectly true.
Until the first time you fuck up.
When you do - and it is a when and not an if by the way - I hope you're not carrying any passengers in a completely uninhabited area along a totally empty road.
randy shooter
New Member
two questions.
1) has anyone had a ticket yet??
2) shall we give a prize to the one who was going the fastest??
1) has anyone had a ticket yet??
2) shall we give a prize to the one who was going the fastest??
Highbury_Blade
Bummed in the gob
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 24,619
- Reaction score
- 13,225
And the efffects of driver error at speed are magnified.
Your words sound likeThe ramblings of someone who's done the stelvio pass a few too many times
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
Had to go out last night so just catching up with things. I think this thread shows just how people can get morally outraged. I never realised that there were so many Daily Mail readers on here!
Autobahns - No I don't have any evidence other than my own personal experience, I don't know the stats, I never claimed to have any. I find Germany the best country to drive on the Motorways because of the etiquette. Italy, France and the UK are pretty poor, but Germany is excellent.
Residential Areas - Now we've moved into an entirely different area, we were talking motorways and now we're suddenly onto residential areas. Of course I drive at a safe speed in residential areas. Its not to say I haven't had speeding tickets for doing in a more than 30 in a 30, I didn't realise that the areas were a 30 zone, but in the two instances, one I complained that the limit was not clearly displayed, which it wasn't and they cancelled that one without argument. The other I just took on the chin because I clearly hadn't obeyed the limit
Risks - Distasteful? Come off it. Accidents happen at all speeds but if I make a sensible judgement, I am called reckless or distasteful?!? Fines and Points are a minimal risk to me personally. I can guarantee that there are far more dangerous people on the roads than me. Thats not to say that I am building myself up to be a great driver, but I have spent time and money on ensuring that my car is as safe as reasonably possible.
Speed limits on Motorways - Ah the moral high ground, quite ridiculous really. You're all happy to sit at 69 Mph, you may even go within the 10% tolerance because thats the law. Good for you. I'm sure you've all gone above the speed limit. The speed limit is law, no body is disputing that, but to call someone that thinks it should be higher "reckless" is a bit over the top. Its fair to say that I know the capabilities of my car and the previous cars i've owned very well. I really don't buy into this "speed kills" argument. Its never been conclusively proven and what is so magic about 70 MPH?
Fines/Points - Shorehamview - Yep you are so morally correct here its untrue. I certainly haven't complained about my speeding fines.
Reasons for Speeding - Sorry Shoreham, its not always just about getting there on time. Sometimes you just think that you can do something safely with minimal risk.
Leniency - In the past I have been pulled over by the police for speeding on country roads, but as both times were late at night, I just stated my point and was let off. Both occasions it was dry, clear and straight roads and I could see well ahead. So I was driving safely. The copper agreed, but wanted to do a check on me anyway, so pulled me over, On both occasions the copper had a quick look at the car and just got some feedback from me. All very civil and the first time (when I was 19) he said that If I am going to drive fast, to invest in higher rated tyres... which I have done ever since.
Revenue Generation - Ah again Shorehamview is so correct on this one. I notice the "losing control" argument soon went away, people that tailgate or undertake are just as dangerous as people that speed, their actions are far less safe but why arent there big fines for this as well? Perhaops its because its not as easy to get the money as it is from Speeders.
Speed Kills, Drugs are bad, Binge drinking Britain and the Immigrants
Why is it a When and not an if?
---------- Post added at 09:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------
True on all counts, but you can plan for driver error and still drive at speed safely.
Autobahns - No I don't have any evidence other than my own personal experience, I don't know the stats, I never claimed to have any. I find Germany the best country to drive on the Motorways because of the etiquette. Italy, France and the UK are pretty poor, but Germany is excellent.
Residential Areas - Now we've moved into an entirely different area, we were talking motorways and now we're suddenly onto residential areas. Of course I drive at a safe speed in residential areas. Its not to say I haven't had speeding tickets for doing in a more than 30 in a 30, I didn't realise that the areas were a 30 zone, but in the two instances, one I complained that the limit was not clearly displayed, which it wasn't and they cancelled that one without argument. The other I just took on the chin because I clearly hadn't obeyed the limit
Risks - Distasteful? Come off it. Accidents happen at all speeds but if I make a sensible judgement, I am called reckless or distasteful?!? Fines and Points are a minimal risk to me personally. I can guarantee that there are far more dangerous people on the roads than me. Thats not to say that I am building myself up to be a great driver, but I have spent time and money on ensuring that my car is as safe as reasonably possible.
Speed limits on Motorways - Ah the moral high ground, quite ridiculous really. You're all happy to sit at 69 Mph, you may even go within the 10% tolerance because thats the law. Good for you. I'm sure you've all gone above the speed limit. The speed limit is law, no body is disputing that, but to call someone that thinks it should be higher "reckless" is a bit over the top. Its fair to say that I know the capabilities of my car and the previous cars i've owned very well. I really don't buy into this "speed kills" argument. Its never been conclusively proven and what is so magic about 70 MPH?
Fines/Points - Shorehamview - Yep you are so morally correct here its untrue. I certainly haven't complained about my speeding fines.
Reasons for Speeding - Sorry Shoreham, its not always just about getting there on time. Sometimes you just think that you can do something safely with minimal risk.
Leniency - In the past I have been pulled over by the police for speeding on country roads, but as both times were late at night, I just stated my point and was let off. Both occasions it was dry, clear and straight roads and I could see well ahead. So I was driving safely. The copper agreed, but wanted to do a check on me anyway, so pulled me over, On both occasions the copper had a quick look at the car and just got some feedback from me. All very civil and the first time (when I was 19) he said that If I am going to drive fast, to invest in higher rated tyres... which I have done ever since.
Revenue Generation - Ah again Shorehamview is so correct on this one. I notice the "losing control" argument soon went away, people that tailgate or undertake are just as dangerous as people that speed, their actions are far less safe but why arent there big fines for this as well? Perhaops its because its not as easy to get the money as it is from Speeders.
Speed Kills, Drugs are bad, Binge drinking Britain and the Immigrants
Why is it a When and not an if?
---------- Post added at 09:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------
And the efffects of driver error at speed are magnified.
Your words sound likeThe ramblings of someone who's done the stelvio pass a few too many times
True on all counts, but you can plan for driver error and still drive at speed safely.
Rustyblade
Active Member
It has to be a when, Swiss. Everybody fucks up at one time or another. It might not lead to an accident every time, I'll give you that but to suggest that anyone can drive with full concentration 100% of the time is disingenuous at the least.
I just count myself lucky in that the accidents I've had so far have been at very low speeds and both in reverse gear.
I just count myself lucky in that the accidents I've had so far have been at very low speeds and both in reverse gear.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
It has to be a when, Swiss. Everybody fucks up at one time or another. It might not lead to an accident every time, I'll give you that but to suggest that anyone can drive with full concentration 100% of the time is disingenuous at the least.
I just count myself lucky in that the accidents I've had so far have been at very low speeds and both in reverse gear.
Ah ok I thought you were trying to say that it would be innevitable that I would have an accident...
You're right, its impossible to concentrate 100% but what you can do is limit the chances of events occuring or restrict a lapse in concentration to a minimal end result. Such as leaving a great distance
blade too long
we go again
cars , planes trains are metal boxes that travel at speed to convey us to places , in a lifestyle weve all got used to, getting around and travelling
No matter how safe wed like it be , hurtling round in metal containers is and always will be a risk
Speed is just a factor in accidents , as is driver awareness , road conditions , lighting, weight , and skin and bones inability to match up to metal
We had road accidents in Dick Turpins days , people got crushed under coaches and trod on by horses, but speed limits and gatsos were never a factor
Theres 60 million cars on our roads , so the 1400 killed on our roads last year though regrettable is miniscule, and when you consider 4300 were killed on uk roads in 1926 when there were less than a million cars shows how much safer we all are, as cars in those days had a top speed of 50 ish, the good ones
Compare this to death by choking , we all eat and should be pretty good at it but 261 people died last year choking on nuts alone
Are we then going to put cameras in restaurants and fine people for how fast they eat
Or act like adults and realise accidents are caused by carelessness in the main and 3-5 mph is not the main cause
No matter how safe wed like it be , hurtling round in metal containers is and always will be a risk
Speed is just a factor in accidents , as is driver awareness , road conditions , lighting, weight , and skin and bones inability to match up to metal
We had road accidents in Dick Turpins days , people got crushed under coaches and trod on by horses, but speed limits and gatsos were never a factor
Theres 60 million cars on our roads , so the 1400 killed on our roads last year though regrettable is miniscule, and when you consider 4300 were killed on uk roads in 1926 when there were less than a million cars shows how much safer we all are, as cars in those days had a top speed of 50 ish, the good ones
Compare this to death by choking , we all eat and should be pretty good at it but 261 people died last year choking on nuts alone
Are we then going to put cameras in restaurants and fine people for how fast they eat
Or act like adults and realise accidents are caused by carelessness in the main and 3-5 mph is not the main cause
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
I find it quite odd that you've asked all these questions and when I answer them honestly with (what I believe to be) sound reasoning, you find it distasteful.
I think you are misinterpreting what I say (along with many others).
The simple point I am trying to make is that I believe that the motorways can be safe enough to justify an increase in the Speed Limits because:
- Improved technology
- Improved safety
- Improved reliability
- Greater driver awareness
But just because I said that I would drive faster than the UK speed limit doesn't me reckless and it also doesn't mean that just because I advocate unlimited speed on stretches of motorways, It doesn't automatically mean that I'd drive to the limit of my vehicle. I know my limits and its way, way below the 155mph (restricted) top end of my car.
Just for your information, its not just me that thinks the speed limit on UK motorways is too low.
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Latvia, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden all have higher motor way limits than the UK (up to 130kmh/80 Mph)
So do you think that the UK speed limit is too high, low or just right?
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?