Safe Speed Forums

That's a straw argument.
It can also mean things like:
- I tend to agree but I have nothing to prove it.
- I had no idea that could be the case, could you demonstrate it.


On reflection: I probably misunderstood what you were saying with your original words. Somehow I thought you meant something like 'a significant portion of'. If that's not the case then it's my bad.



Anyway, I notice you didn't even acknowledge my request for justification of that one above.

Is a motorist, driving in excess of the speed limit, that is involved in a collision automatically at fault because they are speeding?

I understood it to mean "You are making a bold statement, do you have any corroboration?". Perhaps we are speaking different languages.

Do you have any corroboration for that claim?

I don't know which country you live in weepej! I always had you down as a townie anyway. In Dorset I'd say it was about 25% and our roads aren't that bad.

What planet did you say you were from?

So, lets get this right. If the speed limit is 40 and its safe and prudent to travel at say 60 (because the conditions and potential hazards around you make it so) what speed should i be travelling at?

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Not more than 40mph, unless you don't mind breaking the law.

What, that on most country roads travelling at the NSL is suicidal, or homicidal?

And let's be clear, I'm talking country roads here, not A roads in the country.

Ridiculous comparison. Drunk pedestrians don't travel round at 30-40-60+mph.

You see I don't think he 'decided' to propel himself into a position in which he could not stop in the space he could see to be clear, I just don't think he thought about it at all.

Well i dont mind breaking the law in regards to speed, but thats not what i asked.
What SPEED is safe to travel at given that the conditions stated by you are met?
KMH/MPH whatever, i need a SAFE speed to travel at. You seem to think that its dictated by speed limits, i say it its dictated by local conditions, driver ability/comfort/vehicle capabilities.
Now, cut to the chase and tell me what a SAFE speed to travel at is.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

So, given that he didnt as you put it "think about it at all" can you explain why you seem to place more importance on the speed he hit you at ( "he shot out") rather than the obvious conclusion that he made a mistake in deciding to attempt the manouvre?

Remember, the speed followed (didnt lead) his actions, in other words a secondary issue.

Id submit that the driver either was inexperienced or of a couldnt care less attitude.
In the first instance an accident, in the second an attitude problem. Sweet F/A to do with speed as a cause.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Hmm, I hope you don't think that no-one has noticed you weaseling out of the awkward questions mate!

Would you care to answer the question, and then we can debate the relative merits of the comparison afterwards. If you could answer the query about corroboration too that'd be super!

He has no answers Robin, he's just trolling.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Don't feed the trolls !!

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

As "DeltaF" says the only safe speed to travel at is the correct one for the prevailing conditions at the time and as we all know some legal speed limits are set to low deliberately to catch speeding drivers purely to "raise revenue" for the camera partnerships

Take for example to do 30mph in the centre of Manchester in the rush hour could be classed as "dangerous driving" by the police yet to do this speed in the middle of the night could be just to slow "for the prevailing conditions" but to exceed this limit would be illegal but not dangerous as again in an accident speed is only a contributory factor AND NOT THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT as has been proved time and time again in all injury or fatal accidents onlya small % of accidents can be directly attributed purely to speed alone

So the answer to this conundrum is to a) feed the troll in this case or b) make all vehicles stationary PERMANENTLY then there would be no accidents at all

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

What a load of cobblers.

At night in a city centre is when you should be slowing down, not speeding up.

Its dark and there are people around who have been drinking (in cars and walking).

If it could be shown that if they were travelling within the limit then they would most likely have not had the smash, or the results of it would have been less serious then yes, the driver chose to disobey (or simply ignored) some pretty basic rules of the road and was therefore reckless in that respect.

If it couldn't be shown then, they were still breaking the law at least once.

I think the reasoning behind the sentencing given out in such cases reflects this.

Nope, I still say if he had been going slower he might have had a chance to stop, so his bad choice of speed was a primary factor.

You don't need to have an attitude to use inapproriate speed in a car, just about another couple of centimeters on the accelrator.

I've said it before, no such thing as a safe speed, anything more than 0mph is dangerous, and it gets hairier the faster you go.

Driving at 30mph along a residential street is a safer thing to do than 60mph, but 30mph is quite some speed and its certianly not safe; if I hit it on my push bike its throat in the mouth time, and I'm only likely to hurt myself if something happens.

If I juggle knives for 20 minutes but don't drop one on my toe does that make knife juggling safe?

Thinking any speed is safe is the first mistake many drivers make IMO.

In response to a similar post from yourself a page or so ago, I remarked that a driver can always slow down, but to what. Your response was 'To a sensible speed for the conditions'. To me that seems to contradict the quote above (edit: as well as your last post just above "anything more than 0mph is dangerous"); could you reconcile?

BTW, a couple of cm is quite a lot