Safe Speed Forums • View topic - Why drivers speed

View unanswered posts | View active topics

Board index » Discussion Forums » Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Why drivers speed - again

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

Page 5 of 23

[ 455 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 23 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Author

Message

SafeSpeed

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 18:51

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed

basingwerk wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

basingwerk wrote:

I'm asking for people to drive in a way that is not only safe as far as they can see (i.e. the SafeSpeed rule), but safe far as they can imagine. And for the imagination impaired amongst us, I'm asking them to at least stay within the limit, to mitigate the risk somewhat.

What's the evidence that the risk would be mitigated?

My sources suggest it is partly in the physics. Crash forces rise much faster than speed. It is also partly in the statistics. One example said (with caveats) that the probability of a fatality rises with the fourth power of the speed change at impact. There is also evidence to do with reaction and breaking times, which are constrained and thus less effective at high speeds.

SafeSpeed wrote:

How much driver attention would you like to divert to speed limit compliance?

Hard to put a figure on it, but It would be nice (sigh) to divert all the attention drivers pay to lateness and rush and selfishness from that and into speed limit compliance.

SafeSpeed wrote:

How strict would you like compliance with the speed limit to be?

Put it this way - in built up areas, I’d like speeders to be as rare as people who do other disgusting (but less dangerous) things like vandalism or vomiting on the sidewalk.

SafeSpeed wrote:

Will the people who comply be the ones that you most needed to comply?

Yes. One person who complies positively affects the behaviour of perhaps 10 other drivers behind, resulting in slower towns and villages and greater serenity and safety for walkers.

SafeSpeed wrote:

What's the damage to a newly compliant driver who was extremely safe (statistically speaking) before your intervention?

He’ll have to set out more early. On the plus side, he’ll affect positively the driving of many drivers who were not extremely safe before the intervention.

Those were DAMN serious questions. If you can't reply intelligently to DAMN serious questions, please don't reply at all.

I am also quite certain that you have read enough here to be quite certain that motion physics is grossly inadequate as a 'danger predictor'. So why pretend? Are you trolling?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Top

basingwerk

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 20:10

Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291

SafeSpeed wrote:

Well, there is that aspect to it, I s'pose, although I'm sure you are wrong as well. Your basic premise seems to be that cameras cause a distraction, whereas full speed limit compliance does not good. Rather than rehash the whole discussion one more time, there's something at http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 026034.pdf , which I expect you have seen already. It addresses some of the myths/truths (delete as appropriate depending on polarisation) that have been propagated here.

My basic premise is that you need a stick as well as a carrot. Now, it is counter productive to whack the donkey with all your might all the time, and I think that's where the camera operators have gone wrong. A merciful approach is required, to stop these "fear and stress" side effects you speak of, as well as obvious PR reasons. But let's not kid ourselves. We can't (and never could) trust drivers to get with the programme out of the goodness of their hearts. Every time we gratuitously break the limit, we show a bad example to every other road user, and dangerous nonsense gradually becomes the norm, establishing another baseline for further excesses. Could you address the cultural influences of speeding in your remarks?

Edited by RP to correct the link formation

_________________
I stole this .sig

Top

Roger

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 21:00

Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4815
Location: Essex

basingwerk wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

There is a blow-by-blow commentaryto the document to which you refer, which is approaching its second anniversary. I commend it to you.

Top

WildCat

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 23:14

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

Johnnytheboy wrote:

Once had a debate with an "always obey the limit" neighbour. A local road had recently dropped from NSL to 30 limit.

I wanted to know if he considered it safe to drive on it at 60mph before, and whether he did now. Did he consider the road to be EXACTLY half as safe as it was before?

I hasten to add the road and its surroundings had not changed in any way.

Und his conclusion was ? :roll:

Und I bet he always stick dead to limit. In fact if he does - I am surpriosed he live so long as sometimes safest below limit und someitime safer to accelerate away from a real numpty who tailgate but cannot really handle his car :wink:

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Top

WildCat

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 23:27

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

Rigpig wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

Rigpig wrote:

My twopence...

Drivers speed because their vehicle makes it so easy for them to do so. A modern car does not afford the driver the feedback that an equivalent vehicle of the 1970s era would have done, they are more or less isolated from the environment around them. Select 4th gear in a modern 2 ltr saloon, rest your foot on the throttle and your're doing 40mph before you know it and still it seems inexorably slow.

So we didn't speed in the 70s then?

I don't really know what the situation was in the 1970s, to tell the truth and I'll bet nobody can really state categorically because we didn't have such obtrusive speed monitoring back then. Anecdotal 'oh yes I did' evidence doesn't really help here, we need to zip back in time with a modern gatso or two.
I'm convinced that many drivers who exceed the 30mph limit today may genuinely be trying to stick to it but simply drift over because its so darned easy in a modern vehicle. A small movement of your foot can add 5mph in a trice.

True und motorbikes und bicycles are capable of so much more. I give example - have Saracen shopper with just three gears und bell un baskets - a really mumsy bike :laugh: Ist slow und does not manoeuivre so well as ist a weighty mumsy mum with bun in oven type bike! :hehe:

Also have top of range complete with several gear for each und every occasion :twisted:

und it goes - :yikes:

... it goes und if not fingering rear brakes - ist a r-r-r-r-r-runaways! :yikes:

Ist also same with cars... Moggie originals are slow - I;d say our Stags und the - um - well - um - we played around last year und

- um - well - er um him hum - hum - one of the Moggies ist bit of Tiger now :yikes:

Ist amazing what a change of engine can do .... :wink:

Top

r11co

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 23:27

User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow

basingwerk wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

How much driver attention would you like to divert to speed limit compliance?

Hard to put a figure on it, but It would be nice (sigh) to divert all the attention drivers pay to lateness and rush and selfishness from that and into speed limit compliance.

With all due respect - Bollocks.

These are not tradeable commodities. Speed limit compliance requires pro-active attention, the others are reactions to external consequences. Perhaps you would like to lecture the CBI on their contribution to road danger as managers are responsible for putting time constraints on their employees?

So, you came back, and I suspect the only reason you did so was to show off. I expect you to reply to this with a typically flippant and mildly offensive retort as your style is becoming boring and predictable, and your purpose more transparent.

Do us all a favour and go away again, you've nothing new to bring to the table and are doing neither side of the argument any favours.

Last edited by r11co on Mon Dec 05, 2005 23:37, edited 1 time in total.

Top

Observer

Post subject:

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 23:30

Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks

SafeSpeed wrote:

Observer wrote:

I'm not sure how to prove this, but my instinct is that an advanced driver, who applies defensive driving principles (COAST), but who may regularly or even frequently exceed posted speed limits (but only where the conditions allow) can almost eliminate his risk of crashing except by reason of an entirely unpredictable event.

Excuse me arguing with myself. Developing this line of thought a bit further, suppose we take two 'advanced' drivers of (so far as possible) equal skill and ability. Driver A applies best safe driving principles at all times and exceeds the speed limit from time to time but always within the boundaries necessary for safe driving. Driver B also applies best safe driving principles at all times but never exceeds the speed limit.

1. Is the crash risk of driver B: (i) lower than (ii) equal to (iii) higher than, that of driver A?

2. Is the risk of driver B being involved in a crash that causes injury or death to himself or another person: (i) lower than (ii) equal to (iii) higher than, that of driver A?

(iii), (iii)

I can't share your degree of certainty.

SafeSpeed wrote:

Strict speed limit compliance squanders precious driver attention.

That's an assumption. I would argue that an advanced driver rarely needs "full attention" and, on the occasions he does, his speed would probably be at or below the posted limit anyway.

SafeSpeed wrote:

Driver B will also be less stimulated in clear conditions.

Similarly an assumption. Driver B may be perfectly content to restrict speed to posted limits.

SafeSpeed wrote:

Driver B will also be less inclined to 'reduce speed when necessary' due to the high priority that he must place on the speed limit.

Also an assumption. Surely one of the hallmarks of an advanced drive is mental self-discipline. If that is present, he probably can drive with equal 'safety' below his naturally preferred choice of speed.

All other things being equal, I can't see how it can be denied that driver A has a (possibly insignificant) greater risk in question 1 and a greater risk in question 2. However, if the answer to question 1 is that there is no significant difference in crash risk, then the answer to question 2 is academic.

Top

WildCat

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 00:08

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

basingwerk wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

basingwerk wrote:

There are too many simpletons on the roads who have not developed their watch-dog. Basically, their emotions are doing the driving.

So we need to help them develop, and NOT occupy their limited capability with peripheral tasks.

Maybe. But some drivers are like children - they just take advantage when you're soft on 'em.

Am Mama to seven. You encourage them to learn und they learn more when relaxed. :wink:

By the way - as example of our relaxed COAST in tune parenthood :lol:

- kittens perform well enough in und out of school.

Quote:

That's the hateful thing about that car-ism. Unless we use our "watch-dogs", cars bring out the beast in all of us. That's why drivers speed - again!

I ride a motorbike sometimes

und a push bike

Besides am cutest pussy cat - but I do so enjoy hunting :twisted:

....muesli munchers und tree huggers! :wink:

So you say it bring out stone age gene? It was survival of fittest back them - prime example of Darwinism :wink:

where competent survive und thickos are eaten for breakfast :wink:

by dinsosaur of an IG .... :wink:

But now ist case of dinosaurs becoming extinct through blinding flashing boom of the scammers, fittest becoming ill for the consuming virus of these flashing beams und the weakest parasites feeding off the harmful bacteria of political correctness.

Humph - now you go [i] me [/i[ at it. I'll bet I got you more confused than you got me

Top

basingwerk

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 00:13

Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291

r11co wrote:

I expect you to reply to this with a typically flippant and mildly offensive retort as your style is becoming boring and predictable, and your purpose more transparent.

Go and have a cup of tea.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Top

WildCat

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 00:25

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

basingwerk wrote:

Rigpig wrote:

But it is common to hear of people stating that they didn't realise what speed they were doing after they got nailed.

That's right. They are the thumb in bum, mind in neutral brigade. They make comfort assessments, not risk assessments. They only know they are going too fast when they have a close shave! Or a ticket, whichever comes first.

Ist usually a blip -on camber or polished surface. :roll:

Nein. Three blokes were I work were invited to Speed Aware course two years or so ago. All IAM - ist required for all who drive company cars or eligible to drive one of the pool here. We only employ most "able" in all departments :wink:

They got invite for 34 mph und 35
mph. One copped by fixed Gatso behind road side furniture on road which had been 50 mph three weeks or so earlier...und dual carriageway.. :wink:

und others by mobile - one of which was the one at Garstang which featured in all tabloids at time. the one which was plain withe - parked illegally und operator was discovered under a blanket "makin' movies" :roll:

Und it was on gradient...

All careful drivers - no accidents on records. All found persons with similar speed und condition on course . hardly a surprise since cut off was 35 m ph anyway. None with any accident record - all with fair COAST skills ... so death rate increase just the same as wrong persons copped und more time spent with moblie targetting the just over uind missing the high speeder as they went for the target which get mroe money - £85 for Speed Course generate more than £60 - nicht? Und despite course being first class in actual content per every report - despite resentment at manner of invite - this undermined spirt of the project. lancs make much of revised policy but we still hear of 34/35 mph invites in press und from outraged drivers -und ist shame that they continue to undermine a worthy project witht he COAST course by targetting the blippers to get cash in hand - as their KSI rate ist increasing despite course which does teach COAST und 360 scams in area.

Top

WildCat

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 00:27

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

basingwerk wrote:

r11co wrote:

I expect you to reply to this with a typically flippant and mildly offensive retort as your style is becoming boring and predictable, and your purpose more transparent.

Go and have a cup of tea.

You need Horlicks with catnip :wink:

Top

WildCat

Post subject: Re: Why drivers speed - again

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 00:48

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

basingwerk wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

Basingwerk wrote:

Look at it over a real driving lifetime, SafeSpeed, and it becomes 32m/11m. That’s 3 to 1 - odds that are twice as bad as Russian Roulette!

I'm not going to play silly games.

Fair enough, but the 3 to 1 odds are ones that you quoted, expressed over a driving lifetime.

Und a driving lifetime expand 1- 70 yearsund more. Ist longest time und majority never have any one incident no matter how they drive.

Odds that Ferdl would have been hit und myself so soon afterwards - und both non faults? Ist very unusual - but bad luck come in threes und we lost one in plane crash at same time as well. :cry:

But this ist also above average family in size - we breed like cats! :hehe:

Litters everywhere....

basingyoungwerther - he remind me of Werther - a nerd as described by Goethe wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

The reality is that injury crashes are extremely rare compared with - say - non crash days or non crash miles.

Any activity that has 3 to 1 odds of being injured is rightly considered dangerous. It is good that motoring is considered a dangerous activity, and it would be wrong to try to make out that motoring is a safe activity – it is not inherently safe at all.

But so many take und pass driving test. Und if this ist case - my son should give up fencing as sport, I should never skate or ski und nor should any one member of family - und as for riding bike... :yikes:

Mad Doc und other son should quit rugby und golf as also dangerous und none of us should go sailing or walking on Fells either - und lot of people do get lost und die of exposure on our Fells. Ist very dangerous to walk without letting people know where you intend to walk und in inadequate clothing :roll:

So all activities have risk und we do them with a sense or COAST und responsibility und ist education which help alert to dangers in any case1

Besides - regularly drive at twice NSL in Germany und on track days und still in one piece. :wink:

Top

WildCat

Post subject: Re: Why drivers speed - again

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 01:05

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

basingwerk wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

Activities with a more than 3 in 1 chance of injury in a lifetime's participation undoubted include:

* preparing vegtables
* All manner of sports
* playing cowboy and indians (or any other childhood game)

So you're just being silly. Anyway the question is not about the rate of risk, but how to reduce risk. Because risk is already at a low rate we should clearly be looking to the already successful factors for improvement.

Oh yes, you often hear of a bus queue being mowed down by a vegetable chopper! And those tributes and flowers you see at the side of the road are actually for cricketers who have hurt thier thumbs!

PS. 300 people have been killed this month on the roads (on average). I expect some of them were children playing childhood games!

My sister -in -law tell me of two such floral sites she passes regularly - both appeared in Bolton paper und both recorded by husband on this site.

Case 1 - und mother has been told to tone it down at actual grvae by vicar as well. But sis in law has told us that scene of crahs ist always ablazes with flowers.

The driver was jailed for running from accident, dangeerous driving und being under influence.

The driver was in early 30s und DJ of some tuppence halfpenny dive und he had dropped off the THIRTEEN year old girls at 11 pm at nigh after a party at HIS HOUSE und was showing off in car apparently when he lost control in haze of drink und drugs.

Call me old fashioned mama but my kittens would not be attending any party or going to any third rate no-hoper's home - und they would not dare cross me about being out that late either.

Shrine two.

Boy on scooter clipped kerb und hit head at low speed - no helmet. he died.

By the way - none of our kittens play on roads. They play in playgrounds, in our garden, in park und all have been drilled in Green Cross from moment they learn to toddle.

But then - we take our parenthood seriously as well. :wink:

Top

WildCat

Post subject: Re: Why drivers speed - again

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 01:13

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

SafeSpeed wrote:

basingwerk wrote:

Yes, Pete317, but the idea is to show the pro-car reactions. Unless I have misunderstood SafeSpeed, he suggests that 10 deaths a day is fine because driving is safer that chopping garlic!

Your culinary skills are on par with your driving Liebchen :roll:

You do not chop garlic - you rub it around pan to give hint in the cooking or you crush the clove in garlic press.

Und you chop herb on chopping board with neat safe herb chopper which you can buy from any half decent kitchen shop including supermarket chains these days. :roll:

Und there ist knack to chopping onion safely too! ist first thing they teach in cookery class! You must have been asleep in class :roll:

Top

WildCat

Post subject: Re: Why drivers speed - again

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 01:23

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

basingwerk wrote:

SafeSpeed wrote:

This is COMPLETE garbage. We live our lives within 'acceptable risk' parameters.

And we have always lived our lives within 'acceptable risk' parameters. Yet we live longer and richer because acceptable risk parameters are systematically modified. A correlation exists between the length and prosperity of our lives and the political framework that we live within. Life is not safe enough (as you suggest) but 100% fatal. All we can do is strive to slightly lengthen infinitely poor odds!

We live und learn und then return to old values

We have gone full circle - butter - bad - margarine - good.

Now ist butter which prolong life und chocolate und fullest creamiest milk und decent claret und even coffee now discovered to do what my Great Nanna said. :twisted:

und margarine - is :nono:

....

We will probably wake up far too late und find BiB ist only way to keep road safety safe! :roll:

Top

WildCat

Post subject: Re: Why drivers speed - again

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 01:55

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

Pete317 wrote:

basingwerk wrote:

It’s obvious. If we had bombs going off in London and killing and maiming people at the same rate that cars do, there would be a hell of a to-do about it.

Happen all the time in Palestine, Israel, Iraq.....und was very very frequent when IRA was very active. Und in recent Gulf wars... :roll:

Quote:

If we had 747's crashing every month, and trains crashing every day, people would gasp and say how dangerous it all is. We don't do that with cars, do we? Even though the figures are much worse than all that. You are wrong - it is not argumentative to suggest that we have become inured by familiarity to cars’ negative aspects.

The figures for AIDS ist a lot worse - und cancers und other ailments und elderly in homes are treated more than disgracefully in this country.

But the accidents are not all speed related. I think I am more than qualified to say so given my own und family's past und BiB within the family who do tell us of their jobs.

Quote:

But that's got nothing to do with what he said. Not only did you fail to answer his point, but you went off on a tangent.
In any case, why isn't there a hell-to-do about the 747's worth of people who die every week as a result of medical negligence and hospital lurgies? These deaths are almost entirely preventable.
And if you took as many plane journeys as you do car journeys, your chances of seeing old age would be pretty iffy.

True - Rudi died when Jumbo crashed into sea. Ferdl in 20 mph crash as result of defective und I was badly hurt as you know when the driver was taken ill at wheel of his car und crash into me. :roll:

Mad Doc know all about lurgies - he ist at war with NHS managers over lurgies. :roll:

und budget und means to cope with his lurgies. :roll:

Quote:

But that is all by-the-by. The point is that this is not a road safety site, but a car-ism site.

Really? IG has been busy promoting safest cycling on here und ist full of good und toppest tips! :wink:

Quote:

Else you would be agreeing with my comparisons and wringing your hands to find ways to make cars as safe as (say) planes.

I would not say 747/737 und Airbus have that good a press. Und not so safe given iff traffic control und aging fleets und what about DVT in these direst budget things :roll:

Quote:

This means you don't really care as much about safety as you say - you really want to drive fast. You are trying to find a way to hide behind safety because you can’t admit what is true – drivers speed because they are selfish.

Drivers speed because speed limit ist too low for wide road they find themselves on und they misread the road as a faster one.

Drivers pick up speed on a camber or gradient which ist gradual so they do not necessarily "feel" it as ist subltest creep up - if you rid bike on gradient - you will feel it "run away with you" if you do not finger rear brake. :yikes:

Ist how Krissi lost it at Appletreewick that day but it was perpendicular :lol:

Also -polish - choice of tyre .. all affect.

Quote:

I have lost my mother, cousin, two distant relatives and several friends to road accidents, so don't you dare question my motives.

ist like we read in Indy mate. Thos who want some form of vengenace shout loudest but they have never ever experienced for selves. We lost Ferdl und his brother close together. In the aftermath - I was a nearly und all non faults. Und none speeding -plane crash, defective lorry und ill driver are freak incidents und are once in lifetime for most - but they hit this family within 6 month of each other.

People are still riding around in nasty defective throwaway cars, drugged , drinking, raging, tailgating

Cylists are riding slip shod as well und none of the dangerous on the road either on bikes are in cars are being nabbed

because of blind faith in a speed camera!

Und KSI in Lancs und Cumbria continue to rise und KSI rate in DUrham iun N Yorks continue to fall. I wonder why! Not rocket science to work it out really - und by the way - do not come across many OTT speeders or tailgaters in either Durham or N Yorks when I driver there. Cannot ssay same for scamlands

Top

WildCat

Post subject: Re: Why drivers speed - again

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 02:08

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

basingwerk wrote:

PeterE wrote:

Quote:

When are you going to stop lying?

Look at the use of statistics here. I've whittled down the first claim. In that, the implication was that the chance of an injury through driving was around 150 to 1.

Now we find it’s worse than 3 to one. That's a heck of a change, so SafeSpeed says “so what, other things are dangerous too, like chopping garlic”.

You were one who mention chopping garlic. As matther of fat you use garlic press or you squash withg flat side of knife or back of tablespoon.

You blokey blokes :twisted:

... you know nothing. und you claim to be better at cooking than wimmin :shock:

Think about that – for one thing, it’s such an odd thing for a road safety campaigner to say? For another, is your average garlic chopping injury as bad as your average road traffic accident? Perhaps.

Quote:

But more dirt lies under his numbers. The chance of a particular driver being involved in an injury causing accident may (as he says) be once in 150 years, but each accident of that type must cause at least 1 injury and could cause many more. I would not be surprised if this worsens it to (not much better than) even odds that a particular driver is injured during his driving lifetime. A flip of the coin. And that is only injuries that are reported, ignoring a good deal of ones that are not!

If I fall und cut my knee when skating or skiing or if one of the kittens trips - - I do not report it - antiseptic wash, iodine und elastoplast usually fixes it.

Heck each game of rugby und footy land more ihn hospital every week not to mention drinking binges und gardening und FDIY in spring und summer .... :roll:

By the way - some of those prove fatal per Stats offices :roll:

Und more chance of dying that way than in car - per Stats Office. :roll:

Top

WildCat

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 02:13

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

Common sense wrote:

ngwerk"

Common sense wrote:

Don’t speed cameras also pander to the blamers. The parents who send their children off into the street without a care in the world yet demand a speed camera if their child is knocked down?

An oft repeated argument, i.e. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And the oft repeated reply is that the children themselves are not to blame, and the only people who can save their lives when it happens are good (slow?) drivers.

The only people who can save a child's life are good parenjts who instil sense of responsibility und old fashioned dollop of road sense und Green Cross Code into their children - und a frequenrt us of the NO word also work wonders too. :wink:

Top

WildCat

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 02:19

User

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940

Und lastly - drivers who drive according to COAST are rarely above a speed limit in a built up area but possibly blip above on motorway und very definitely test out their cars on Abahn

Last edited by WildCat on Tue Dec 06, 2005 02:23, edited 1 time in total.

Top

BottyBurp

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 02:23

Member

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands

basingwerk wrote:

Yes. One person who complies positively affects the behaviour of perhaps 10 other drivers behind, resulting in slower towns and villages and greater serenity and safety for walkers.

I disagree. Drivers who religiously stick to the posted speed limits when it is clearly safe to go faster, cause frustration in the following drivers, and a frustrated driver is more likely to make an error of judgment.

Top

Page 5 of 23

[ 455 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 23 Next

Board index » Discussion Forums » Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Jump to: