Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
Well, we are still waiting to hear your alternatives, I could hardly be trying to divert you because you have not so far attempted to go anywhere with this. You are just being a moaning Minnie.
Now you're bordering on trolling. I have nothing more to say to you.Dammit said:
I bet you won't, as the time you gain travelling at 60 rather than 40 simply gets you to the next set of traffic lights/congestion/bus very slightly sooner.
Unless it's 3am, that said, or a clear motorway - but this topic seems to be about A and B roads.
'Tis exactly why I head North of the border...A and B roads are much quieter, and progress is far......lets say less stressful.Unless it's 3am, that said, or a clear motorway - but this topic seems to be about A and B roads.
OTBC said:
Cameras are sited according to ACPO guidelines, politicians have nothing to do with it, which politician are you claiming is responsible for the A9 cameras?
As I'm sure you are aware, siting is quite separate from the policy decision to implement the scheme.The answer to your question is Alex Salmond and Keith Brown of the SNP.
Dammit said:
I bet you won't, as the time you gain travelling at 60 rather than 40 simply gets you to the next set of traffic lights/congestion/bus very slightly sooner.
Unless it's 3am, that said, or a clear motorway - but this topic seems to be about A and B roads.
I drove for an hour and a half on A and B roads on sunday covering over 80 miles and there was only 1 set of traffic lights. If I had travelled at 40mph the journey would have taken 33% longer ie another 30 mins and the sme for the return, so I would have lost an hour. Multiply that over say a working week and thats 5 hours a week or nearly a whole day a month.Unless it's 3am, that said, or a clear motorway - but this topic seems to be about A and B roads.
As well as wasting time, it could have an economic impact.
singlecoil said:
But plenty more to say on the subject of speed limits and their enforcement, I confidently expect. The only thing missing will be what you would replace them with.
I don't agree with @Phatboy317's arguments, but to be fair, there isn't a rule that says you have to come up with an alternative before you're allowed to criticise something.EG: I'm no fan of the monarchy, but I'm not sure what a good replacement would be. That doesn't mean I cannot express my reasons for not wanting an unelected and unaccountable head of state.
v12Legs said:
singlecoil said:
But plenty more to say on the subject of speed limits and their enforcement, I confidently expect. The only thing missing will be what you would replace them with.
I don't agree with @Phatboy317's arguments, but to be fair, there isn't a rule that says you have to come up with an alternative before you're allowed to criticise something.blueg33 said:
As well as wasting time, it could have an economic impact.
At last, a viable argument against lower speed limits etc.The next difficulty is to convince those in control that the economic impact is going to be a negative one, because although there certainly will be an economic impact, in some cases it may well be a positive one. Those arguing for lower speed limits etc may well point to increased fuel consumption at higher speeds, and people choosing to undertake longer journeys than they might otherwise if average speeds were to increase, for instance, living further from their place of work and travelling further in an attempt to increase sales.
emmaT2014 said:
Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents!
Back to the original proposition: it can and does.
No we are going round in circlesBack to the original proposition: it can and does.
If I speed st 60 in a 50 in Oxfordshire and then as soon as the same road enters Gloucestershire I am not speeding whilst still doing 60mph. How am I more likely to have an accident in Oxfordshire than in Gloucestershire
For the umpteenth time its no speeding that causes accidents its driving like a knob
blueg33 said:
emmaT2014 said:
Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents!
Back to the original proposition: it can and does.
No we are going round in circlesBack to the original proposition: it can and does.
If I speed st 60 in a 50 in Oxfordshire and then as soon as the same road enters Gloucestershire I am not speeding whilst still doing 60mph. How am I more likely to have an accident in Oxfordshire than in Gloucestershire
For the umpteenth time its no speeding that causes accidents its driving like a knob
You are of course entitled to your opinion; just don't start thinking it is in any way valid.
emmaT2014 said:
blueg33 said:
emmaT2014 said:
Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents!
Back to the original proposition: it can and does.
No we are going round in circlesBack to the original proposition: it can and does.
If I speed st 60 in a 50 in Oxfordshire and then as soon as the same road enters Gloucestershire I am not speeding whilst still doing 60mph. How am I more likely to have an accident in Oxfordshire than in Gloucestershire
For the umpteenth time its no speeding that causes accidents its driving like a knob
You are of course entitled to your opinion; just don't start thinking it is in any way valid.
Answer me the question above about the same road where it goes from Oxon to Glos? How is speeding in one county more likely to cause an accident than going at the same speed in the next. Its the same road, all trhat has changed is the sign?
Dammit said:
I bet you won't, as the time you gain travelling at 60 rather than 40 simply gets you to the next set of traffic lights/congestion/bus very slightly sooner.
Unless it's 3am, that said, or a clear motorway - but this topic seems to be about A and B roads.
I take it you don't get out of London much.Unless it's 3am, that said, or a clear motorway - but this topic seems to be about A and B roads.
On my daily commute (70-mile round trip), I could easily do 100mph over most of the distance if I chose to - not that I do of course, given the price of fuel
blueg33 said:
I drove for an hour and a half on A and B roads on sunday covering over 80 miles and there was only 1 set of traffic lights. If I had travelled at 40mph the journey would have taken 33% longer ie another 30 mins and the sme for the return, so I would have lost an hour. Multiply that over say a working week and thats 5 hours a week or nearly a whole day a month.
As well as wasting time, it could have an economic impact.
Speaking of economic impact, in my neck of the woods I regularly see a sea of brake lights all the way down hills, for no reason other than to keep within the speed limit, followed by most of them having to go down to 3rd or even 2nd gear to get up the following uphills.As well as wasting time, it could have an economic impact.
This has to be a monumental waste of fuel.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 22 October 13:01
Dammit said:
I don't believe you- show the route and I might do.
Most of it is on the M5 between Bristol and Cheltenham.The only really slow stretch, besides the mile or two either end, is a couple of miles of roadworks with 50mph average cameras.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 22 October 12:54
Dammit said:
If you maintain the same speed you are equally as dangerous in both, if you slow down then you reduce the threat you represent, so if you obeyed the law you would present less of a risk in the 50.
By that logic, ignoring the law in the 50 and driving at 60 I represent no more risk than I do in the 60.The point is that speed limits have to make sense to be respected. And the above circumstance simply makes no sense.
I still ptresnt far more risk if I drive at 40mph 1 inch behind the car in front than if I drive at 60mph in a 50mph limit.
It really isnt speeding that the problem, its poor driving, sometime speeding is a sympton o poor driving, but really that means inapprpriate speed for the conditions
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff