Vandalised Gatso's

[kwakakid]

I dont dissagree with you Leon

 

What I said was its not speed but driver education and Ignorance.

 

Gents..?? driving at 70mph + down the motorway while having a shave...women putting make up on while plodding along at 50mph, totally oblivious to what is going on around them...mobile phones... I would say that 1 in 4 vehicles that pass me during the day the driver is talking on the phone.

 

Would this not come under the above.

 

I have seen some really bad accidents in my years and not all have been down to speed,if the limit on motorways was reduced to 50mph people would still travell at 70mph.People slow down to the required speed where the cameras are positioned then speed up as soon as they are past.

 

If the majority of people had to take there test again,a hell of a lot of them...would fail.

 

After all each and every one of us...is a good driver

[corydoras]

kwakakid:

So by sending loads by rail you would be happy to see 40% of the HGV drivers out of work.Just to enable you to travel along at 70mph.

I would like to see as much freight as possible moved to rail. Not 'Just so I can travel at 70 mph', it would also mean less pollution.

[RUDD]

quote:

---

Personally I think a large part of it is down to the fact that at 70mph cars need very little driving. You can drive at 70mph with one finger on the wheel and there's simply no effort involved.

---

If you are driving at this speed with one finger on the wheel and have a BLOW OUT chances are you will never get to use that or any other fingers again!!!!!!!!!!

70 on motorways is a safe speed because you brain can react to MOST incidents at this speed.

[Jim Roper]

I've allways thought that the main reason for letting rail freight run down, was to curb the power of the railway unions.

Organization of an efficient rail freight system seems to be out of reach, but lots of small road transport firms do it better.

OOPS! Back to centralized/decentralized decision making again.

[davidP]

RUDD:

quote:

---

Personally I think a large part of it is down to the fact that at 70mph cars need very little driving. You can drive at 70mph with one finger on the wheel and there's simply no effort involved.

---

If you are driving at this speed with one finger on the wheel and have a BLOW OUT chances are you will never get to use that or any other fingers again!!!!!!!!!!

Agree entirely, but again the advance in tyre technology (and suspension) meams that blowouts are extremely rare these days and the effects are nowhere near as severe as they were even 20 years ago. It's yet another example of why drivers have become so blasé to speed.

[kwakakid]

" and that faster drivers think they are less likely to have an accident than slower drivers (Corbett and Simon 1992). In other words, education is needed not only globally to turn around the value placed on speed and substitute a greater value placed, for example, on safety or smoothness while driving; but also it is needed to encourage individual drivers to acknowledge that they are vulnerable to higher speeds and that the majority cannot be 'better than average"

 

Isn't that what I said

[*Ant*]

In my experience it is the older drivers that drive everywhere at 20-30mph that are the problem on our roads, and to some extent (dare I say) female drivers. It seems to me these group of drivers are the least comfortable being in control of a vehicle. Another bug-bare of mine are the drivers who find it to much of a hassle to indicate at islands and those that pull up to islands and road junctions in the middle of the lane rather than positioning their vehicle according to which direction they intend to take. More often than not these are the type of drivers I mentioned at the start of my post.

 

I don't wish to offend the female and older drivers, it is just my opinion based on my own experiences. Of coarse it is a generalised opinion and do not class all female/older citizens to be bad drivers.

[corydoras]

So speed does not kill. That sounds pretty counter intutive to me. Try this experiment.

 

Find a block of flats.

 

Jump head first out of a ground floor window, you will probably survive.

Now try the same thing from a second floor window, and you will probably be seriosly injured.

Once you have recoverd from that try the third floor, chances are you will die, but if not then when you recover, leap out of the fourt floor window and you will almost certainly die.

 

The only difference is that the higher you jump, the faster your speed upon cranial impact with the deck, so speed kills.

 

If I took a .303 shell and threw it at you you will probably live. The same missile being fired from a Lee Enfield will kill you. The only difference is the speed the bullet hits you.

 

So how come speed does not kill? It seems obvious to me that the faster you are travelling when you have an accident, the less likely you are to survive, or am I missing something here? :confused:

 

[ 20. June 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: corydoras ]

[Leon Roskilly]

QUOTE]Originally posted by corydoras:

It seems obvious to me that the faster you are travelling when you have an accident, the less likely you are to survive, or am I missing something here? :confused:

 

In a clear straight road, dry daylight conditions, it's obvious that 30 mph is a ridiculously slow speed.

 

A competent and experienced driver should have no problems driving along such a road in those conditions at 50 mph.

 

But

 

Ever had something totally unexpected happen?

 

Just when everything is so safe and you feel totally confident.

 

Disbelief, reaction, thump!!

 

At 20 mph a child will probably survive. At 30 mph, around half survive. At 40 mph most die.

 

(It's very strange that the majority of road deaths occur in 30 mph limit areas!)

 

Ever been along to a meeting of Roadpeace, where relatives of those killed, and those who have had their lives shattered, try to campaign for safer roads, ever listened to their personal stories, looked at the photographs they carry?

 

Ever had to live with the lifelong thought that if you had been going at the legal speed, things would have turned out very different for all involved?

 

When metal hits metal, when metal hits flesh, when the unexpected happens completely out of the blue, the phrase 'inappropriate speed' becomes meaningless, especially in the eyes of the law, and in how you will be regarded by the victim(s) and their relatives, your own friends and relations.

 

But of course it will never happen. Not to you.

 

Nothing completely unexpected, with catastrophic consequences, will ever occur. And if it does it will always be someone else involved, not you.

 

Why poodle around at 30 mph or less?

 

When it's much more satisfying and skillful to go much faster than the law requires?

 

And of course no-one else takes any notice of the limits do they? (Apart from those frustrating old buggers, unconfident drivers, indecisive and less skilfull drivers than yourself, etc that are forever holding up the traffic, causing accidents by slowing you down and increasing your frustration - it's their fault, not yours!).

 

(And of course younger, less experienced drivers see you and others, just as skillfull and confident as you, and follow your example. The fact that they can't handle the example you set, and end up killing someone cannot be blamed on you).

 

Near me, there is a good stretch of dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. No crash barriers. In recent months a number of crossover indcidents have resulted in deaths.

 

All involved people travelling over the 70 mph limit!

 

The Highway Authority is having to pay out several million pounds to put in a central reservation. I'd sooner see the money spent on many other things.

 

Speed bumps are a bloody nuisance around my way. They were put in because residents complained about the number of cars ignoring the 30 mph limit (in effect voting for speed bumps through their accelerator pedal!) I'd sooner see the money spent on many other things.

 

People who are unable, who won't, plan a journey at the legal speed limit are not only a danger to everyone. They cost us all. In broken lives, in broken dreams, in lack of educational opportunity due to spending priorities, in healthcare and other services.

 

At 22 I was a menace!

 

Fortunately, we learn, survive, and become older, and wiser, and slower.

 

Apart from the more than 3,000 who don’t.

 

Apart from the more than 30,000 whose bodies are terribly broken each year, and the many, many thousands more who live a nightmare, starting with a phone call, or a knock at the door.

 

30% of which are down to those who use the accelerator just a tad too much, and believe that it will never happen to them., not with their level of skill and experience.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 20. June 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[*Ant*]

Ah, speed bumps to slow traffic and so reduce accidents.....TOSH

 

In Lichfield, Staffs the local council decides to introduce two 1m square humps across each urban carriageway at 50m intervals to slow traffic and reduce accidents. (rarely any such accidents???)

 

The result.....more accidents due to bad drivers (driving at new 20mph limit) paying more attention to avoiding speed humps and less attention to on-coming traffic and pedestrians..... FACT!

 

Conclusion, bad drivers kill not speed.

 

[ 21. June 2003, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: aanthony ]