More lies from Road Safety Week
Discussion
volvos70t5 said:
Did the driver spot the child at the side of the road?
Did he anticipate that the child would enter the road?
Could the driver stop ni the distance he could SEE to be clear?and expect to remain clear
We (as in drivers) need to adjust our speed when we COULD come into conflict with other roads users.
A guy with faulty brakes, at 15mph over the limit kills a child who enters the road on a 40mph dual carriageway. Am I the only one who thinks this guy needs punishing?
Interesting issue sticking to the speed limit - My cruise control works well at 30mph so I just plug it in - not surprisingly this often results in me travelling faster than I might if I was manually controlling the speed where in some situations I would probably drop down to 20 but in the current climate sticking to the limit and retaining my clean licence is the important thing and this way I dont have to worry, I know I am always within the law - no car no job and its pretty easy to rack up lots of points quickly - particluarly as the favourite spot for the scamera van round here is at the bottom of a hill in a 30 limit where there has never been an accident in living memory.
volvos70t5 said:
Did the driver spot the child at the side of the road?
Did he anticipate that the child would enter the road?
Could the driver stop ni the distance he could SEE to be clear?
We (as in drivers) need to adjust our speed when we COULD come into conflict with other roads users.
A guy with faulty brakes, at 15mph over the limit kills a child who enters the road on a 40mph dual carriageway. Am I the only one who thinks this guy needs punishing?
The fault with his brakes was that the ABS didn't work and his rear tyres were baldy. The reason I know about this incident is because my best mate was the car behind the one that hit the kid (he stopped and gave CPR but it was already too late). The mother claimed in court that the driver was swerving around all over the place, weaving in and out of traffic. According to my mate the bloke overtook hiim and pulled across into his lane and the kid rode out into the road from behind a railing, and the driver had no chance to avoid hitting him.
As for deserving to be punished....well he was a decent amount over the limit and had an MOT failure of a car, so yes he should have been - if you know your car isn't roadworthy then you shouldn't drive it. Interesting that the police said that this had no bearing on the accident though.
jewhoo said:
Did the driver spot the child at the side of the road?
Did he anticipate that the child would enter the road?
Could the driver stop ni the distance he could SEE to be clear?
We (as in drivers) need to adjust our speed when we COULD come into conflict with other roads users.
A guy with faulty brakes, at 15mph over the limit kills a child who enters the road on a 40mph dual carriageway. Am I the only one who thinks this guy needs punishing?
The fault with his brakes was that the ABS didn't work and his rear tyres were baldy. The reason I know about this incident is because my best mate was the car behind the one that hit the kid (he stopped and gave CPR but it was already too late). The mother claimed in court that the driver was swerving around all over the place, weaving in and out of traffic. According to my mate the bloke overtook hiim and pulled across into his lane and the kid rode out into the road from behind a railing, and the driver had no chance to avoid hitting him.
As for deserving to be punished....well he was a decent amount over the limit and had an MOT failure of a car, so yes he should have been - if you know your car isn't roadworthy then you shouldn't drive it. Interesting that the police said that this had no bearing on the accident though.
Well he was driving with out due care and is bang to rights. The fact his car was a deathtrap merely lessens his chance of any excuses for this being listened to.
Children are readily reproduced by unskilled labour. If we run short there is a surplus in Brazil, where they shoot them....
Whenever I read this sort of crap it reads "Oooooh I fwink the whole world should stop and gear itself up to making sure my chwildwen can run about willy nilly with absolutely no consequenses and no effort or responsibwility reqwiwed on my part. If the economy goes to shit because of it well thats fine"
So you have had a Kid so what, get a life.
Whenever I read this sort of crap it reads "Oooooh I fwink the whole world should stop and gear itself up to making sure my chwildwen can run about willy nilly with absolutely no consequenses and no effort or responsibwility reqwiwed on my part. If the economy goes to shit because of it well thats fine"
So you have had a Kid so what, get a life.
I never ran out in the road when I was young - my parents had drummed into me that the road was dangerous, and by the time i was old enough to work things out for myself I'd developed enough awareness of those big fast heavy things called cars to put self-preservation first.
I can SORT OF see the point about kids being kids. But i was a kid and I never did that, so there IS a way of educating kids. I did many silly things (including pouring some of my chemistry set on a mate's head!) but I got taught to treat roads with a lot of respect.
I can SORT OF see the point about kids being kids. But i was a kid and I never did that, so there IS a way of educating kids. I did many silly things (including pouring some of my chemistry set on a mate's head!) but I got taught to treat roads with a lot of respect.
jewhoo said:
Children are readily reproduced by unskilled labour...
It seems to take a great deal of skill if you ask me (or maybe my chat's not good enough!)
The kind of slappers that fill council estates with kids and support charities like Brake put out for 2 halves of lager and a bag of chips. You just need to lower your sights.
jazzyjeff said:
Did the driver spot the child at the side of the road?
Did he anticipate that the child would enter the road?
Could the driver stop ni the distance he could SEE to be clear?
We (as in drivers) need to adjust our speed when we COULD come into conflict with other roads users.
A guy with faulty brakes, at 15mph over the limit kills a child who enters the road on a 40mph dual carriageway. Am I the only one who thinks this guy needs punishing?
The fault with his brakes was that the ABS didn't work and his rear tyres were baldy. The reason I know about this incident is because my best mate was the car behind the one that hit the kid (he stopped and gave CPR but it was already too late). The mother claimed in court that the driver was swerving around all over the place, weaving in and out of traffic. According to my mate the bloke overtook hiim and pulled across into his lane and the kid rode out into the road from behind a railing, and the driver had no chance to avoid hitting him.
As for deserving to be punished....well he was a decent amount over the limit and had an MOT failure of a car, so yes he should have been - if you know your car isn't roadworthy then you shouldn't drive it. Interesting that the police said that this had no bearing on the accident though.
Well he was driving with out due care and is bang to rights. The fact his car was a deathtrap merely lessens his chance of any excuses for this being listened to.
I don't think "due care" covers this. The eye-witness basically clears the driver and you still think he was bang to rights?? I think he was negligent with regard to the condition of his vehicle but little else.
jazzyjeff said:
Yep, I can see the point about better training. problem with limits is often drivers will a) spend more time looking at the speedo than the road but more importantly b) drive at that limit at all times regardless of wether at one particular time slower would be better.
Sorry, but in my view this is complete rubbish - if you are anywhere near a good driver you don't need to constantly refer to your speedo to check how fast you are going, most people can feel when they're driving at a constant speed for a start. Plus if you're reasonably witted and not ready for the EMI then reference to a speedo, recognising (and if necessary adjusting) your speed should take less than a second.
If one can't manage something simple like this then one shouldn't be on the road. And if the argument is whether the average driver is capable of the above or not, then if they're not, it furthers the argument for blanket lower speeds as it gives the numpty greater reaction time..!
And while we're at it, lets get a bloke to walk in front of us with a red flag as well...
jeeeeeeeeeeez
I hate this lowest common deominator bullshit, thats why everyhting gets banned, because one idiot cant understand specific instructions and
s up, everbody gets latheres with the same brush. Well, hey, I've got news for you - 60 mph in some places, even "residential" is SAFE!, bugger me, even 150 mph is safe.
Blanket 20's won't solve ANYTHING, nothing, nada, nilch. There was a bit on the news earlier this week, where a govn'mt commission was arguaing against blanket limits, but the wimpy, vegalista suck-faced Minister was saying they were wrong and 20 was the only way to go, using the same arguements spouted above - "you get killed at 40", but ffs, accidnets dont happen at the free speed!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
telecat said:
Did the driver spot the child at the side of the road?
Did he anticipate that the child would enter the road?
Could the driver stop ni the distance he could SEE to be clear?
We (as in drivers) need to adjust our speed when we COULD come into conflict with other roads users.
A guy with faulty brakes, at 15mph over the limit kills a child who enters the road on a 40mph dual carriageway. Am I the only one who thinks this guy needs punishing?
The fault with his brakes was that the ABS didn't work and his rear tyres were baldy. The reason I know about this incident is because my best mate was the car behind the one that hit the kid (he stopped and gave CPR but it was already too late). The mother claimed in court that the driver was swerving around all over the place, weaving in and out of traffic. According to my mate the bloke overtook hiim and pulled across into his lane and the kid rode out into the road from behind a railing, and the driver had no chance to avoid hitting him.
As for deserving to be punished....well he was a decent amount over the limit and had an MOT failure of a car, so yes he should have been - if you know your car isn't roadworthy then you shouldn't drive it. Interesting that the police said that this had no bearing on the accident though.
Well he was driving with out due care and is bang to rights. The fact his car was a deathtrap merely lessens his chance of any excuses for this being listened to.
I don't think "due care" covers this. The eye-witness basically clears the driver and you still think he was bang to rights?? I think he was negligent with regard to the condition of his vehicle but little else.
Yes, but he was breaking the speed limit so in the eyes of the law......
The accident was caused by the kid without doubt, therefore the kid (or rather the parents) are responsible, but what's the chances of the driver not being bent and sent in this day and age?
So in other words, as a driver, you must act as if at any moment a dumb f'kwit is going to leap into the road in front of you from behind an obstacle, or pull-out in front of you from a minor side-road. Because if you don't, it's clearly your fault for being a polluting, unhealthy, anti-social, child-molesting motorist!!! ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Edit: Sorry...little carried away there. But it's getting stupid now - when I was growing up the tufty club and the green-cross-code man taught me all about roads, as did my parents. And when I was learning to drive there was a lot of emphasis on observation but also on right of way and responsibility towards other road users (which I assumed applied to them re: me also). Now? Blame/claim/points/fine/gaol.
>> Edited by havoc on Friday 11th November 19:19
Edit: Sorry...little carried away there. But it's getting stupid now - when I was growing up the tufty club and the green-cross-code man taught me all about roads, as did my parents. And when I was learning to drive there was a lot of emphasis on observation but also on right of way and responsibility towards other road users (which I assumed applied to them re: me also). Now? Blame/claim/points/fine/gaol.
>> Edited by havoc on Friday 11th November 19:19
jazzyjeff said:
Yep, I can see the point about better training. problem with limits is often drivers will a) spend more time looking at the speedo than the road but more importantly b) drive at that limit at all times regardless of wether at one particular time slower would be better.
Sorry, but in my view this is complete rubbish - if you are anywhere near a good driver you don't need to constantly refer to your speedo to check how fast you are going, most people can feel when they're driving at a constant speed for a start. Plus if you're reasonably witted and not ready for the EMI then reference to a speedo, recognising (and if necessary adjusting) your speed should take less than a second.
If one can't manage something simple like this then one shouldn't be on the road. And if the argument is whether the average driver is capable of the above or not, then if they're not, it furthers the argument for blanket lower speeds as it gives the numpty greater reaction time..!
Jazzy, I know we're outnumbered, but I'm with you on this. I just dont get this "it's dangerous to look at the speedo". What gets me is that some who say this will try and justify changing a disc, dialling numbers, adjusting mirrors, etc. Apparently its really really bad to glance at a speedo, but it's okay to glance at the mirrors.
The arguments about appropriate limits will always be subjective, but it's not helped by numptys who try and debate it with this ill thought out argument. Guys, if glancing at the speedo is so difficult for you, get a mazda mx5 (or any other slow car).
Big Fat F'er said:
Yep, I can see the point about better training. problem with limits is often drivers will a) spend more time looking at the speedo than the road but more importantly b) drive at that limit at all times regardless of wether at one particular time slower would be better.
Sorry, but in my view this is complete rubbish - if you are anywhere near a good driver you don't need to constantly refer to your speedo to check how fast you are going, most people can feel when they're driving at a constant speed for a start. Plus if you're reasonably witted and not ready for the EMI then reference to a speedo, recognising (and if necessary adjusting) your speed should take less than a second.
If one can't manage something simple like this then one shouldn't be on the road. And if the argument is whether the average driver is capable of the above or not, then if they're not, it furthers the argument for blanket lower speeds as it gives the numpty greater reaction time..!
Jazzy, I know we're outnumbered, but I'm with you on this. I just dont get this "it's dangerous to look at the speedo". What gets me is that some who say this will try and justify changing a disc, dialling numbers, adjusting mirrors, etc. Apparently its really really bad to glance at a speedo, but it's okay to glance at the mirrors.
The arguments about appropriate limits will always be subjective, but it's not helped by numptys who try and debate it with this ill thought out argument. Guys, if glancing at the speedo is so difficult for you, get a mazda mx5 (or any other slow car).
It's OK to look at the speedo as REALLY required and especially when there are few immediate hazards. But if we stick up cameras in hazard locations then drivers are going to be looking at their speedos MORE than they did before and MORE than is necessary for safe driving.
It takes about a second to look at the speedo, mainly because your eyes have to refocus to the much closer dashboard and back again.
If you happen to be starting to look at the speedo when an emergency appears ahead, your reactions are going to be delayed by about a second. Since brakes deliver about 20mph per second braking this lost second could be extremely serious.
Hundreds of thousands of crashes and millions of near misses each year start with a shock realisation that something is going wrong. Those millions of near misses can be all too easily promoted into dangerous crashes if someone happens to be looking at the speedo at just the wrong moment.
Any decent road safety policy would help drivers to pay more attention to hazards ahead, not pay more attention to a largely unecessary dial on the dashboard. Unnecessary? Yeah - you don't need a speedo AT ALL to drive safely.
Absolutely right.BliarOut said:How many times do you see young kids on reins these days? Mind you, it would probably produce an outcry from the exactly the same people who moan "think of the children", because the kid's individuality or freedom of expression would be hampered ... or some other such clap-trap - Streaky
[quote=Yugguy]... my young daughter slipped her mums hand and ran into the road ...
safespeed said:
Yep, I can see the point about better training. problem with limits is often drivers will a) spend more time looking at the speedo than the road but more importantly b) drive at that limit at all times regardless of wether at one particular time slower would be better.
Sorry, but in my view this is complete rubbish - if you are anywhere near a good driver you don't need to constantly refer to your speedo to check how fast you are going, most people can feel when they're driving at a constant speed for a start. Plus if you're reasonably witted and not ready for the EMI then reference to a speedo, recognising (and if necessary adjusting) your speed should take less than a second.
If one can't manage something simple like this then one shouldn't be on the road. And if the argument is whether the average driver is capable of the above or not, then if they're not, it furthers the argument for blanket lower speeds as it gives the numpty greater reaction time..!
Jazzy, I know we're outnumbered, but I'm with you on this. I just dont get this "it's dangerous to look at the speedo". What gets me is that some who say this will try and justify changing a disc, dialling numbers, adjusting mirrors, etc. Apparently its really really bad to glance at a speedo, but it's okay to glance at the mirrors.
The arguments about appropriate limits will always be subjective, but it's not helped by numptys who try and debate it with this ill thought out argument. Guys, if glancing at the speedo is so difficult for you, get a mazda mx5 (or any other slow car).
It's OK to look at the speedo as REALLY required and especially when there are few immediate hazards. But if we stick up cameras in hazard locations then drivers are going to be looking at their speedos MORE than they did before and MORE than is necessary for safe driving.
I totally agree. Spotting a camera takes your attention away from what you should be concentrating on, if you're driving to the conditions in a hazardous area the chances are you may well be well within the limits (certainly in my experience). Unless it's my imagination I tend to find that the time taken to look at a speedo takes longer at lower speeds, that's probably down to the fact that there's often more going on that I need to be paying attention to.
safespeed said:
Unnecessary? Yeah - you don't need a speedo AT ALL to drive safely.
Totally agree - Sadly you DO need one if you want to keep driving safely. Without one you'll soon rack up enough points not to be driving at all!!!!!!!
Looking at it from a slightly different viewpoint;
All the scamera 'partnerships' keep pumping out the message that Speed Kills - a message that's been taken up the mindless morons of the reduce speed action groups, something akin to George Orwell's sheep.
Next time you're confronted by one of these morons ask them what they think the effect would be of a child being run over by a road-roller at 'extra safe' 5 mph and watch them choke!!!!!!!
BigBobNext said:
time you're confronted by one of these morons ask them what they think the effect would be of a child being run over by a road-roller at 'extra safe' 5 mph and watch them choke!!!!!!!
Better still... get them to try it out.
>> Edited by JoolzB on Saturday 12th November 11:58
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff