Do you Speed (or mums net has taken over the asylum )

[HertsBiker]

If it is safe to do so, I break every speed limit I can. Sometimes by a small amount, sometimes massive eg double. For example, 40mph DC that used to be 70, I do 80 and don't feel any guilt. Has to be SAFE though.

[Eclassy]

HertsBiker said:

If it is safe to do so, I break every speed limit I can. Sometimes by a small amount, sometimes massive eg double. For example, 40mph DC that used to be 70, I do 80 and don't feel any guilt. Has to be SAFE though.

Will someone please think about the children! (And cats)

[Chimune]

Corpulent Tosser said:

I don't see why you think it is considered good for you to speed in a HGV

Myself, I never speed in town, 30/40 limits in built up areas, just don't do it and frequently have impatient tts sitting on my bumper, but that is fine, they can sit there or overtake, that is their choice.

Out of town I tend to cruise at speed limit + 10% with an occasional bit of spirited driving where I assess it safe to do so. However if caught, and I have been, I don't bleat about it.

This.

[Toltec]

Eclassy said:

Will someone please think about the children! (And cats)

Quite right, what kind of world are we creating where children are taught that only cotton wool wrapped, mumsy approved, safety first pastimes are possible.

[devnull]

Anyone who says that they don't speed is akin to them saying they don't masturbate. Everyone does it!

[Terminator X]

Phatboy317 said:

Terminator X said:

PS I've not killed or injured anyone so far.

Neither have the vast majority of 'speeders'

Great news then?

TX.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You think? Killing a cyclist when doing 100 in a 60 is going to land you in a whole heap of trouble, regardless of the wrongdoing of the cyclist and the fact that the outcome may have been the same at 60.

Prison is a very real possibility.

The offence would be causing death by dangerous driving. The defence would be that the speed was not dangerous in itself and that the cyclist would have died if I had been driving at or even below the speed limit. If there was evidence to support the defence, I should be acquitted.

So that's your defence, that 100 in a 60 isn't dangerous as of itself. And you've hit and killed a cyclist.



Good luck with that!!!

[Zod]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You think? Killing a cyclist when doing 100 in a 60 is going to land you in a whole heap of trouble, regardless of the wrongdoing of the cyclist and the fact that the outcome may have been the same at 60.

Prison is a very real possibility.

The offence would be causing death by dangerous driving. The defence would be that the speed was not dangerous in itself and that the cyclist would have died if I had been driving at or even below the speed limit. If there was evidence to support the defence, I should be acquitted.

So that's your defence, that 100 in a 60 isn't dangerous as of itself. And you've hit and killed a cyclist.



Good luck with that!!!

You sound like a spokesman for BRAKE there.

The premise is very simple: the accident investigation concludes that the cyclist would have died, had I been driving at 50 mph, 60 mph or 100 mph. That is proof that the excess speed did not contribute to the death.

Edited by Zod on Friday 17th October 11:06

[WinstonWolf]

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You think? Killing a cyclist when doing 100 in a 60 is going to land you in a whole heap of trouble, regardless of the wrongdoing of the cyclist and the fact that the outcome may have been the same at 60.

Prison is a very real possibility.

The offence would be causing death by dangerous driving. The defence would be that the speed was not dangerous in itself and that the cyclist would have died if I had been driving at or even below the speed limit. If there was evidence to support the defence, I should be acquitted.

So that's your defence, that 100 in a 60 isn't dangerous as of itself. And you've hit and killed a cyclist.



Good luck with that!!!

You sound like a spokesman for BRAKE there.

The premise is very simple: the accident investigation concludes that the cyclist would have died, had I been driving at 50 mph, 60 mph or 100 mph. That is proof that the excess speed did not contribute to the death.

Edited by Zod on Friday 17th October 11:06

Had you been travelling at 60MPH you would not have arrived at that place at that moment in time. The collision would not have taken place.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You think? Killing a cyclist when doing 100 in a 60 is going to land you in a whole heap of trouble, regardless of the wrongdoing of the cyclist and the fact that the outcome may have been the same at 60.

Prison is a very real possibility.

The offence would be causing death by dangerous driving. The defence would be that the speed was not dangerous in itself and that the cyclist would have died if I had been driving at or even below the speed limit. If there was evidence to support the defence, I should be acquitted.

So that's your defence, that 100 in a 60 isn't dangerous as of itself. And you've hit and killed a cyclist.



Good luck with that!!!

You sound like a spokesman for BRAKE there.

The premise is very simple: the accident investigation concludes that the cyclist would have died, had I been driving at 50 mph, 60 mph or 100 mph. That is proof that the excess speed did not contribute to the death.

Edited by Zod on Friday 17th October 11:06

It's got nothing to do with BRAKE. It's common sense. You hit a cyclist doing 100 in a 60, and kill them, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell using the defence of "they would have died had I been doing 60."

Firstly, you won't be able to prove that the accident would have been unavoidable if you'd been doing 60, and secondly, you wouldn't be able to prove what his injuries would have been at 60. And thirdly, by the time the local press had got hold of the story and your wife had been spat at in the street and your kids had been bullied out of school, you'd quite fancy a spell in clink to get away from the ensuing nightmare.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

Had you been travelling at 60MPH you would not have arrived at that place at that moment in time. The collision would not have taken place.

Exactly right. That's exactly what the prosecution will say in court. Maybe Zod can use the defence that had he been doing 120, he would have passed the spot before the cyclist arrived there.

[Zod]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

Had you been travelling at 60MPH you would not have arrived at that place at that moment in time. The collision would not have taken place.

Exactly right. That's exactly what the prosecution will say in court. Maybe Zod can use the defence that had he been doing 120, he would have passed the spot before the cyclist arrived there.

That is irrelevant. By the same token, if I hit the cyclist at a legal speed, but I had been driving at an illegal speed half a mile earlier, the prosecution could claim that my earlier speeding had caused the death of the cyclist, because had I not been speeding earlier, I would not have arrived at the accident spot at that moment.

[bryan35]

Usually sit at 35MPH in a 30, with the occasional blat above this.
Always stay at exactly the speed limit wherever the limit feels 'suspiciously wrong' for the road.
Country roads generally 'No Speed Limit' but never enough to earn me more than 3 points,
Motorways - 60-65MPH, unless late for work, then indicated 80.

Showing my age!

[Phatboy317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

Had you been travelling at 60MPH you would not have arrived at that place at that moment in time. The collision would not have taken place.

Exactly right. That's exactly what the prosecution will say in court. Maybe Zod can use the defence that had he been doing 120, he would have passed the spot before the cyclist arrived there.

Or had you gotten out of bed a few minutes earlier that morning, then you would not have been at that place at that time.

So a cyclist died and you end up in jail because your alarm clock didn't work.

The speed you happened to be doing at the time is not much less circumstantial than that.

[Phatboy317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Firstly, you won't be able to prove that the accident would have been unavoidable if you'd been doing 60, and secondly, you wouldn't be able to prove what his injuries would have been at 60.

It would not have happened at all had your speed been any different, because you would not have been there at the time, so such comparisons are invalid.
Perhaps someone else would have hit the cyclist had you not been there, but not you.
Whether or not it's unavoidable depends on the exact circumstances at the time, and so is in the lap of the gods.
I wouldn't bet on his chances of surviving at 60, and that's also largely a matter of luck.

Oh and BTW, it wasn't that long ago when you could be locked up and spat upon for the 'crime' of being gay, so it's a bit disingenuous to evoke some of the worst excesses of human nature.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 17th October 12:54

[Toltec]

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

Had you been travelling at 60MPH you would not have arrived at that place at that moment in time. The collision would not have taken place.

Exactly right. That's exactly what the prosecution will say in court. Maybe Zod can use the defence that had he been doing 120, he would have passed the spot before the cyclist arrived there.

That is irrelevant. By the same token, if I hit the cyclist at a legal speed, but I had been driving at an illegal speed half a mile earlier, the prosecution could claim that my earlier speeding had caused the death of the cyclist, because had I not been speeding earlier, I would not have arrived at the accident spot at that moment.

Given I started the cyclist flying through a hedge idea...

A change of boundary conditions, what if this is a pedestrian jumping from a bridge, the fall may or may not kill them, but being hit by a car does. What culpability does the driver have as regards speed?

The only real difference here is that the jumper had intent to die and the cyclist was just reckless. Remember we are not talking about a cyclist that emerges from a junction but through a hedge at speed.

[jmorgan]

What if the pedestrian jumped off a bridge and hit the cyclist then a car hit them all?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Phatboy317 said:

I wouldn't bet on his chances of surviving at 60, and that's also largely a matter of luck.

Neither would I, but proving that a cyclist killed at 100 would definitely have died at 60 is nigh on impossible. I still maintain that killing a cyclist at 100 in a 60 limit is likely to land you in massive bother. You have 2 chances in court, slim and no, and slim just left town.

[singlecoil]

Phatboy317 said:

Oh and BTW, it wasn't that long ago when you could be locked up and spat upon for the 'crime' of being gay,

Being homosexual has never been a crime in this country.

[Phatboy317]

singlecoil said:

Being homosexual has never been a crime in this country.

Perhaps not explicitly, but tell that to people like Alan Turing