RE: Speeding not root of accidents: official
Discussion
annodomini2 said:
I notice we don't see any of this on the 'official' news channels!
Yes, this is annoying and also worrying. Worrying because you begin to wonder how much influence a big earner like speed control has over the media. At least the Daily Mail has highlighted the dishonest use (i.e. all use) of error-prone laser devices.
So we have:
(1) error-prone laser devices - many thousands possibly wrongly fined, endorsed
(2) and now scameras prone to error - ditto
(3) Proof that only a tiny fraction of accidents attributable to speed
(4) Majority of safest drivers being caught - unsafe drivers therefore slipping through
...and the media barely give this whole scandal a mention...makes you wonder doesn't it?
clomas said:
Lots of sensible stuff
Safespeed said:
Lots of statistics that make no more sense than the ones the government issue like -
"Ninety per cent of the effort is directed towards three per cent of the problem."
(Edited to correct cock up on quotes)
>> Edited by spnracing on Thursday 3rd November 12:46
>> Edited by spnracing on Thursday 3rd November 12:47
Call me old fashioned but it is actually a long held belief that speeding in itself is not an act of negligence. It can be a contributing factor, but not the deciding factor. The fact is the Government are trading on the belief by most layman that speeding causes accidents, hence the vast majority of the general public, thinks it's a good thing that we are imprisoned by speed cameras. I've lost count of the number of claims I've handled over the years whereupon a defence to our clients claim is that of excessive speed, all of which have been successfully won. The deciding factor tends to be the defendant pulling out of a side road into our clients path, pulling across our clients path at traffic lights, driving into the rear of our clients vehicle etc etc etc. All of which can be cited as good examples of bad driving. Simply put it is bad driving that causes accidents, not excessive speed.
All insurance companies know this to be the case and settle accordingly.
All insurance companies know this to be the case and settle accordingly.
If I pull out of my driveway and end up getting smacked by some tosser doing 120MPH down my residential road, I think I'd be well within my rights to apportion some blame on the speeding driver. We can't expect the British motoring public to approach every junction and traffic light with the same care you need joining the Silverstone main straight from the pit lane. Hence we have reasonable speed limits that need enforcing.
spnracing said:
If I pull out of my driveway and end up getting smacked by some tosser doing 120MPH down my residential road, I think I'd be well within my rights to apportion some blame on the speeding driver. We can't expect the British motoring public to approach every junction and traffic light with the same care you need joining the Silverstone main straight from the pit lane. Hence we have reasonable speed limits that need enforcing.
Quite an extreme case, but yes it's predominantly your fault for pulling out. Sorry about that. But then again you would probably be dead if hit at 120mph, so would you really care who's fault it was?
If forensics proves that the 120mph driver was driving with excessive speed then (if an amicable settlement cannot be reached and the case proceeds to court) there may be contributory negligence on the part of the speeding motorist. As to what level only the Judge on the day can say.
What I do know is very few cases like this proceed to court, as mainly the car pulling out is at fault and Insurance companies tend to settle accordingly.
spnracing said:
If I pull out of my driveway and end up getting smacked by some tosser doing 120MPH down my residential road, I think I'd be well within my rights to apportion some blame on the speeding driver. We can't expect the British motoring public to approach every junction and traffic light with the same care you need joining the Silverstone main straight from the pit lane. Hence we have reasonable speed limits that need enforcing.
You were doing ok till that bit spn, I think we all broadly agree that speed limits in residential areas are desirable but, when those limits start to get extended beyond any kind of built up area and when dual carriagway limits drop to inappropriate speeds then maybe it's time to think again. Added to that the 70mph limit set when technology was in it's infancy then no, these are most certainly not reasonable speed limits
Hi all. What sort of a world are we in.
As an example both of "speedcauses accidents" and of appallingly low IQ but still with a licence, I witnessed an accident some time ago. The driver of a van pulled out of a sidestreet straight into the side of a motorcycle. The pillion passenger got a multiple leg fracture, and her helmet ripped off. Whilst I was attending to her, the teenage girl passenger from the van came storming over shouting and screaming and I quote "they were speeding, we could see they were speeding".
He still pulled out though !!!!!.
In fact I saw the whole thing not just the impact, and the motorcyclist was not obviously speeding, it was the knee jerk excuse for nearly killing somebody.
As a further astonishment factor, whilst I was actually attending the victim, awaiting the ambulance, a woman came over from the garage were I had been filling up with petrol, and demanded that I move my car as it was blocking the pump.
vbr CJ.
As an example both of "speedcauses accidents" and of appallingly low IQ but still with a licence, I witnessed an accident some time ago. The driver of a van pulled out of a sidestreet straight into the side of a motorcycle. The pillion passenger got a multiple leg fracture, and her helmet ripped off. Whilst I was attending to her, the teenage girl passenger from the van came storming over shouting and screaming and I quote "they were speeding, we could see they were speeding".
He still pulled out though !!!!!.
In fact I saw the whole thing not just the impact, and the motorcyclist was not obviously speeding, it was the knee jerk excuse for nearly killing somebody.
As a further astonishment factor, whilst I was actually attending the victim, awaiting the ambulance, a woman came over from the garage were I had been filling up with petrol, and demanded that I move my car as it was blocking the pump.
vbr CJ.
spnracing said:
If I pull out of my driveway and end up getting smacked by some tosser doing 120MPH down my residential road, I think I'd be well within my rights to apportion some blame on the speeding driver. We can't expect the British motoring public to approach every junction and traffic light with the same care you need joining the Silverstone main straight from the pit lane. Hence we have reasonable speed limits that need enforcing.
When will people like you learn that just because there is no "control", people will not go completely mad.
Please study the example of the Isle of Man, Germany and parts of America.
Even in the UK, on roads where there are no cameras and little chance of getting caught, people don't do "120" down a narrow road. Please lose the hysteria.
>> Edited by james_j on Thursday 3rd November 16:06
I have just returned from a long weekend in Dorset. It was my first visit there for over 25 years, (I live in Kent, not too far away).
Along almost every road there were signs warning of speed cameras to the extent that I felt threatened, especially as some of them said "Police speed cameras" Presumably that type must be worse than the other ones.
I had no intention of speeding dispite driving a car with ample performance (TVR Chimeara 4.5),but the constant threat left me looking at the speedo all the time instead of the road. All this on roads that I don't know, is this wise?
Plus the fact that the roads in Dorset are obviously very dangerous to need the cameras in the first place. As everyone knows, cameras are only installed on dangerous roads, nothing at all to do with fleecing the motorist.
Anyway, Dorset police will not be booking me because it is highly unlikely that I shall return.
Instead I will spend my money on the continent where they generally Welcome tourists
Keith
Along almost every road there were signs warning of speed cameras to the extent that I felt threatened, especially as some of them said "Police speed cameras" Presumably that type must be worse than the other ones.
I had no intention of speeding dispite driving a car with ample performance (TVR Chimeara 4.5),but the constant threat left me looking at the speedo all the time instead of the road. All this on roads that I don't know, is this wise?
Plus the fact that the roads in Dorset are obviously very dangerous to need the cameras in the first place. As everyone knows, cameras are only installed on dangerous roads, nothing at all to do with fleecing the motorist.
Anyway, Dorset police will not be booking me because it is highly unlikely that I shall return.
Instead I will spend my money on the continent where they generally Welcome tourists
Keith
tvr keith said:
Plus the fact that the roads in Dorset are obviously very dangerous to need the cameras in the first place. As everyone knows, cameras are only installed on dangerous roads, nothing at all to do with fleecing the motorist.
Anyway, Dorset police will not be booking me because it is highly unlikely that I shall return.
Instead I will spend my money on the continent where they generally Welcome tourists
Keith
And those of us who live in Dorset go and get the best trap detection equipment you can afford. Because there are so many cameras and no Trafpol, I have detectors which tell me where all the traps are, speeding with impunity is all to easy. Driving standards are diminishing, but who cares, that doesnt raise money.
It is strange, when I am in my wifes car with no trap detection gear, my driving may be far slower (slower car) but I spend so much time looking at the speedo in order to avoid a £60 fine and 3 points, that anything could run out in front of me. It is a far more dangerous state of affairs.
As far as I am concerned, if you are driving without a some sort of protection you will get caught.
cjbolter said:
Hi all. What sort of a world are we in.
As an example both of "speedcauses accidents" and of appallingly low IQ but still with a licence, I witnessed an accident some time ago. The driver of a van pulled out of a sidestreet straight into the side of a motorcycle. The pillion passenger got a multiple leg fracture, and her helmet ripped off. Whilst I was attending to her, the teenage girl passenger from the van came storming over shouting and screaming and I quote "they were speeding, we could see they were speeding".
He still pulled out though !!!!!.
In fact I saw the whole thing not just the impact, and the motorcyclist was not obviously speeding, it was the knee jerk excuse for nearly killing somebody.
As a further astonishment factor, whilst I was actually attending the victim, awaiting the ambulance, a woman came over from the garage were I had been filling up with petrol, and demanded that I move my car as it was blocking the pump.
vbr CJ.
Sounds fairly typical!
gooby said:
As far as I am concerned, if you are driving without a some sort of protection you will get caught.
Or worse still involved in an RTA. But then detectors are frowned upon by the authorities.
What a conspiracy....sounds to me for all the world like it's a case for Mulder & Scully.
gooby said:
Plus the fact that the roads in Dorset are obviously very dangerous to need the cameras in the first place. As everyone knows, cameras are only installed on dangerous roads, nothing at all to do with fleecing the motorist.
Anyway, Dorset police will not be booking me because it is highly unlikely that I shall return.
Instead I will spend my money on the continent where they generally Welcome tourists
Keith
And those of us who live in Dorset go and get the best trap detection equipment you can afford. Because there are so many cameras and no Trafpol, I have detectors which tell me where all the traps are, speeding with impunity is all to easy. Driving standards are diminishing, but who cares, that doesnt raise money.
It is strange, when I am in my wifes car with no trap detection gear, my driving may be far slower (slower car) but I spend so much time looking at the speedo in order to avoid a £60 fine and 3 points, that anything could run out in front of me. It is a far more dangerous state of affairs.
As far as I am concerned, if you are driving without a some sort of protection you will get caught.
I'm surprised with all those hedges and fields some villian hasn't vandalised em, I mean someone with a farm vehicle or landie and a bit of rope, you know?
no trafpol so unlikely to get nabbed I spose, terrible really cos someone could even lop a petrol filled tyre over one and leg it cross the fields, what a world we live inIf you did get slammed by a car traveling at excess speed while pulling out of your driveway, you would have to prove that the car was traveling so fast that even with the considerable care you exercise when pulling out of your drive, you couldn't possibly have seen the car before it hit you.
You wouldn't have to show that it was traveling faster than light to do this, but it's speed could be determined by skid marks and damage caused -by the police obviously, and then you could show that the distance the car traveled would have put it out of sight when you looked for it. Then it's 100% the speeding cars fault, especially if you can organize the car to pile into the back of your car after you pull out, which isn't as difficult as it sounds and would probably reduce your injuries. If you really put your foot down the speeding car might even have time to stop, or pile into someone else’s car. I am not completely sure what would happen at 120 mph if anyone does know I would be interested.
You wouldn't have to show that it was traveling faster than light to do this, but it's speed could be determined by skid marks and damage caused -by the police obviously, and then you could show that the distance the car traveled would have put it out of sight when you looked for it. Then it's 100% the speeding cars fault, especially if you can organize the car to pile into the back of your car after you pull out, which isn't as difficult as it sounds and would probably reduce your injuries. If you really put your foot down the speeding car might even have time to stop, or pile into someone else’s car. I am not completely sure what would happen at 120 mph if anyone does know I would be interested.
It was a hypothetical example, I have no intention of pulling out on anyone.
Maybe my point was more along the lines of ordinary should be able to drive on Britains roads without feeling intimidated. And the post was in line with lots of stuff I put on PH because all the other posts here are from serious car enthusiasts who I think just can't see the other side of the argument.
Britains roads are for the local vicar and Grandma just as much as they are for the guy with the Caterham 7. Its not fair to expect people who drive as a means of transport to have to cope with other cars driven at speed by the more confident amongst us.
'Safe Speed' and many other PHers continue to argue that we should be able to drive at speeds that are relative to the conditions. But the roads are for everyone to use and what might be perfectly safe for Mr PHer and his Superlight R might scare the living daylights out of the local chaplain coming the other way.
And I have to dis-agree - in South London especially, if speed limits were abolished everyone would take the piss and there would be total carnage. You cannot compare the A23 through Streatham to the Isle of Man or a German Autobahn.
Maybe my point was more along the lines of ordinary should be able to drive on Britains roads without feeling intimidated. And the post was in line with lots of stuff I put on PH because all the other posts here are from serious car enthusiasts who I think just can't see the other side of the argument.
Britains roads are for the local vicar and Grandma just as much as they are for the guy with the Caterham 7. Its not fair to expect people who drive as a means of transport to have to cope with other cars driven at speed by the more confident amongst us.
'Safe Speed' and many other PHers continue to argue that we should be able to drive at speeds that are relative to the conditions. But the roads are for everyone to use and what might be perfectly safe for Mr PHer and his Superlight R might scare the living daylights out of the local chaplain coming the other way.
And I have to dis-agree - in South London especially, if speed limits were abolished everyone would take the piss and there would be total carnage. You cannot compare the A23 through Streatham to the Isle of Man or a German Autobahn.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff