kdubya Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 You arent going to accept any other viewpoint so there is no point continuing this but I suggest you add up who was killed in RTA's for what reason - you will see that the causitive factor totals do not include other causitive factors, that would not add up to the actual recorded totals, so, when I said above Speeding Around 400 people a year are killed in crashes in which someone exceeds the speed limit or drives too fast for the conditions. Drink Driving 280 people The first category does not include the second and so on. Just slow down or stop moaning about speed limits, or campaign for reasonably set ones. Your highlighted text proves the point entirely,IE inappropriate speed is the problem not speed per-say, the safety camera's and traffic control measures in the main are not about speed control and the creation of true safety measures they are about revenue. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoggysreels Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Miss post .. Edited May 26, 2014 by hoggysreels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexl Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 Around 400 people a year are killed in crashes in which someone exceeds the speed limit or drives too fast for the conditions. Drink Driving 280 people The first category does not include the second and so on. Considering the proportions of people speeding compared to the number of people drink driving, I don't think those numbers prove a great deal. Id wager a good bulk of drivers speed to some extent on most journeys they take. Don't get me wrong I don't agree with excess speed in inappropriate areas, but from what ive seen the quality of peoples driving has more of a bearing. This is a generalisation but amongst the worst ive seen are old duffers who never speed but have absolutely no awareness of any other road users, have slow reactions and just pull out when they fancy. Upon speaking to these types they generally feel they are the best drivers on the road because they don't speed. I once saw an elderly gentleman who was pulled over on the hard shoulder of the M25 in evening rush hour, there was a constant flow of traffic passing at 40-50 mph (literally no gaps). To get back onto the motorway he indicated and without a gap just pulled into the lane from a complete standstill. I genuinely cant believe there wasn't an accident, tyres were screeching and cars had to swerve all over the place, considering how busy it was he was seriously lucky there wasn't a pile up with fatality's. Had a lorry been coming im certain there would have been quite a large accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoggysreels Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Interesting. Let me ask you a question. If you're doing 40 in a 30 zone and a deaf child walks out from between two cars in front of you, how quickly can you safely stop your ambulance compared to a decent, well maintained car? There is a risk we emergency services take when claiming exclusion of traffic regulations .. to "reduce risk" we are trained to a far higher standard than normal road users ... illegal speeding is an offence ... do you breach tbe gun laws ? ... Edited May 26, 2014 by hoggysreels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 There is a risk we emergency services take when claiming exclusion of traffic regulations .. to "reduce risk" we are trained to a far higher standard than normal road users ... illegal speeding is an offence ... do you breach tbe gun laws ? ... You didn't answer my question. Could you stop your ambulance quicker and safer than I could stop my car? Who do you think is more likely to hit the deaf child, me in my car or you, with your ninja driving skills, in your 'van'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) illegal speeding is an offence ... do you breach tbe gun laws ? ...Love it, we're back onto if you speed you shouldn't have an SGC or FAC. Edit The irony is my license is clean Edited May 26, 2014 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 poontang - if the ambulance lad is honest, he should tell you that his ambulance is more likely to hit the child. Cars are far more manoeuverable and might be able to avoid the child. As for the "far higher standard training" - they are trained to the Police "System". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 As for the "far higher standard training" - they are trained to the Police "System". I know the system well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 As do I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoggysreels Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 The gassing trio ... talk amongst yourselves, l'd say your more on the same frequency ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentalmac Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 You didn't answer my question. Could you stop your ambulance quicker and safer than I could stop my car? Who do you think is more likely to hit the deaf child, me in my car or you, with your ninja driving skills, in your 'van'? Laughed out loud :-). Ninja driving skills hahahaha :-). Oh crikey Poontang, you really are a naughty person - you have sped so you mustn't be safe with a gun - and heaven forbid you may have flouted the drinking laws when you were a boy too....?! Off to the stocks! Haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 poontang - if the ambulance lad is honest, he should tell you that his ambulance is more likely to hit the child. Cars are far more manoeuverable and might be able to avoid the child. As for the "far higher standard training" - they are trained to the Police "System". here is the ambulance training school in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm_ClGtyR3s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 I'm amazed that this thread has made it to 6 pages, it is in a similar vein to safety on/off. My tuppence worth, sometimes travelling in excess of the posted speed limit is perfectly safe, other times it isn't. The way I was taught was around 'information levels'. If you have a high information level, i.e. good lines of sight, no immediate presenting hazards, no likelihood of poor road conditions, etc then your speed can be high. If you have low information levels, i.e. poor lines of sight, lots of potential hazards, dark or wet roads, etc then your speed should be much lower. My understanding is this is similar to how class 1 police drivers are taught, perhaps someone could confirm? There are some roads in my town with a 40mph limit that could safely be used at 100mph (traffic and weather conditions allowing), there are some roads with a 40mph limit where that limit is far too high, given the much higher potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflict. Not advocating that anyone should do 100mph in a 40 limit, but in some cases it would be perfectly safe to do so. Regrettably there are a great many drivers who are incapable of being able to differentiate when it is appropriate to carry speed and just use the speed limit as a target. Of course speed has to be a factor in fatalities, due to simple physics; collisions involving greater speed have greater energy therefor the resulting impact on the human body is greater. Does not mean that speed is the causal factor in the accident, but it will be a causal factor in the fatal outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 Hard to disagree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 So you feel your abilities let you drive at the same speed a police drivers despite limits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 So you feel your abilities let you drive at the same speed a police drivers despite limits? Who is your question aimed at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 So you feel your abilities let you drive at the same speed a police drivers despite limits? I don't think anyone has said that; or rather the closest anyone has come to saying it drives a van / ambulance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 There is a risk we emergency services take when claiming exclusion of traffic regulations .. to "reduce risk" we are trained to a far higher standard than normal road users ... illegal speeding is an offence ... do you breach tbe gun laws ? ... Hoggy, have you swallowed a pompous pill today ? "We emergency services"..... really ? I dont know which branch you work for but lets not set ourselves up as paragons of virtue eh. I have seen coppers speeding illegally (most days actually), using phones while moving and have seen them convicted for perjury etc. Witnessed highly trained ambulance drivers getting stuck on playing fields and have seen firefighters overturn their appliances.......... all after having had a LOT of driving training Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 Who decides speed is inappropriate ? It is always 'after the fact'. Everyone here beilieves there are circumstances where they could safely drive above the speed limit or are special in some way. Which is why speed limits, properly set, at the 85%ile speed in free flow conditions allows safe guidance to be set for all drivers. Speed limits are therefore 'democratic' laws, when properly set. If you exceed properly set limits, you deserve all you get - lets hope no-one exceeds them to anothers disadvantage. K, You miss the stated point but then you intended to, it says speed limits. For all of you who joked about Hoggsys comments re ambulance drivers, I am very happy they drive to a higher standard than you lot. He does a worthwhile job - cut him some slack. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from all the negative posts is; 1. we should all drive at the speed we feel we can safely react 2. setting speed limits doesnt reduce casualties 3. The police have no right to enforce the law if you dont like it. 4. Those less able shouldnt drive at all since they impact on your ability to drive at the speed you want safely, you are therefore not guilty of inappropriate speed.. 5 ROSPA tells porkies to justify revenue raising by the boys in blue. 6. People who clear bodies or tend the seriously injured have no right to spoil your viewpoint and make you feel you might be part of the problem 7. Inappropriate speed and speed limits are in no way connected. 8. people who try to saves lives by applying limits, although succeeding spectacularly, have no idea why what they do works. yadah yadah yadah,etc etc Would you be happy crossing a road when the next guy coming along sets his safe driving speed limit a lot higher than you think reasonable and is actually wrong and kills someone? Oh dear, the last refuge is self delusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Who decides speed is inappropriate ? It is always 'after the fact'. I don't believe that is true, it is easy to make a judgement where excess speed is inappropriate, for example if driving through a town with a posted 30mph limit, there are lots of pedestrians, parked cars, restricted vision, narrow carriageways, then it is very easy to determine when you are travelling too fast, but still within the limit, as you cannot process all the information available to you in the time you could react to a situation developing. In my post I certainly didn't advocate speeding, but stand by my point that there are times when it would be perfectly safe to travel at a speed in excess of the limit, without any requirement to be special, however of course regardless of how safe it may be it is still illegal and if captured by the rozzers then you have to sup your medicine. My point is that driving at or near the speed limit is not always safe either, same as exceeding the limit is not always unsafe. I believe that ROSPA are quite correct in the statistics that they put forward, speed is a factor in fatalities, but it is not always the causal factor. I believe that is what Mungler was alluding to earlier in the thread too. Of course sometimes, often times perhaps, it will be the single causal factor, when someone was simply driving too fast to retain control. I think that as with most statistics their use can be somewhat specious. Are posted speed limits a good guideline to what may be considered a maximum safe speed? I would like to think they should be, especially in or around built up areas. I agree with your point that there needs to be a common defining standard, otherwise you would have some Johnny Hero doing 80 in a residential street. Edited May 26, 2014 by grrclark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) You can always go slower and surprisingly speed reduces your available room and time to react. Johnny hero, if one extrapolates some views on here, should apparently be entitled to do what he considers is a safe speed for the circumstances even if, because there is a speed limit, others expect him to be travelling at or close to that speed. It isnt just the drivers who use speed limits its pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists etc. We simply have to have speed limits and having them has provided us (inter alia) with the lowest casualties in Europe per mile travelled, per head of population etc etc. Ok you lot, keep your viewpoint, despite the facts other stake for granted. Just dont kill or injure someone in the pursuit of your 'freedoms' as you may not be able to live with it . Didn't people in the 60's say the drink drive laws were ridiculously restrictive on personal freedoms (and seat belts)? How do people feel now about drink /driving killings? 280 deaths per year is nearly one per day, even one of those involving anyone other than the drinker I personally find disgusting. Still, persue your own personal freedoms by all means. How many lives have been saved by seat belts? If we sacrifice a few freedoms for the sake of others - we also benefit. Sadly exceeding (properly set) speed limits carry penalties. Reasonably applied, how is that a problem? I am now giving up. Edited May 27, 2014 by Kes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 > If we sacrifice a few freedoms for the sake of others - we also benefit. The same argument could be easily used on the ownership of firearms. > Sadly exceeding (properly set) speed limits carry penalties. Reasonably applied, how is that a problem? Reasonably applied it isn't, the problem is many limitis aren't properly set or applied. An interesting article "Why Councils Can't be Trusted to Set Speed Limits".... http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/art_speedchange.html It's un-enforceable but it would be interesting to do away with speed limits and make people _think_ about what they're doing. My speedometer was out of action for a week or so a couple of years ago and it was strangely liberating just being able to concentrate on the road ahead. In town my aim is to make good progress without a pedestrian ever thinking I'm going too fast, this includes crawling along (10mph) when I need to. Nial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 > If we sacrifice a few freedoms for the sake of others - we also benefit. The same argument could be easily used on the ownership of firearms. > Sadly exceeding (properly set) speed limits carry penalties. Reasonably applied, how is that a problem? Reasonably applied it isn't, the problem is many limitis aren't properly set or applied. An interesting article "Why Councils Can't be Trusted to Set Speed Limits".... http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/art_speedchange.html It's un-enforceable but it would be interesting to do away with speed limits and make people _think_ about what they're doing. My speedometer was out of action for a week or so a couple of years ago and it was strangely liberating just being able to concentrate on the road ahead. In town my aim is to make good progress without a pedestrian ever thinking I'm going too fast, this includes crawling along (10mph) when I need to. Nial. Nial, we have sacrificed the freedoms we need to to retain firearms IMO. I also agree that speed limtis must be properly set and enforced as I have said above. I dont disagree with your view on speed, but you are clearly restrained and thoughtful. Many are not and as a result a thousand are killed annually. If firearms owners were responsible for such a number of deaths, the call to ban private ownership would be irresistible and I would probably agree to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 You can always go slower and surprisingly speed reduces your available room and time to react. Johnny hero, if one extrapolates some views on here, should apparently be entitled to do what he considers is a safe speed for the circumstances even if, because there is a speed limit, others expect him to be travelling at or close to that speed. It isnt just the drivers who use speed limits its pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists etc. We simply have to have speed limits and having them has provided us (inter alia) with the lowest casualties in Europe per mile travelled, per head of population etc etc. Ok you lot, keep your viewpoint, despite the facts other stake for granted. Just dont kill or injure someone in the pursuit of your 'freedoms' as you may not be able to live with it . Didn't people in the 60's say the drink drive laws were ridiculously restrictive on personal freedoms (and seat belts)? How do people feel now about drink /driving killings? 280 deaths per year is nearly one per day, even one of those involving anyone other than the drinker I personally find disgusting. Still, persue your own personal freedoms by all means. How many lives have been saved by seat belts? If we sacrifice a few freedoms for the sake of others - we also benefit. Sadly exceeding (properly set) speed limits carry penalties. Reasonably applied, how is that a problem? I am now giving up. I think that says it all really! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 Just popped in to see how it had got to 7 pages. My advice is...you've been a very naughty boy; don't do it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.