Discussion
I get a bit confused about some of the venting on this site.
You all clearly acknowledge that speeding is a problem that kills people, since not all drivers have the mental faculties to use their horse power correctly. Then you start sneering at initiatives looking to cut speeding - not just because they are cr*p, which this one is, but because they exist at all.
What do you lot want?
Can someone please explain the official "position" on speeding and remove all confusion. That way I can drive my SUV at speed, comfortable in the knowledge that every reader of this site thinks I'm a total tosser.
Many thanks
You all clearly acknowledge that speeding is a problem that kills people, since not all drivers have the mental faculties to use their horse power correctly. Then you start sneering at initiatives looking to cut speeding - not just because they are cr*p, which this one is, but because they exist at all.
What do you lot want?
Can someone please explain the official "position" on speeding and remove all confusion. That way I can drive my SUV at speed, comfortable in the knowledge that every reader of this site thinks I'm a total tosser.
Many thanks
quote:
I'd be interested to know what the legality of this would be... specifically when I drive past someone and flash up "TWAT!!" at them..
Seem to remember something from my law class where a guy had one of those scrolling things on the back of his car that said something along the lines of Back off Idiot - He got done for being abusive on the public highways or something equally as ridiculous
quote:Who on these boards believes that ? It is my position that our mission is to disprove that misconception for the crap that it is.
I get a bit confused about some of the venting on this site.
You all clearly acknowledge that speeding is a problem that kills people
Inappropriate use of speed is one of the many causes of traffic related deaths. That's quite different.
One point we stand by here is that there is a difference between driving your car at 40mph in an environment where that speed is inappropriate such as an urban street where all manner of dangerous outcomes lurk (children, people in Micras etc) and doing 100mph along a quiet dry motorway - or for that matter 75mph or more in a deserted country area.
quote:I think the thing which by far gets the most stick and rightly so is the Gatso camera and other unattended speed detection devices.
Then you start sneering at initiatives looking to cut speeding - not just because they are cr*p, which this one is, but because they exist at all.
These devices do not distinguish between a fast, alert, sober driver in a £40k sports car and a spotty 17 year old with his mates in his mum's 316i on the way home from a club.
An experienced traffic policeman (which I think we mostly consider to be fair game) on the other hand is eminently able to make that distinction.
quote:One thing: fair play.
What do you lot want?
quote:Well, I've known people to make less effective efforts...
That way I can drive my SUV at speed, comfortable in the knowledge that every reader of this site thinks I'm a total tosser.
Seriously though, if you look back through what's been written on the subject by the many members here, you'll find we have a good debate and usually end up getting drunk and fighting.. ah.. ummm...
Just read this thread,
Firstly speed dosn't kill - it's just an adding factor.
And these smily cameras!!?? F***ing @%&* ~@:£ **&%£ ~#'; B#||*cks!!
And who in the f***ing PC obsessed UK thought to rename these govenment revenue erners "Safety Cameras!!!???"
They cause accidents!!
Need a beer and to chill....
Firstly speed dosn't kill - it's just an adding factor.
And these smily cameras!!?? F***ing @%&* ~@:£ **&%£ ~#'; B#||*cks!!
And who in the f***ing PC obsessed UK thought to rename these govenment revenue erners "Safety Cameras!!!???"
They cause accidents!!
Need a beer and to chill....
CarZee In addition to your excellent post I think we would like the initiatives that are put in place to make the roads safer to be spin free.
For example the latest crappy advert from the speed kills nutters shows an old banger with the brakes locked up hitting a child. Any ABS equipped car would have stopped in time and I could stop a ford anglia from hitting that kid, hence sh*t cars and crap drivers kill would be a more appropriate slogan.
Even speed cameras would be tollerable if instead of trying to brainwash us the facts were published Ie n extra deaths as a result of stupid green initiatives where n is a fairly large number.
Judgeing by the number of posts where the advice given is often take the rap. We are collectively a fairly honest group. It is the dishonest way in which we are being treated that leads to responses ranging from mild criticism to outright rage.
As a group of enthusiastic road users we collectively Know what characterises good and bad driving. Any arguments that occur here are mostly as result of incomplete information about particular circumstances rather than true dissagreement.
In conclusion what we want is an honest administration that recognises the need for all those using the roads to be catered for without persecuting any particular faction. To put an end to using transport as a political issue because it need not be and to be bold enough to try new ideas, admit mistakes and improve road safety by education not legislation, lies and deception.
In short its high time the government started being responsible.
For example the latest crappy advert from the speed kills nutters shows an old banger with the brakes locked up hitting a child. Any ABS equipped car would have stopped in time and I could stop a ford anglia from hitting that kid, hence sh*t cars and crap drivers kill would be a more appropriate slogan.
Even speed cameras would be tollerable if instead of trying to brainwash us the facts were published Ie n extra deaths as a result of stupid green initiatives where n is a fairly large number.
Judgeing by the number of posts where the advice given is often take the rap. We are collectively a fairly honest group. It is the dishonest way in which we are being treated that leads to responses ranging from mild criticism to outright rage.
As a group of enthusiastic road users we collectively Know what characterises good and bad driving. Any arguments that occur here are mostly as result of incomplete information about particular circumstances rather than true dissagreement.
In conclusion what we want is an honest administration that recognises the need for all those using the roads to be catered for without persecuting any particular faction. To put an end to using transport as a political issue because it need not be and to be bold enough to try new ideas, admit mistakes and improve road safety by education not legislation, lies and deception.
In short its high time the government started being responsible.
quote:I think herein lies the fundamental problem. It is my perception that this government has it's own agenda set out privately and is convinced that the only way to fulfil said agenda is by stealth or deception.
In conclusion what we want is an honest administration that recognises the need for all those using the roads to be catered for without persecuting any particular faction. To put an end to using transport as a political issue because it need not be and to be bold enough to try new ideas, admit mistakes and improve road safety by education not legislation, lies and deception.
They need to raise more revenue, but they don't want to put income tax up so they chip away at benefits and reliefs and increase indirect taxation such as fuel duty.
They want to reduce the number of cars on the road and increase the number of train users, but they can't do this directly by legislation, so they persecute the motorist and turn us a nation of transport pariahs.
They want to pander their corporate supporters but they can't be seen to do this directly, so they award PFI contracts which end up costing the tax payer more than by using purely public sector project funding - examples include hospitals, road projects etc - read The Captive State by George Monbiot for a frightening account of what goes on in this respect or look up data on the Skye Bridge fiasco.
quote:A cheap shot about oxymorons (or for that matter, morons) was condsidered... As you said above, nonegreen, what is required is for them to be *honest*.
In short its high time the government started being responsible.
Fat chance..
quote:
Nonegreen said---
"Any ABS equipped car would have stopped in time"
Does abs cut stopping distance then?
In order to understand the quote view the commercial and you will see a vehicle in slow motion with front wheels locked and rear wheels turning. Therefore in comparison to what is on the film any ABS equipped car would have stopped in time. Equally anyone who was capable of releasing and re applying the brakes would have stopped in time and if the brake bias on the vehicle had been set right even the actual driver may have stopped in time. I was being quite specific about the particular piece of lies presented to the great unwashed as gospel on speed, not looking for a general discussion on the effectiveness of ABS.
quote:
I get a bit confused about some of the venting on this site.
What do you lot want?
Sorry, I may have confused things a bit with some of my recent posts.
At risk of speaking out for the majority - I think we all agree that round town limits are there for a reason, and if you break them by a large margin, you are a muppet who deserves to get nicked.
Here is the good bit: NSL zones are generally safe, and it is disgusting that traps are being set on such roads.
It is also immoral to use "safety" as a revenue earner, for example, dropping the limit on a safe road, and putting a gatso on it. This sucks, and should be condemned by everyone.
A while ago, I sought the opinion of PH readers, to accertain if my degree of speeding was "excessive". It seems that there are 2 types of speeding: 1) safe, 2) stupid.
So as a result, I have changed my ways. Thus it can be seen that PistonHeads has actually made more of a contribution to road safety than Tony Bliar.
Everyone here seems capable of rational thought, and it is with that in mind, that I prefer to be stopped by a Traffic Officer, than a box of evil Gatso.
Does that make things clearer?
rgds, Carl.
quote:
I have seen the commercial.It was you that said any car with ABS would have stopped.I was just asking a straightforward question.You obviously think ABS would have decreased the stopping distance.I asked if that were true or not.
fair comment.. It is also true that with ABS the driver could have swerved to avoid the child. The advert also fails to enquire why the brat was in the road in the first place with a car 30ft (or so) away.
I do believe that stopping distances now are far less than they have ever been due to the increases in braking systems on cars (though I could be quite wrong)- If the guy had been driving a 911.............
quote:
quote:
I have seen the commercial.It was you that said any car with ABS would have stopped.I was just asking a straightforward question.You obviously think ABS would have decreased the stopping distance.I asked if that were true or not.
fair comment.. It is also true that with ABS the driver could have swerved to avoid the child. The advert also fails to enquire why the brat was in the road in the first place with a car 30ft (or so) away.
I do believe that stopping distances now are far less than they have ever been due to the increases in braking systems on cars (though I could be quite wrong)- If the guy had been driving a 911.............
Excellent point Jason.
Why is the god damn kid in the road? didn't he/she/it have time to get out the way - the car skids for long enough !!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff