So perhaps putting
is a bit uncalled for because as you say above "everyone is entitled to their own opinion".
How fast have you had out of your Car?
-
23-04-09 06:17
So perhaps putting
is a bit uncalled for because as you say above "everyone is entitled to their own opinion". -
23-04-09 08:33As usual, speed and speeding is an emotive subject, let's just make sure we keep it civil. Thanks.
-
Guestwagolynn23-04-09 11:35
I have read through this thread and got more frustrated the further I get.
Back to the start: You will learn that out and out top speed is boring. To complete a journey quickly and safely, without putting other people at risk is where the real interest and satisfaction is. Any fool can peddle their vehicle fast in a straight line. Many people go club racing to experience the satisfaction of man and machine working together. The speed is just a means to an end, not the end in its self. But note this is on a track.
Comments about tyres; all ‘normal’ cars are fitted with tyres that will withstand over 100 MPH for short bursts, but their life will be shortened by high speed running and the probability of tyre failure will increase.
Many years ago, I came across a book that was suggesting that near misses were a valuable learning tool. The author suggested a method to exploit this fact. He suggested that a driver should have counters available – he suggested visiting cards - and to drop one into the passenger foot well every time you got yourself into a situation where you depended on someone else doing the right thing to prevent an accident. Obviously the idea was to reduce the number of counters per journey. The other thing I also learned somewhere, was to use your mirrors to check if you are causing problems for other motorists. Now you are motoring.
Speed: Speed does not and will not cause accidents. Higher speed will increase the amount of energy to be dissipated but it will not cause accidents. Accidents are caused by errors of judgement; even mechanical failure is an error of judgement by someone. If we spent more time analysing accidents to identify these errors of judgment, and publish the results, rather rushing around looking for who was going too fast and who was to blame, we would be much better off. -
23-04-09 13:32
Maybe, but the faster you are going, the less able you will be to avoid an accident if a hazard arrises suddenly. Also, inappropriate speed is a significant factor in many accidents in urban or slow-speed areas. I.e. even if a separate driving error/misjudgement is the main cause (e.g. alcohol, mobile phone etc.), the huge majority of these accidents would have been avoided if the driver had been driving more slowly.
Going too fast and/or at an inappropriate speed (either through impatience, overconfidence in your driving ability, or misguided belief that you are driving safely) IS an error of judgement, a huge one. -
Guestwagolynn23-04-09 14:05Speed
98selitb you miss the point, going faster than appropriate would be an error of judgement. But speed did not cause the accident, the driver did. I only use the word ‘accident’ to follow the convention, in 51 years of motoring I have not heard of or seen an accident on the road, back to my theme; they were all errors of judgment. If we face that fact we can then start to solve the problem rather than playing around with side issues. -
Guestwagolynn23-04-09 14:24[ the huge majority of these accidents would have been avoided if the driver had been driving more slowly.
.[/QUOTE]
I think I have got the hang of quotes now...
No one can know what the outcome of these ‘accidents’ may have been. The statistics are based on the wrong assumptions. -
GuestHometune23-04-09 16:16Only 3 per cent of car accidents are caused by speeding drivers, Government figures have revealed.
Yet there are nearly 7,000 speed cameras across the country which are unable to detect 'careless or reckless' drivers who cause three times as many accidents.
Critics say the Department for Transport figures demolish the main justification for cameras.
This is taken from the Daily Mail. Google - speeding accident figures.
The RAC highlighted the fact that 72 fewer young riders and drivers (16-29-year-olds) died on the roads in 2007 than in 2006, contributing to an overall fall of 124 car-driver fatalities.
But it added that there was no room for complacency, with drivers between 16 and 29 making up nearly 50 per cent of all driver fatalities.
Sheila Rainger, deputy director of the RAC Foundation, said: 'It is a pleasure to be able to commend young drivers for making such a huge improvement in road safety. However, the road safety community must continue working to ensure this is a sustained improvement and not a flash in the pan.
'Continuing to develop positive driver attitudes, particularly among young and novice drivers; encouraging better communication between road users; supporting high-profile enforcement by traffic police, and implementing engineering improvements at known accident hotspots will help to sustain this improvement.'
Perhaps the original post needs to 'develop positive driver attitudes' as he is a 'young and novice driver'? -
23-04-09 16:54Being a motoring forum, I assume it is frequented by people who have an interest in motoring in general and I like to hope that the majority of people who post on here, through reading their posts on other topics, are careful and conscientious drivers. Just an observation, that's all.
I therefore never cease to be astonished that so many users on here, who (based on their other posts) give the impression that they are decent people and also experienced and conscientious drivers, have such relaxed, "doesn't matter" attitudes on speeding and the way in which it can kill and ruin lives.
I know it is not the only danger out there on the roads but it is a danger nonetheless and should not be played down, defended or trivialised.
---
Getting back to the topic, I agree with the article cited by Hometune saying that not enough is done to catch those who may not speed but are equally reckless and dangerous. I think the simple answer is a whole lot more police on the roads rather than at desks, both in visible and unmarked cars. -
23-04-09 20:06Selitb98: Your comment 'I therefore never cease to be astonished that so many users on here, who (based on their other posts) give the impression that they are decent people and also experienced and conscientious drivers, have such relaxed, "doesn't matter" attitudes on speeding and the way in which it can kill and ruin lives'
I would not level that accusation at anybody on this forum. I am not aware of any individual who shows such an attitude. There are those of us who defend the use of speed, yes, but not with a reckless or carefree attitude. There is a time and a place for everything, and if someone wants to speed on an empty road with suitable conditions, that is their choice. We all know the penalty of being caught. -
23-04-09 21:08
Exactly,only a very small percentage are directly linked to speeding.Hence my request for 98selitb to back up his statement of
" Also, inappropriate speed is a significant factor in many accidents in urban or slow-speed areas."
I am still waiting by the way ;) -
23-04-09 21:26
It's not rocket science. Clearly, the slower you are travelling, the more likely you will be able to stop or take evasive action if something unexpected happens on the road, due to braking distance. I won't patronise you any more with such facts that are so blindingly obvious that they don't need backing up. -
23-04-09 22:16
Yes this is quite true and i do not deny this.
However you made a statement
" Also, inappropriate speed is a significant factor in many accidents in urban or slow-speed areas."
so again please patronise and provide evidence to back up that speed is a significant factor in many accidents when goverment studies have linked speed as a direct cause to only 5% of accidents overall. -
24-04-09 10:32Speed is a factor in all accidents because if all the cars were stationary, there would be no impact. The higher the speed is you are going, the more damage and injuries there is likely to be.
-
Guestwagolynn24-04-09 12:55Well said Hometune.
98selitb. I am just as amazed at the passion with which people hang on to the belief that if only everyone obeyed the speed limits there would be a big improvement in casualty figure. No matter what speed people are driving at they are just human beings, who may or may not have accumulated some driving experience. Certainly they never got into a vehicle thinking they would go out and kill or injure someone. These speed limits are just arbitrary numbers picked out of the air. The 60 and 70 MPH were put in place temporarily to save fuel in Thatcher’s reign.
The problem stems from the driving test, new drivers are not told they are learning to drive a killing machine. They are never told about how much energy is stored in a moving vehicle. They are not taught that a tyre will do only so much work and there is a trade off between directional work and traction/braking work. They are not taught how to recognise the feel of tyres about to let go. I hope you see what I am getting at.
Then we get to societies attitude: if we have an accident black spot so we put a speed camera rather than eliminate the problem because it costs less. I assume the thought must be that human life is cheap and we can always blame the motorists.
Then we have the road safety lot. These are the idiots that put up signs along side busy roads that say, “It’s that moment inattention that killsâ€. Around where I live they will occasionally decide a junction is dangerous, so they build a roundabout with a raised centre so that cars cannot see the entrance and exit points on the other side.
What we really need is clear rational thinking. Yes have Police but make them show people what they are doing wrong rather than issuing tickets.
One final thought: The way the speed lobby talk, I can only assume that they have a fixed method of driving that does not take into account road conditions, speed and location. -
24-04-09 13:19
So you made a statement that had no truth in it and you are unable to back it up with any evidence.Thats ok not a problem ;) -
24-04-09 13:25Wagolynn: I agree that going a few miles per hour over the speed limit is unlikely to make any difference regarding an accident, as it's more to do with how the driver controls his car and handles a situation. But if people start thinking it's OK to drive a few mph over the limit, although this is a minor infraction, it is the small things that lead to the big things. Same in any crime e.g. violent offenders or thieves. They start off as teengers doing petty shoplifting of sweets from the local newsagent, then over the years gain confidence and eventually go on to armed robbery and murder. Likewise, sex offenders often begin with the odd inappropriate comment or action, then spiral out of control over time. The same applies to speeding and overall bad driving habits.
I can't say it for certain because I don't know, but I would bet that the maniacs who drive at 120 on the motorway started off with the mindset of "oh, going at 75 won't make any difference", (which indeed it doesn't make a great deal of difference), but then got more complacent and are now very reckless drivers.
I just think it's good to keep good habits, nomatter how inconsequential they might seem at first. E.g. I indicate even when no-one is there because I don't want to get into the habit of not bothering to indicate when it is a matter of safety to do so, e.g. on a roundabout or motorway.
Basically, breaking rules in a very minor way is not a big problem, but it usually leads to keeping and increasing the bad habits and then getting people injured or killed. -
24-04-09 13:26Loony: using statistics which favour your opinion that speeding is not dangerous is no excuse to pick and choose which rules apply to you. The speed limits are there whether you like it or not, and given that the police do seem to be of the opinion that speeding is a big issue, I am surprised you don't agree with this.
-
24-04-09 14:04
98selitb Lets get one thing very clear....i have at no point said i disagree with speed limits or that i break these rules so i find this comment as you have put my name to it quite offensive.
You made a statement and i asked you to back it up with evidence,something you are not able to do. -
24-04-09 14:08
And I didn't accuse you of either of those things. All I was saying was it's obvious you think speeding is not a big problem, that's your opinion and you're entitled to that.
Oh and 3% or whatever might not be much as a number (regarding speed as a cause), but that still equates a lot of people whose lives have been ruined or ended. Try saying speed is not a major factor to someone who has lost their child as a result of a speeding driver. Even one life saved by better driving is a good thing, so even just getting rid of that 3% of all accidents would be very worthwhile, nomatter how small that percentage is.
Quote from wagolynn: "I am just as amazed at the passion with which people hang on to the belief that if only everyone obeyed the speed limits there would be a big improvement in casualty figure"
Well I am amazed at how so many people can't get to grips with such a dead simple rule as a big black number on a signpost and matching that number with the number on their speedometer. As Basil Fawlty once said, it would be easier to train an ape.
If a driver doesn't like the rules well they can choose not to drive, I would rather they did that than have contempt for the rules and cause an accident because of that. -
24-04-09 14:17
Why is it obvious though?
All i have been saying is that just because you are speeding does not automatically mean you are driving dangerously or that speed is a cause off all or most accidents. -
24-04-09 14:22
I agree, but I believe the faster you are going, even if it is safely, the more potential there is for an accident to happen, and the less easily you will be able to avoid it if some silly person pulls out in front of you etc. -
24-04-09 18:4998selitb: I am not impressed by the way you are writing some of your posts. In my youth, I would drive/ride at high speeds. You post 'but I would bet that the maniacs who drive at 120 on the motorway started off with the mindset of "oh, going at 75 won't make any difference", but then got more complacent and are now very reckless drivers.' (I have edited this.). I am not happy with this, as in fact, over the years, noone has ever used the term 'reckless' when talking about my driving.
You also make the comment: 'I agree that going a few miles per hour over the speed limit is unlikely to make any difference regarding an accident,' This has so often been proved not to be the case.
You are beginning to come across as just plain biased against speed of any kind, and, coupled with my last post, I think you are getting very close to being abusive. -
24-04-09 19:10
You say that yet at the same time you are implying it is not reckless to go at 120mph.
Someone else has already mentioned on this thread about the policeman who went at 100mph on the M4 in the rain just for fun, and was damningly condemned by the judge for his reckless driving, rightfully in my opinion.
I apologise if you or anyone else is not happy with the fact that I firmly believe (1) speed limits are there to be obeyed, (2) excessive speed can be extremely dangerous, and (3) those guilty of it deserve to be sanctioned by the law.
As Mike said, speeding is an emotive subject, and is provoked more when people try to defend or condone it in any way. In my mind that is abusive to the families who have lost loved ones due to speeding. -
Guestwagolynn24-04-09 19:3898selib. the 120MPH driver is more likely to have made a rational choice or he would soon be dead. Though Motorways were designed for 120MPH that is partly why it is difficult to judge speed on them.
The point I am making is we as a society should be making rational decisions about road safety not hopelessly clutching at straws. This is not a comment on any individual more a comment aimed at the powers that be. You know the red flag brigade. -
24-04-09 19:46'You say that yet at the same time you are implying it is not reckless to go at 120mph'
No I am not implying anything of the kind, so please do not try to put words into my mouth. I have stated that I have done so. It was not reckless. It was legal. I can still go at 120mph on private property. That is legal. Look up definition of reckess. As to the policeman who drove at 100mph on M4, he broke the law. I have not. As to use of speed on the road, I drive relevant to the conditions, and do not exceed the relevant limit. -
24-04-09 19:46Regarding those who go way over the speed limit (e.g. 120mph), I think a large reason why they are still alive and not in a wheelchair or dead is not because of their (in their opinion) superior driving skills, but because of the reactions of other, sensible drivers around them to avoid them in time.
After all, it is a well-used cliché that good drivers are capable of not only driving around happily without causing accidents, but also taking evasive action from not so good drivers that directly leads to an accident being avoided which would otherwise have occurred if not for their reactions. -
Guestwagolynn25-04-09 13:56I think there is a big difference in philosophy here. On one side we have one camp that think driving is a matter of habit, and should be totally predictable. The other side understand that each vehicle is driven by an individual and therefore nothing is predictable, hence to be safe one must work hard to prevent falling into the habit syndrome. One way of archiving the latter is to drive as quickly, safely and economicaly as road conditions will permit always trying not to inconvenience other traffic around always prepared to adjust and learn. Using this strategy speed limits are meaningless but I do concede that the driving test criteria does not come anywhere near teaching this. Over a driving lifetime of many years, this strategy has kept me and all the people I might have killed safe.
