Can you provide evidence that Speed Kills?
Discussion
Written to a lot of authorities, emailed others, and called some people high up. Up to now not a single soul sitting behind a desk has given me any evidence that speed kills. Yet this is the basis of the government's intervention into our pockets.
I drive for a living and in these past 6 years where somedays I've driven more than 800 miles, I've found that the slow moving driver is the one I have to fear. I've seen old ladies in the wrong lane on a round-about taking bumpers off cars and crashing into people trying to get in. I've had people coming towards me on round-abouts going the wrong way into it. I've had drivers cutting in front of me on the motorway and slamming their brakes while I'm driving a 13t thinking that I cut them off at some road works.
Where are the police in all this??? Sitting behind speed guns, that's all I've seen.
Been stopped by police 4 times over a speed issue. Yet only 1 of them was correct, and since I have the right to silence and he lacked proof, I was let go with a verbal warning. The remaining 3 shouldn't have stopped me in the first place and took abuse that was entertaining for me. (I've seen enough on this to recommend you record your dialogue as some officers have little to do with justice.)
Less than 10% of the world population die in water related incidents. Should we prosecute everyone for using water??? Same with stairs! Should we prosecute people for going downstairs?? (Let your dirty mind think what it may)
Why do we have idiots behind desks telling us that it's unsafe to move?? Why aren't there police officers at round-abouts educating(not prosecuting) drivers on good road manners? (I've found round-abouts are usually where you can spot the weak ones)
My brother's car has "go faster stripes" on it. Why is it that at 3am we have to get an idiot cop in an unmarked or even marked vehicle racing up, and I mean RACING up our ass, and then backing off only to race up our ass again?
We've witnessed this sting done over and over in Basingstoke. And I swear I'd love to have filmed it everytime to find out what idiot is giving these orders and get him/her in deep trouble.
On one hand they tell everyone to slow down 'coz we must be retarded (yet most of us can drive better than police drivers) and then you see a police vehicle attempting to change the oil filter of a car by going in through the exhaust pipe. What the hell is going on???
I've had to alert police drivers to my presence by using my horn as they were completely oblivious to the presence of other drivers. Of course you get evil looks (are they trying to seduce me) and a very rare amount of apologies.
I know I'm not alone on this. I know other people have seen similar events.
The dept for transport knows the main cause of accidents is DISTRACTION and people getting in front of others who have right of way. This I've seen in their reports, and this I've been told by a few rare people in government. Yet what do we get?? Speed Kills! What the heck??
I must be really stupid! All this time I thought it was the collisions that could have something to do with it! Silly me!
And speeding prosecution...
It's slanderous to assume that because you're making progress on the road you will cause an accident if you're travelling above a posted limit that NOBODY CAN PROVE will cause an accident when broken. (Check the number of people prosecuted for speeding and the number that actually caused an accident as a consequence of it. It should make a lot of people ask a lot of questions. The logic conclusion is, drivers prosecuted for speeding are safe drivers as they did not cause enough accidents to make them dangerous.)
The police always have a child in their pocket. "What if there was a child?" they ask. What the hell is a child doing IN the transport infrastructure to begin with??? Send the children to the train lines and blame the train operators! Why not? It makes just as much sense!
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?? We drive quick, and reduce the "time at risk" which means you're safer as a consequence, reducing your exposure to danger. And as a result you face a ban or a fine.
Yet more people die in their own homes! What's going to happen next? We get prosecuted for using a knife to spread butter because we might kill someone with it?? It's exactly the same thing as speeding prosecution.
I've driven at 169mph for long periods of time. As soon as I say this some people look at me as if I'm irresponsible and a criminal.
But if I say it was on a track, then that's alright for some.
But if I mention it was at 3am on an empty, well lit motorway. Some people get horrified and start lecturing (others don't)
But if I say it was in germany where it's legal to do so, then I'm no longer a criminal.
This is hipocrisy!
What if I said I've done 95mph with an unmarked police driver training vehicle on my tail keeping up on the opposite lane? Am I irresponsible? Are they?
Yet that's what they do! Police drivers are trained on public roads and most of the time are doing questionable things. Insurance companies know police drivers are most likely going to cause an accident. Police drivers hit more pedestrians than the evil "white van man", who by the way, are the safest to pedestrians and the most prosecuted for speeding.
Yet, we, the average driver who doesn't plough through intersections without right-of-way, aren't allowed to use our capabilities and engage our driving. We're suppose to act mediocre.
They call the faster drivers agressive and blame them for everything. For years I used to think I was a bad driver thanks to all these messages. Yet, I've found I'm not agressive. I'm ASSERTIVE! I'm focused and engaged, and that's how every good driver makes progress on the road. And that's why most of us speed, or break the posted speed limits. It's easy to drive quick AND safe.
Worldwide studies have concluded that the factor most likely to cause an accident is not the speed of traffic, it's the VOLUME of traffic!
Can we now stop blaming speeders for not complying with the ever lower speed limits and start using good sensible and educated road safety tactics? (Can we also not call "safety cameras" to speed traps? It's a bad and moronic example to our children!)
Britain lacks a good road infrastructure that accomodates safely, pedestrians, cars, bicycles, trucks. They keep throwing taxes at us, and they blame the accidents on the drivers even though pedestrians cause most of them.
They blame speeders for everything. Heaven forbid, the most experienced drivers being seen as anything other than criminals. These vicious beings would get their evil speedy way and cause chaos on the roads.
Sorry for the rant! Don't like it don't read it! But in that case at least do your research.
To those who understand what's said here, you're not alone my friend!
Regards,
Peter
I drive for a living and in these past 6 years where somedays I've driven more than 800 miles, I've found that the slow moving driver is the one I have to fear. I've seen old ladies in the wrong lane on a round-about taking bumpers off cars and crashing into people trying to get in. I've had people coming towards me on round-abouts going the wrong way into it. I've had drivers cutting in front of me on the motorway and slamming their brakes while I'm driving a 13t thinking that I cut them off at some road works.
Where are the police in all this??? Sitting behind speed guns, that's all I've seen.
Been stopped by police 4 times over a speed issue. Yet only 1 of them was correct, and since I have the right to silence and he lacked proof, I was let go with a verbal warning. The remaining 3 shouldn't have stopped me in the first place and took abuse that was entertaining for me. (I've seen enough on this to recommend you record your dialogue as some officers have little to do with justice.)
Less than 10% of the world population die in water related incidents. Should we prosecute everyone for using water??? Same with stairs! Should we prosecute people for going downstairs?? (Let your dirty mind think what it may)
Why do we have idiots behind desks telling us that it's unsafe to move?? Why aren't there police officers at round-abouts educating(not prosecuting) drivers on good road manners? (I've found round-abouts are usually where you can spot the weak ones)
My brother's car has "go faster stripes" on it. Why is it that at 3am we have to get an idiot cop in an unmarked or even marked vehicle racing up, and I mean RACING up our ass, and then backing off only to race up our ass again?
We've witnessed this sting done over and over in Basingstoke. And I swear I'd love to have filmed it everytime to find out what idiot is giving these orders and get him/her in deep trouble.
On one hand they tell everyone to slow down 'coz we must be retarded (yet most of us can drive better than police drivers) and then you see a police vehicle attempting to change the oil filter of a car by going in through the exhaust pipe. What the hell is going on???
I've had to alert police drivers to my presence by using my horn as they were completely oblivious to the presence of other drivers. Of course you get evil looks (are they trying to seduce me) and a very rare amount of apologies.
I know I'm not alone on this. I know other people have seen similar events.
The dept for transport knows the main cause of accidents is DISTRACTION and people getting in front of others who have right of way. This I've seen in their reports, and this I've been told by a few rare people in government. Yet what do we get?? Speed Kills! What the heck??
I must be really stupid! All this time I thought it was the collisions that could have something to do with it! Silly me!
And speeding prosecution...
It's slanderous to assume that because you're making progress on the road you will cause an accident if you're travelling above a posted limit that NOBODY CAN PROVE will cause an accident when broken. (Check the number of people prosecuted for speeding and the number that actually caused an accident as a consequence of it. It should make a lot of people ask a lot of questions. The logic conclusion is, drivers prosecuted for speeding are safe drivers as they did not cause enough accidents to make them dangerous.)
The police always have a child in their pocket. "What if there was a child?" they ask. What the hell is a child doing IN the transport infrastructure to begin with??? Send the children to the train lines and blame the train operators! Why not? It makes just as much sense!
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?? We drive quick, and reduce the "time at risk" which means you're safer as a consequence, reducing your exposure to danger. And as a result you face a ban or a fine.
Yet more people die in their own homes! What's going to happen next? We get prosecuted for using a knife to spread butter because we might kill someone with it?? It's exactly the same thing as speeding prosecution.
I've driven at 169mph for long periods of time. As soon as I say this some people look at me as if I'm irresponsible and a criminal.
But if I say it was on a track, then that's alright for some.
But if I mention it was at 3am on an empty, well lit motorway. Some people get horrified and start lecturing (others don't)
But if I say it was in germany where it's legal to do so, then I'm no longer a criminal.
This is hipocrisy!
What if I said I've done 95mph with an unmarked police driver training vehicle on my tail keeping up on the opposite lane? Am I irresponsible? Are they?
Yet that's what they do! Police drivers are trained on public roads and most of the time are doing questionable things. Insurance companies know police drivers are most likely going to cause an accident. Police drivers hit more pedestrians than the evil "white van man", who by the way, are the safest to pedestrians and the most prosecuted for speeding.
Yet, we, the average driver who doesn't plough through intersections without right-of-way, aren't allowed to use our capabilities and engage our driving. We're suppose to act mediocre.
They call the faster drivers agressive and blame them for everything. For years I used to think I was a bad driver thanks to all these messages. Yet, I've found I'm not agressive. I'm ASSERTIVE! I'm focused and engaged, and that's how every good driver makes progress on the road. And that's why most of us speed, or break the posted speed limits. It's easy to drive quick AND safe.
Worldwide studies have concluded that the factor most likely to cause an accident is not the speed of traffic, it's the VOLUME of traffic!
Can we now stop blaming speeders for not complying with the ever lower speed limits and start using good sensible and educated road safety tactics? (Can we also not call "safety cameras" to speed traps? It's a bad and moronic example to our children!)
Britain lacks a good road infrastructure that accomodates safely, pedestrians, cars, bicycles, trucks. They keep throwing taxes at us, and they blame the accidents on the drivers even though pedestrians cause most of them.
They blame speeders for everything. Heaven forbid, the most experienced drivers being seen as anything other than criminals. These vicious beings would get their evil speedy way and cause chaos on the roads.
Sorry for the rant! Don't like it don't read it! But in that case at least do your research.
To those who understand what's said here, you're not alone my friend!
Regards,
Peter
Insufficiently attentive male in an armchair.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 30mph.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
An error of judgement or mistake by those moving at speed is what is likely to lead to far greater risk of a collision & subsequently death or injury.
We are all capable of (& invariably do at sometime) suffer errors of judgement when driving. Some of those errors will be in relation to speed & in the cases of other primary error causes, higher speed will invariably only serve to compound the situation.
As a society we choose to limit the risks of moving around by defining parameters (you can't completely remove the risks), which balance the ability to move around at speed, with the risks presented by doing so.
By limiting those parameters, it is easier for you (or others where you can't) cover for those errors, if the speeds aren't too high. Higher speed adversely affects the major factors that help in covering for or recovery of situations, namely time & space. The higher speeds get (when we all have to share the roads) the more difficult that is.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 30mph.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
An error of judgement or mistake by those moving at speed is what is likely to lead to far greater risk of a collision & subsequently death or injury.
We are all capable of (& invariably do at sometime) suffer errors of judgement when driving. Some of those errors will be in relation to speed & in the cases of other primary error causes, higher speed will invariably only serve to compound the situation.
As a society we choose to limit the risks of moving around by defining parameters (you can't completely remove the risks), which balance the ability to move around at speed, with the risks presented by doing so.
By limiting those parameters, it is easier for you (or others where you can't) cover for those errors, if the speeds aren't too high. Higher speed adversely affects the major factors that help in covering for or recovery of situations, namely time & space. The higher speeds get (when we all have to share the roads) the more difficult that is.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 10th June 00:36
vonhosen said:
Insufficiently attentive male in an armchair.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 30mph.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 30mph.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
Fully engaged attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the attention each is paying to the task in hand, it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
vonhosen said:
By limiting those parameters, it is easier for you (or others where you can't) cover for those errors, if the speeds aren't too high. Higher speed adversely affects the major factors that help in covering for or recovery of situations, namely time & space. The higher speeds get (when we all have to share the roads) the more difficult that is.
Don't feel that's necessarily the case on the motorway or dual carriageways - notice it particularly where there's enforcement, scam vans on bridges or more so in SPECS controlled roadworks.Almost invariably most of the traffic will sit at the limit as it's low and treated as a target speed, not an upper limit by most. More often than not, traffic travels in a clump across the lanes. Whilst I have much control over the distance between me and the vehicle in front, I have far less control over my separation from vehicles in adjacent lanes and little or none from the following driver.
One person makes a mistake through inattention (the biggest cause of accidents, after all) - a poorly judged lane change or failure to notice slower or stopped traffic in their lane, then there is far greater chance of affecting other vehicles around them due to lack of space. I also see this many times on my morning commute on the M1 when heavy traffic causes the same sort of effect, though some sanctuary can often be found in the inside lane, which is normally empty!
Lumbertubs Way in Northampton is a prime example - dual carriageway - 50 limit SPECs cameras - this results in 2 lanes of traffic travelling at 50. The junction I need to turn off at is a right turn across a gap into the central reservation, and I'm not from those parts so I'm relying on the local signage.
I see the sign and indicate to move into the right hand lane. However there's 2 cars too close together - the rear car eases off and gives a flash to allow me to move across so I can turn right. All through that procedure I'm taking my eyes off the road in front many times in order to safely negotiate my way into the adjacent lane checking mirrors, looking round, etc. I've slowed a little and the following vehicle now sits quite close on my rear bumper.
Or to put it another way - I have far greater control of my spacing from other traffic (which I like to maximise) when I'm not forced to travel within and over-enforced limit. It is wrong to concentrate solely on speed.
Edited by alphadog on Sunday 10th June 08:03
vonhosen said:
As a society we choose to limit the risks of moving around by defining parameters (you can't completely remove the risks), which balance the ability to move around at speed, with the risks presented by doing so.
"Society" didn't set the speed limits, politicians did - with no mandate from the electors so to do, BTW - Streakystreaky said:
vonhosen said:
As a society we choose to limit the risks of moving around by defining parameters (you can't completely remove the risks), which balance the ability to move around at speed, with the risks presented by doing so.
"Society" didn't set the speed limits, politicians did - with no mandate from the electors so to do, BTW - Streaky
dilley said:
I currently drive an Ultima it will stop from 100mph better than most family cars will from 50 mph, it will handle loads better aswell, so it should be safe for me to drive at 100mph???? not that I do or condone speeding but the law needs revising.
Why is the Ultima better? Can you show us some test results?fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
Insufficiently attentive male in an armchair.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 30mph.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 30mph.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
Fully engaged attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the attention each is paying to the task in hand, it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
Frankly we are not skillful enough for all of us to be able to do whatever we like out there & safely interact. That's why we have rules that create parameters & provide a climate in which we should be able to reasonably expect certain things from one another.
streaky said:
vonhosen said:
As a society we choose to limit the risks of moving around by defining parameters (you can't completely remove the risks), which balance the ability to move around at speed, with the risks presented by doing so.
"Society" didn't set the speed limits, politicians did - with no mandate from the electors so to do, BTW - StreakyI don't seriously think that you can claim that the majority of the population would rather we have no speed limits at all.
dilley said:
I currently drive an Ultima it will stop from 100mph better than most family cars will from 50 mph, it will handle loads better aswell, so it should be safe for me to drive at 100mph???? not that I do or condone speeding but the law needs revising.
The weakest link in the chain is invariably the driver. Our rules are set mainly for the drivers, with only small variations for vehicle types.herewego said:
dilley said:
I currently drive an Ultima it will stop from 100mph better than most family cars will from 50 mph, it will handle loads better aswell, so it should be safe for me to drive at 100mph???? not that I do or condone speeding but the law needs revising.
Why is the Ultima better? Can you show us some test results?Seems like a strange question!
vonhosen said:
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
An error of judgement or mistake by those moving at speed is what is likely to lead to far greater risk of a collision & subsequently death or injury.
So if what you say is true, then you should be able toAn error of judgement or mistake by those moving at speed is what is likely to lead to far greater risk of a collision & subsequently death or injury.
quote reams of statistics that hammer home your point
to make it clear to us all.
On the converse side,
1. motorways are our safest roads by far and the fastest
2. 30 mph roads are our slowest and some of the most dangerous
How do these two truths fit in with your claims ?
vonhosen said:
higher speed will invariably only serve to compound the situation.
Now that I can agree with.vonhosen said:
As a society we choose to limit the risks
Hardly. UK Gov come down heavily on speeders, yet1. I see dozens of mobile phone using car drivers every day
2. Horrendous levels of tailgating
3. Appaling levels of congestion.
4. Hardly any of the safest types of roads are ever built
5. No recognition that car driving is a skill that needs
continuous training to keep up to a suitable level.
By the UK Gov totally focussing on speed, and almost completely
ignoring every other factor in a complex problem, they make themselves
look like a bunch of golfers who own only one club.
A balanced multi-level approach would be more effective
and more sensible.
The fact that deaths on the roads haven't
changed much for ten years speaks volumes for the power
and effectiveness of the approach taken by the UK Gov.
vonhosen said:
The weakest link in the chain is invariably the driver. Our rules are set mainly for the drivers, with only small variations for vehicle types.
If rules were set for drivers, surely having extra driving qualifications would be a benefit. Currently no matter how qualified you are, you are treated like someone who has just started driving.I don't see how the rules are based on the driver at all. They are completely arbitrary numbers based on braking figures taken from a crap car from 40 years ago.
Hedders said:
herewego said:
dilley said:
I currently drive an Ultima it will stop from 100mph better than most family cars will from 50 mph, it will handle loads better aswell, so it should be safe for me to drive at 100mph???? not that I do or condone speeding but the law needs revising.
Why is the Ultima better? Can you show us some test results?Seems like a strange question!
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
Insufficiently attentive male in an armchair.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 30mph.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 30mph.
Insufficiently attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
Fully engaged attentive male driving a car at 150mph.
The major difference is the attention each is paying to the task in hand, it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
Frankly we are not skillful enough for all of us to be able to do whatever we like out there & safely interact. That's why we have rules that create parameters & provide a climate in which we should be able to reasonably expect certain things from one another.
Is someone paying you to come here and spout the government case?
dcb said:
vonhosen said:
The major difference is the speed they are moving at & it is that which will greatly affect the outcome.
An error of judgement or mistake by those moving at speed is what is likely to lead to far greater risk of a collision & subsequently death or injury.
So if what you say is true, then you should be able toAn error of judgement or mistake by those moving at speed is what is likely to lead to far greater risk of a collision & subsequently death or injury.
quote reams of statistics that hammer home your point
to make it clear to us all.
On the converse side,
1. motorways are our safest roads by far and the fastest
2. 30 mph roads are our slowest and some of the most dangerous
How do these two truths fit in with your claims ?
The less regulated roads are where people make more mistakes.
dcb said:
vonhosen said:
As a society we choose to limit the risks
Hardly. UK Gov come down heavily on speeders, yet1. I see dozens of mobile phone using car drivers every day
There are powers to deal with mobile phone users & they are. Just not everyone of them like speeding.
dcb said:
2. Horrendous levels of tailgating
Powers again are there to deal with & cameras are on trial for that (perhaps you will be happy with those cameras as they are enforcing something you see as risky).dcb said:
3. Appaling levels of congestion.
Inevitable when large amounts of people want to live in small places & use lots of cars.dcb said:
4. Hardly any of the safest types of roads are ever built
Expensive & people don't want them in their back yard or spoiling the countryside.dcb said:
5. No recognition that car driving is a skill that needs
continuous training to keep up to a suitable level.
And no desire by the public at large to continue training beyond their test to attain higher levels. The take up of cheap & available training (such as IAM etc) being evidence of it.continuous training to keep up to a suitable level.
dcb said:
By the UK Gov totally focussing on speed, and almost completely
ignoring every other factor in a complex problem, they make themselves
look like a bunch of golfers who own only one club.
A balanced multi-level approach would be more effective
and more sensible.
The fact that deaths on the roads haven't
changed much for ten years speaks volumes for the power
and effectiveness of the approach taken by the UK Gov.
I don't see how unilaterally raising speed limits will be an improvement though.ignoring every other factor in a complex problem, they make themselves
look like a bunch of golfers who own only one club.
A balanced multi-level approach would be more effective
and more sensible.
The fact that deaths on the roads haven't
changed much for ten years speaks volumes for the power
and effectiveness of the approach taken by the UK Gov.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff