"SAFESPEED" in the London Lite Today
Discussion
Spn.... said
'The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere.'
If you think speed limits are so essential, please try and explain how we coped before 1965? I used to drive single-deckers that could do over 70 in those days, never mind cars!
The only road speed limit then was 30mph in built-up areas, defined by street lights 200 or less, yards apart!
I am not advocating no limits, but they should only be a GUIDE, not my first, my last, my everything!
'The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere.'
If you think speed limits are so essential, please try and explain how we coped before 1965? I used to drive single-deckers that could do over 70 in those days, never mind cars!
The only road speed limit then was 30mph in built-up areas, defined by street lights 200 or less, yards apart!
I am not advocating no limits, but they should only be a GUIDE, not my first, my last, my everything!
fangio said:
Spn.... said
'The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere.'
If you think speed limits are so essential, please try and explain how we coped before 1965? I used to drive single-deckers that could do over 70 in those days, never mind cars!
The only road speed limit then was 30mph in built-up areas, defined by street lights 200 or less, yards apart!
I am not advocating no limits, but they should only be a GUIDE, not my first, my last, my everything!
'The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere.'
If you think speed limits are so essential, please try and explain how we coped before 1965? I used to drive single-deckers that could do over 70 in those days, never mind cars!
The only road speed limit then was 30mph in built-up areas, defined by street lights 200 or less, yards apart!
I am not advocating no limits, but they should only be a GUIDE, not my first, my last, my everything!
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
vonhosen said:
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
And of course 40 years of improved vehicle technology and medical advances have nothing to do with that. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of propoganda.
Edited by monkeyhanger on Tuesday 6th February 17:31
monkeyhanger said:
vonhosen said:
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
And of course 40 years of improved vehicle technology and medical advances have nothing to do with that. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of propoganda.
Hear, hear!
And road engineering improvements.
And drink drive legislation.
And crash helmets for bikers.
And, and, and...
WildCat said:
A safe speed .. ist defined as the speed which suit the road condition at the time.
You mean "Safespeed"?
But that might be 120mph down a quiet long straight suburban road at 03:00 in the morning.
Not sure the residents would be too keen on that. So we'll stick with speed limits thank you very much.
spnracing said:
WildCat said:
A safe speed .. ist defined as the speed which suit the road condition at the time.
You mean "Safespeed"?
But that might be 120mph down a quiet long straight suburban road at 03:00 in the morning.
Not sure the residents would be too keen on that. So we'll stick with speed limits thank you very much.
I'm so pleased and gratified that you, from your superior position, can spare the time to make all my decisions for me. Let me know when you've got the time to decide what I should consume for my lunch tomorrow won't you?
vonhosen said:
fangio said:
Spn.... said
'The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere.'
If you think speed limits are so essential, please try and explain how we coped before 1965? I used to drive single-deckers that could do over 70 in those days, never mind cars!
The only road speed limit then was 30mph in built-up areas, defined by street lights 200 or less, yards apart!
I am not advocating no limits, but they should only be a GUIDE, not my first, my last, my everything!
'The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere.'
If you think speed limits are so essential, please try and explain how we coped before 1965? I used to drive single-deckers that could do over 70 in those days, never mind cars!
The only road speed limit then was 30mph in built-up areas, defined by street lights 200 or less, yards apart!
I am not advocating no limits, but they should only be a GUIDE, not my first, my last, my everything!
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
1965
UK had "heavy horses" - such as the Zodiac, Consul, Zephyr, Classic, Anglia, Austin-Morris-Wolsley-Riley-MG-Jaguar und Vauxhall were down in dumps with rather naff Victors und Vivas. Talking to Mad Doc und my own parents .. there were still horse-drawn milk floats, Steptoe-esque ragabone men with pony und trap in UK .. und Swiss also had horse drawn delivery vans too.
People did not wear seat belts.. there were no child seats.. und you could drink as much as you wanted before driving or handling the pony with its trap.
Thus in 1965 ,.. there was a different set of hazards und I believe also the UK notorious "smogs" und "fogs"
In 2005 .. we have crumple zones which impact but do not crush und shatter.. seat belts, helmets.. better protective clothing for bikers (even better than early 80s when I used fast motorbike more than car
(My Papa was not impressed when I blew my Uni allowance und took out loan from "understanding bank manager" at the time 
We have bicycles which - even with out of condition "tub of lard" can respond because of improved frames und gearing too. 
We do not have horses und carts - except in tourist land.. We have static number of KSI - but when you read the reports .. far too many down to unlicenced chavs ..thieves .. drunks.. drugged ,.. fatigued.. ill..
Few caused by normal und legal by comparison .. und certainly very few caused by the innocent blip above speed limit on the road which the 1965 "dodgier" police used to target to get a "collar in their little black book" (Per an 75 year old geezer down our local on the topic on the A66 und the A591 und seven silly blokes in a pub in Ings once upon a time in Lakeland Lore ) safespeed said:
monkeyhanger said:
vonhosen said:
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
And of course 40 years of improved vehicle technology and medical advances have nothing to do with that. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of propoganda.
Hear, hear!
And road engineering improvements.
And drink drive legislation.
And crash helmets for bikers.
And, and, and...
The OP asked how they managed to cope, I replied not that well.
The fact remains that most collision happen as a result of errors of judgement by drivers.
Irrespective of the safety features relating to a vehicle etc, it was still incumbent upon the drivers in 1965 to drive within their, the vehicles & the conditions limitations, in order that they avoid collisions. The numbers show that they didn't do that all that well IMHO.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
monkeyhanger said:
vonhosen said:
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
And of course 40 years of improved vehicle technology and medical advances have nothing to do with that. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of propoganda.
Hear, hear!
And road engineering improvements.
And drink drive legislation.
And crash helmets for bikers.
And, and, and...
The OP asked how they managed to cope, I replied not that well.
The fact remains that most collision happen as a result of errors of judgement by drivers.
Irrespective of the safety features relating to a vehicle etc, it was still incumbent upon the drivers in 1965 to drive within their, the vehicles & the conditions limitations, in order that they avoid collisions. The numbers show that they didn't do that all that well IMHO.
Your figures however are not for collisions, but for fatalities and injuries, which are undoubtedly substantially mitigated by advances in vehicle safety and improved road engineering. Really, we are not as stupid as you like to think, and can quite easily see through your dogmatic cant ( oh apart from spn and bff, but I suspect they're beyond all hope.)
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
monkeyhanger said:
vonhosen said:
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
And of course 40 years of improved vehicle technology and medical advances have nothing to do with that. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of propoganda.
Hear, hear!
And road engineering improvements.
And drink drive legislation.
And crash helmets for bikers.
And, and, and...
The OP asked how they managed to cope, I replied not that well.
The fact remains that most collision happen as a result of errors of judgement by drivers.
Irrespective of the safety features relating to a vehicle etc, it was still incumbent upon the drivers in 1965 to drive within their, the vehicles & the conditions limitations, in order that they avoid collisions. The numbers show that they didn't do that all that well IMHO.
Your figures however are not for collisions, but for fatalities and injuries, which are undoubtedly substantially mitigated by advances in vehicle safety and improved road engineering. Really, we are not as stupid as you like to think, and can quite easily see through your dogmatic cant ( oh apart from spn and bff, but I suspect they're beyond all hope.)
You are not trying to claim though that nearly 400,000 were killed or injured in non-collisions are you ?
I'm under playing it, there were obviously far more collisions than that & that is a lot of errors of judgement in a year is it not ?
As I say, I wouldn't describe it as coping well.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 6th February 20:49
vonhosen said:
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
monkeyhanger said:
vonhosen said:
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
And of course 40 years of improved vehicle technology and medical advances have nothing to do with that. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of propoganda.
Hear, hear!
And road engineering improvements.
And drink drive legislation.
And crash helmets for bikers.
And, and, and...
The OP asked how they managed to cope, I replied not that well.
The fact remains that most collision happen as a result of errors of judgement by drivers.
Irrespective of the safety features relating to a vehicle etc, it was still incumbent upon the drivers in 1965 to drive within their, the vehicles & the conditions limitations, in order that they avoid collisions. The numbers show that they didn't do that all that well IMHO.
Your figures however are not for collisions, but for fatalities and injuries, which are undoubtedly substantially mitigated by advances in vehicle safety and improved road engineering. Really, we are not as stupid as you like to think, and can quite easily see through your dogmatic cant ( oh apart from spn and bff, but I suspect they're beyond all hope.)
You are not trying to claim though that nearly 400,000 were killed or injured in non-collisions are you ?
I'm under playing it, there were obviously far more collisions than that & that is a lot of errors of judgement in a year is it not ?
As I say, I wouldn't describe it as coping well.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 6th February 20:49
I'm not trying to claim anything, you are. The burden of proof lies with you. I, and others here I suspect, remain unconvinced by your argument, such as it is.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
monkeyhanger said:
vonhosen said:
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
And of course 40 years of improved vehicle technology and medical advances have nothing to do with that. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of propoganda.
Hear, hear!
And road engineering improvements.
And drink drive legislation.
And crash helmets for bikers.
And, and, and...
The OP asked how they managed to cope, I replied not that well.
The fact remains that most collision happen as a result of errors of judgement by drivers.
Irrespective of the safety features relating to a vehicle etc, it was still incumbent upon the drivers in 1965 to drive within their, the vehicles & the conditions limitations, in order that they avoid collisions. The numbers show that they didn't do that all that well IMHO.
At the time .. we did not know as much as we do now about influence of drink, effect of illegal drugs und even prescribed medicines.
Also .. as then .. perhaps drivers were not "feeling the speed" properly. Today we "feel" und judge the speed better in modern car.. but then as now .. we have the untrained who can afford buying what he cannot handle properly. Perhaps one answer ist to "train to use"
For example .. we buy software to do our desk or lab jobs. We invest in this. We then invest in training up the staff so that they use this with expertise und viability
I see no reason why if someone buy car .. they should not sit in it first .. test drive with expert.. get a feel.. understanding of its power und its on board toys before they purchase it . Then .. spend time "getting acquainted" gradually..wooing.. courting... flirting.. getting frisky on track day
To me .. common sense.. to get to know the car properly .. respecting his power.. but feeling und working with it. Ist sassy
Einion Yrth said:
I'm so pleased and gratified that you, from your superior position, can spare the time to make all my decisions for me.
I'm so pleased and gratified that you, from your superior position, decide to drive at whatever speed you choose despite how many residents/pedestrians you piss off in the process.
spnracing said:
Einion Yrth said:
I'm so pleased and gratified that you, from your superior position, can spare the time to make all my decisions for me.
I'm so pleased and gratified that you, from your superior position, decide to drive at whatever speed you choose despite how many residents/pedestrians you piss off in the process.
But we only have your word for it that you drive below speed limit und do not
orf other road users Paulie once had poster called "speed kills" who claimed speed hump "put value" on his property. Mad Doc ask him why he wanted to move house then to a road without speed bumps. He never replied.
By the way.. Mad Doc does type English
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
monkeyhanger said:
vonhosen said:
It looks like people didn't cope that well.
1965 12.9 million vehicles 7,952 fatals 390,000 injured
2005 32.8 million vehicles 3,201 fatals 268,000 injured
And of course 40 years of improved vehicle technology and medical advances have nothing to do with that. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of propoganda.
Hear, hear!
And road engineering improvements.
And drink drive legislation.
And crash helmets for bikers.
And, and, and...
The OP asked how they managed to cope, I replied not that well.
The fact remains that most collision happen as a result of errors of judgement by drivers.
Irrespective of the safety features relating to a vehicle etc, it was still incumbent upon the drivers in 1965 to drive within their, the vehicles & the conditions limitations, in order that they avoid collisions. The numbers show that they didn't do that all that well IMHO.
Your figures however are not for collisions, but for fatalities and injuries, which are undoubtedly substantially mitigated by advances in vehicle safety and improved road engineering. Really, we are not as stupid as you like to think, and can quite easily see through your dogmatic cant ( oh apart from spn and bff, but I suspect they're beyond all hope.)
You are not trying to claim though that nearly 400,000 were killed or injured in non-collisions are you ?
I'm under playing it, there were obviously far more collisions than that & that is a lot of errors of judgement in a year is it not ?
As I say, I wouldn't describe it as coping well.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 6th February 20:49
I'm not trying to claim anything, you are. The burden of proof lies with you. I, and others here I suspect, remain unconvinced by your argument, such as it is.
Well the facts speak for themselves.
400,000 killed or injured, plus however many damage only collisions there were (from about a third of the vehicles we have now) isn't something to be shouting from the roof tops about. On the contrary it illustrates a lot of errors of judgement by drivers in 1965 that resulted in collisions. That does not support a statement that drivers were coping well with the task of driving safely at that time IMHO.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 6th February 22:07
vonhosen said:
As I say, I wouldn't describe it as coping well.
The numbers are big.
...until you consider them as ratios.
Each of us can expect to die on the road once every ~16,000 years.
It's a bigger risk than winning the lottery but still not really worth worrying about in the great scheme of things.
I think we're coping well enough.
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
As I say, I wouldn't describe it as coping well.
The numbers are big.
...until you consider them as ratios.
Each of us can expect to die on the road once every ~16,000 years.
It's a bigger risk than winning the lottery but still not really worth worrying about in the great scheme of things.
I think we're coping well enough.
Is that each of us now, or what each could expect in 1965 ?
Also I don't ever want to be one of those who dies in a road collision thanks, nor do I want it to be anyone I know
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 6th February 22:15
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
I think we're coping well enough.
Is that each of us now, or what each could expect in 1965 ?
Also I don't ever want to be one of those who dies in a road collision thanks, nor do I want it to be anyone I know
Based on the KSI stats our life expectancy has doubled from ~8,000 to ~16,000 years; I can cope with either figure, but then I'm still a youngster in his first milenium...
All things considered I favour not dying too.
quoting fixed
Edited by fluffnik on Wednesday 7th February 02:01
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff