Why?????????????
Discussion
Jewhoo said:
NOt that I want to be pedantic, but don't all crashes involve speed of some sort
I once offered the proposition that speed is a factor in all accidents, at the moment of impact - or words to that effect. Therefore I suggested we should concentrate on avoiding the impacts. That seems to me to be the primary task.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
WildCat said:
On Speeding
I just noticed that the report said that there were 2.2 million speeders caught in a year. Surely there should have been a hell of a lot more crashes involving speed if all those people really were speeding.
Proves that being a tadge over a limit is not dangerous
...and the vast majority of those caught substantially over the limit also stayed safe.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:Ah, surely at the moment of impact speed is not an issue, as both vehicles are stationary. Their position relative to one another can be measured, but their speed cannot. Heisenberg again
NOt that I want to be pedantic, but don't all crashes involve speed of some sort
Best wishes all,
Dave.
- Streakyfunkyrobot said:
We know that they do nothing for safety on the road and we know they are designed to make revenue. But why on earth do people still do it considering the fact that they are allowed to put some money back into the partnership and buy more cameras!!!!!!!
Why???
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4487497.stm"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4487497.stm"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4487497.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4487497.stm</a></a></a>
>>> Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 27th April 09:35
Hmmmmmmm Could it be the fact we are human and make mastakes. I think the scumeraship and government realise this. Gareenteed income for them. Atb Derek.
>> Edited by winnebago nut on Wednesday 27th April 18:01
I've not read through this so apologise if it's already been said.
I like many many people exceed the limit day in day out and do the best I can to not get caught for even though I consider myself a safe, observant and considerate driver I don't see why I should have to stick to laws I don't agree with, that are out of date, often provide no safety improvements(which is why they are there afterall), it makes little sense to me.
If I and everyone else stick to the limits then the limits will be reduced even further when accidents continue to happen. Bliar and any other government need money and "bad habit" taxes are the easiest option.
Laws are there and could and should evolve just as cars, technology, road design and other factors start to make it safer to drive faster. If you want to start kicking up a fuss about something then why not concentrate of improved driving tests, driver improvement programs, or look into other big causes of accidents and fatalities.
Why bother owning and using a car in the first place if you don't have any intention of getting from a - b faster than by foot?
I like many many people exceed the limit day in day out and do the best I can to not get caught for even though I consider myself a safe, observant and considerate driver I don't see why I should have to stick to laws I don't agree with, that are out of date, often provide no safety improvements(which is why they are there afterall), it makes little sense to me.
If I and everyone else stick to the limits then the limits will be reduced even further when accidents continue to happen. Bliar and any other government need money and "bad habit" taxes are the easiest option.
Laws are there and could and should evolve just as cars, technology, road design and other factors start to make it safer to drive faster. If you want to start kicking up a fuss about something then why not concentrate of improved driving tests, driver improvement programs, or look into other big causes of accidents and fatalities.
Why bother owning and using a car in the first place if you don't have any intention of getting from a - b faster than by foot?
streaky said:
NOt that I want to be pedantic, but don't all crashes involve speed of some sort
I once offered the proposition that speed is a factor in all accidents, at the moment of impact - or words to that effect. Therefore I suggested we should concentrate on avoiding the impacts. That seems to me to be the primary task.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Ah, surely at the moment of impact speed is not an issue, as both vehicles are stationary.
They are only stationary after certain unpleasant events have taken place immediately following the initial impact, and that is the period during which all the damage is done - to people and vehicles.
I expect you'll let me know if you still disagree.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
streaky said:
NOt that I want to be pedantic, but don't all crashes involve speed of some sort
I once offered the proposition that speed is a factor in all accidents, at the moment of impact - or words to that effect. Therefore I suggested we should concentrate on avoiding the impacts. That seems to me to be the primary task.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Ah, surely at the moment of impact speed is not an issue, as both vehicles are stationary. Their position relative to one another can be measured, but their speed cannot. Heisenberg again
Prof Heisenberg is flying down the road at 135mph, police pull him over.
The officer walks over to the car and says
"Are you aware how fast you were going, sir?"
Heisenberg replies
"No. But I know exactly where I am"
Raify said:They then asked his passenger what was in the box? "A cat." he replied. "Is it alive or dead?" asked the officer. "How, the f
NOt that I want to be pedantic, but don't all crashes involve speed of some sort
Best wishes all,
Dave.
The officer walks over to the car and says
"Are you aware how fast you were going, sir?"
Heisenberg replies
"No. But I know exactly where I am"
k should I know?" replied Schrodinger - StreakyTripleS said:I still disagree (and note in passing that you deleted the explanation for my point when quotin me); but, as the argument revolves around the precision of the English language and quantum mechanics, in the words of Tony BLiar, "let's move on" - Streaky
NOt that I want to be pedantic, but don't all crashes involve speed of some sort
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I expect you'll let me know if you still disagree.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Jewhoo said:
Even if sped isn't an issue at the exact point of impact, it's still a factor in getting the cars to the point of impact, therefore a factor in the crash?
I don't think anyone on here will disagree that inappropriate speed is a factor in many RTA. The point is that there are many other factors involved which have a much greater effect than speed alone.
Example 1:
I'm driving down a two lane A road just under the speed limit and a driver overtakes a tractor heading the opposite direction and we have a head on. Was speed involved in that instance?
Example 2:
I'm driving along in a 30 mph limit and someone pulls out of a side road and i unavoidably T-bone them.
The point i'm trying to make is the difference between factor and cause. Cameras can't catch inattentive or impatient drivers.......
Well obviously speed (as in velocity) was involved, since both cars are moving in the examples given. Excessive or inappropriate speed aren't, neither was speeding.
The point is that the authorities seem the think that all three are one and the same - just see the ASA adjudication on the Derbyshire SCP
eg tailgating was cited as a speed-related offence - the cars were moving, so speed, speeding, and inappropriate speed were all involved....
>> Edited by Jewhoo on Thursday 28th April 11:38
The point is that the authorities seem the think that all three are one and the same - just see the ASA adjudication on the Derbyshire SCP
eg tailgating was cited as a speed-related offence - the cars were moving, so speed, speeding, and inappropriate speed were all involved....
>> Edited by Jewhoo on Thursday 28th April 11:38
Jewhoo said:
Even if sped isn't an issue at the exact point of impact, it's still a factor in getting the cars to the point of impact, therefore a factor in the crash?
The slower the speed differential in overtaking, the increase in the chance of a side-swipe occuring if the overtakee (if such a word exists) loses control or doesn't check blind spot before changing lane on a dual carriageway for instance.
Not to mention the dangers of a smaller speed differential in overtaking on a single carriageway.
Sometimes it is more dangerous to stick to the speed limit! But then speed (or lack of) would still be a factor in the impact I guess!
>> Edited by tim.tonal on Thursday 28th April 11:41
MilnerR said:
Even if sped isn't an issue at the exact point of impact, it's still a factor in getting the cars to the point of impact, therefore a factor in the crash?
I don't think anyone on here will disagree that inappropriate speed is a factor in many RTA. The point is that there are many other factors involved which have a much greater effect than speed alone.
Example 1:
I'm driving down a two lane A road just under the speed limit and a driver overtakes a tractor heading the opposite direction and we have a head on. Was speed involved in that instance?
Example 2:
I'm driving along in a 30 mph limit and someone pulls out of a side road and i unavoidably T-bone them.
The point i'm trying to make is the difference between factor and cause. Cameras can't catch inattentive or impatient drivers.......
Exactly Liebchen.... Ist so many reasons.
Last year - colleague at work was rear ended when he complied mit traffic light - und slowed und stopped at the white line - like you are supposed to.
Chap in van ... claimed his wheels locked.... und was apparently not very pleased when collaugue told him only reason why wheels locked was because he had not noticed red traffic lights und three red brake lights on car in front ... was thus either colour blind or not paying attention to road ahead und thus left the braking until far too late.... car was a right off. It was 40 mph road ...
Und the guy from our works noted the Handy ....
So....ist question of COAST....not paying attention und thus not being able to react to hazard.
Und my accident..... he hit me full impact ... no slow down... he increased speed as he drove towards me.... but... this man was in death throes at time.
You could say speed was factor in outcome... but I am still annoying a lurkin' Steviebabes on here
und what would lieber gone do without me to remind him of his adventure mit the unexploded doughnut last year 
Und ja.. the first three/four years or so after this accident were most unpleasant, und I missed out on the twins' teething (actually - that might have been a plus.... given teething I experience(d) since ) Und I still able to drive car as should be driven....(but made sure I was competent und able first by redoing my IAM und RoSPA to make sure) und can still ski down slopes, speed skate, und ride bike, swim, walk over fells - perhap not as fast as before... but then am
a little bit older anyway....OK .. so twins are teenagers now....Raify said:
They then asked his passenger what was in the box? "A cat." he replied. "Is it alive or dead?" asked the officer. "How, the f
Shouldn't he say "It's both alive and dead" ?
[/pedant]
Ach! Felines have NINE lives....
So one life might be used ...but cat ist alive of course.
Ist purrfekt life....
I recieved a FPN for a speed camera I knew the location of in 2001.
I disputed the details as I knew I was not speeding, how did I know? I was travelling in a funeral cortege at the time.
Took it to court along with evidence from the people who were both infront of my car and behind.
Guess what I still got a fine and 3 points on my licence.
What I also recieved was an anonomus letter saying 'sorry and we've paid your fine'
I disputed the details as I knew I was not speeding, how did I know? I was travelling in a funeral cortege at the time.
Took it to court along with evidence from the people who were both infront of my car and behind.
Guess what I still got a fine and 3 points on my licence.
What I also recieved was an anonomus letter saying 'sorry and we've paid your fine'
wedge girl said:
I recieved a FPN for a speed camera I knew the location of in 2001.
I disputed the details as I knew I was not speeding, how did I know? I was travelling in a funeral cortege at the time.
Took it to court along with evidence from the people who were both infront of my car and behind.
Guess what I still got a fine and 3 points on my licence.
What I also recieved was an anonomus letter saying 'sorry and we've paid your fine'
That ist
moronic on part of mags.. und did you show the nonny letter to someone? Surely they could trace who paid the fine for you? Und refund your points.. Und if you paid the fine und nonny paid the fine .. they pocketed double fine for the offence... und you also got lumbered mit costs... Bet nonny never paid those either....
But ... proves that this ist nowt to do mit safety... :ranting;
What we have always known....
Raify said:Nah. He was petulant, not 'pedant
They then asked his passenger what was in the box? "A cat." he replied. "Is it alive or dead?" asked the officer. "How, the f
[/pedant]
. Wildy - trust you!
Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff