Discussion
Was listening to someone on the radio talking about magazines like EVO which glamourised speed, I think that was the gist of the conversation.Again the old chestnut of " Speed kills" was quoted.IMHO it is not speed that kills but collisions,I do not wish to appear flipant here but is this not the truth.Yes the higher the speed the more damage is going to be done in the event of a collision, two cars travelling at 200 mph in parallel lines will not kill each other!I think its about time the government and other agencies started to realise that deaths are caused by bad and inconsiderate driving.
>>> Edited by p7ulg on Friday 17th October 10:06
>>> Edited by p7ulg on Friday 17th October 10:06
p7ulg said:
I think its about time the government and other agencies started to realise that deaths are caused by bad and inconsiderate driving.
I heard the item too - it included a man from ROSPA representing the nanny state. He admitted an 8 year old was unlikely to go and start driving a Lambo, but the gist of his complaint was that the mag was 'giving the wrong signals/off message' etc. Govt is so obsessed with messages and signals rather than reality it's no wonder they're up their own *ss.
Plus, while people with a free mind know simple speed is not the real factor in most accidents, it's easier to measure, enforce, prosecute and fine than 'poor driving', which is objective, difficult to fix and can't be caught on camera.
R 
Rather than fit every car with a GPS tracker to extort money from every trip (and calculate our speed every step of the way), the money would be better spent on a 'black box' that continuously records all parameters - and perhaps video too. Then in the event of a prang it's easy to see who screwed up and apportion blame quickly and accurately. It would save a lot of insurance bickering too.
Edited to add: They'd also get ACCURATE statistics on the real causes of accidents...
>> Edited by simpo two on Friday 17th October 11:56
Edited to add: They'd also get ACCURATE statistics on the real causes of accidents...
>> Edited by simpo two on Friday 17th October 11:56
I think the antithesis could also be applied, lack of speed kills, having attempted to join a motorway behind a mini metro at 40mph the other day.Lane discipline being the other obvious bugbear.There are far to many drivers on motorways who are totally oblivious to other road users.It strikes me as a bit hypocritical that we are deafened with " Speed Kills" when the government will allow a 17 year old to pass their test and go straight onto a motorway with the minimum of training for driving at speed.
p7ulg said:
the government will allow a 17 year old to pass their test and go straight onto a motorway with the minimum of training for driving at speed.
I agree that motorway training should be in the test, as a new driver can venture onto them having never travelled at more than 29mph! The trouble is that not every testing area has a motorway in it, so I don't know how they could standardise things.
P7ULG - I agree with you that speed on it's own doesn't kill, however speeding at the wrong time in the wrong conditions does.
i.e.
90 on a motorway at 3am in the morning with no traffic and good weather, does not kill.
35-40 in a 30 limit(especially if it was a 40 limit once) at night with good visibility and no traffic, does not kill (unless some numpty runs out in front of you, in which case it may do).
90 on a motorway in torrential rain with about 20m visibility will kill.
Sitting up someone's a%se at 70 on a dual carriageway in traffic will probably kill.
I travel into London every day on a motorbike and I think it is quite easy for the police to catch numpty drivers who lane hog, drive to close, don't signal, speed in poor conditions etc etc. After all, they all seem to be on the road in unmarked cars or dark coloured T5's these days and nearly all major roads have CCTV surveillance. I see dozens of numpties everyday and have even remembered who a few of them are so I can pass them cautiously. Perhaps I should video them and send it to the police??
Simpotwo - Some manufacturers have started to fit black box type devices to their cars so that the manufacturer can assess what happens to their vehicles in real life crash conditions and includes recording speed!
I think at the end of the day it comes down to money. Speeding is easier to spot because it is more common so the government are going to keep raking it in until someone who is pro driving and a realist gets in a position of government where this can be stopped, i.e. never.
Just a thought but it would be nice to see how many of these 'do gooders' have clean licences and a clean accident record!
Paul
i.e.
90 on a motorway at 3am in the morning with no traffic and good weather, does not kill.
35-40 in a 30 limit(especially if it was a 40 limit once) at night with good visibility and no traffic, does not kill (unless some numpty runs out in front of you, in which case it may do).
90 on a motorway in torrential rain with about 20m visibility will kill.
Sitting up someone's a%se at 70 on a dual carriageway in traffic will probably kill.
I travel into London every day on a motorbike and I think it is quite easy for the police to catch numpty drivers who lane hog, drive to close, don't signal, speed in poor conditions etc etc. After all, they all seem to be on the road in unmarked cars or dark coloured T5's these days and nearly all major roads have CCTV surveillance. I see dozens of numpties everyday and have even remembered who a few of them are so I can pass them cautiously. Perhaps I should video them and send it to the police??
Simpotwo - Some manufacturers have started to fit black box type devices to their cars so that the manufacturer can assess what happens to their vehicles in real life crash conditions and includes recording speed!
I think at the end of the day it comes down to money. Speeding is easier to spot because it is more common so the government are going to keep raking it in until someone who is pro driving and a realist gets in a position of government where this can be stopped, i.e. never.
Just a thought but it would be nice to see how many of these 'do gooders' have clean licences and a clean accident record!
Paul
hi, I think the issue is more that most people on the roads don't have a clue about how to drive, how to anticipate or how to react to hazards.
The crux seems to be that the government (stretching back since the 20's) isn't really interested in road safety or the promotion of good driving.
to most, driving is transportation and they will happily drive along, listening to the radio, having a smoke, talking on the phone etc oblivious to their surroundings and the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Until people realise that they are in control of over a ton of metal, hurtling along at 70 then nothing will ever change.
We (PH ers) know how to react- we know that when it rains we slow down and that when it's dry, open, quiet then winding up to 120+ is safe.
it's all to do with awareness and using your head. rant over!!
The crux seems to be that the government (stretching back since the 20's) isn't really interested in road safety or the promotion of good driving.
to most, driving is transportation and they will happily drive along, listening to the radio, having a smoke, talking on the phone etc oblivious to their surroundings and the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Until people realise that they are in control of over a ton of metal, hurtling along at 70 then nothing will ever change.
We (PH ers) know how to react- we know that when it rains we slow down and that when it's dry, open, quiet then winding up to 120+ is safe.
it's all to do with awareness and using your head. rant over!!
zzr1200 said:
Just a thought but it would be nice to see how many of these 'do gooders' have clean licences and a clean accident record!
Paul
It's a bit worrying that so-called 'road safety campaigners' have (1) unfortunately lost a member of their family in a road accident, (2) simply trot out the speedkills chant, and usually on TV, which is even worse. If they were *really* interested in genuine road safety, rather than simply whether they can push their prams across the road without looking, they might look a little deeper into the dynamice of driving and thus be more credible to anyone with sufficient brain cells to stretch from one ear to the other.
I had a near miss yesteday, dual carrageway approaching a roundabout and first exit is the slip road to the M27. I'm on the inside lane with a police car behind me, overtaken by a numpty in the right hand lane who cuts me up on the roundabout to go onto the motorway I brake hard to avoid the idiot, what does the bib do? Nothing.
I think that it's the general mentality of people in this country that make the speed retrictions necessary. If you look at German autobahns you'll find that people will travel at high speeds but will also take notice of any warning signs to slow down. Got to admit some of the Max boys are a scary thought especially after knowing one who's rolled two cars.
On the bib front I find it amazing that they'll stop and fine you for speeding and then on the same road you'll have a police car overtake at a higher speed that's just on routine patrol, hmmmmmm?
On the bib front I find it amazing that they'll stop and fine you for speeding and then on the same road you'll have a police car overtake at a higher speed that's just on routine patrol, hmmmmmm?
joolzb said:
On the bib front I find it amazing that they'll stop and fine you for speeding and then on the same road you'll have a police car overtake at a higher speed that's just on routine patrol, hmmmmmm?
As I understand it police cars - or any emergency service vehicles for that matter - are supposed to adhere to all speed limits unless on a call. The difference is the blues and possibly the twos. If you see a police car breaking the speed limit whilst not on a call, take the reg, place and time and report him to his CC. Those who enforce the rules should stick to them and hence try to set us mere mortals a good example. I beleive the phrase is 'practice what you preach'.
simpo two said:
the government will allow a 17 year old to pass their test and go straight onto a motorway with the minimum of training for driving at speed.
I agree that motorway training should be in the test, as a new driver can venture onto them having never travelled at more than 29mph! The trouble is that not every testing area has a motorway in it, so I don't know how they could standardise things.
So how about this then as a radical response (wait for the abuse). Chuck away the current test which I think most would agree is pretty useless. Replace with a three stage test. Basic, which can effectively be similar to the current one but must include at least open road driving at speeds up to 50mph. Okay, it might close down some test centres that are in inner cities but the out of town ones will expand. Once passed, you must affix a P plate and are not allowed on motorways. You can only drive cars with a max capacity/power of, say, 1100cc and 75bhp. This is valid for 3 years during the last year of which you must apply for and pass the intermediate test. This would include motorway driving and be loosely based on the current IAM test. Pass this and you can throw away the P plate, drive on motorways (in which speed limits would be increased to 80-90mph but would, like on the continent, have enforceable limits in bad weather) and drive cars up to 2 litres and say 150bhp. After a further 2 years driving experience you would be allowed to apply for the advanced test which would be loosely based on the current HPC and would be a mandatory qualification for anyone who wanted to drive a real performance car. A number of carrots could be attached to it - reduced insurance premiums, perhaps an increased motorway and A road speed limit even. But it would also attract a potential penalty whereby if you were caught driving badly or invloved in an accident where you were to blame, you would drop down to the intermediate level. As an interim, anyone who currently holds a full licence would transfer to the internediate; anyone who has completed existing advanced training could transfer to the advanced. It would encourage good driving practice and would show to the so called do-gooders that we actually do take safe driving seriously.
I stand by to be shot down in flames!
Ralph you have finally lost it. It could never catch on, you have applied the factor into this that the government dont apply,Common Sense.The human rights crowd would be on the case immediately, greenpeace would be surrounding motorway services in rubber dinghys, drug dealers would be kicking off about loss of earnings,Porsche dealers would be moaning about losing 17year old drug dealers as cash customers.The list of opponents to such an idea is endless.
Brussels would oppose it because they hadn't though of it and you and I would have to sell our TVR's.
And dont forget you would need to give special dispensations to anyone claiming benefits over £35000 to allow them to use their Toyota 7 seater lorries to get their kids to the private school.
How flawed can an idea get???
Think about it, Insurance companies reducing premiums for better trained drivers who dont make claims, Raising speed limits. You will suggest charging people to drive into cities next. sTeVeR
Brussels would oppose it because they hadn't though of it and you and I would have to sell our TVR's.
And dont forget you would need to give special dispensations to anyone claiming benefits over £35000 to allow them to use their Toyota 7 seater lorries to get their kids to the private school.
How flawed can an idea get???
Think about it, Insurance companies reducing premiums for better trained drivers who dont make claims, Raising speed limits. You will suggest charging people to drive into cities next. sTeVeR
[/Quote]
you have applied the factor into this that the government dont apply,Common Sense [/Quote]
Or any other government for that matter, OR their relevent agencies.
When for example did anyone hear a chief-constable or similar saying, the UK's driver training and testing is woeful?
Too busy singing from the 'speed kills' hymn sheet to go the extra yard and address all the other contributing factors...
And they wonder why they lack public support. ho-hum.#
you have applied the factor into this that the government dont apply,Common Sense [/Quote]
Or any other government for that matter, OR their relevent agencies.
When for example did anyone hear a chief-constable or similar saying, the UK's driver training and testing is woeful?
Too busy singing from the 'speed kills' hymn sheet to go the extra yard and address all the other contributing factors...
And they wonder why they lack public support. ho-hum.#
Your basic argument is, I'm afraid, far too sensible and reasonable to ever be adopted by any government. It does, however, mirror the way that people are taught to fly.
If you want to progress with flying, you have to pass assessments/exams which deal with each step, ie instruments, night flying etc. And woe betide you if the CAA catch you without the right entitlement!
If you want to progress with flying, you have to pass assessments/exams which deal with each step, ie instruments, night flying etc. And woe betide you if the CAA catch you without the right entitlement!
I think that part of it should be down to training, you can't get a pilots licence for a Piper Cub and then jump into an F16!! I think with motorbikes there are different rules. Should there been different levels of licencing for different types of vehicle. I spent two days with Ride Drive and they really reteach driving skills. It made all the difference. During my time with the, and they are serving police officers, I asked the question about the speed limits. He told me that in his opinion the limits were about right based on the fact that the vast majority of people on the road don't know how to drive even though they have licences and couldn't give a monkeys. After seeing Britain Worst Driver on Five I am inclined to agree.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff