Thieving Government Bastards

[London Calling]

In fact Govt thieving bastards stats say:

if hit by a car driving at 40 mph 85% of pedestrians are killed, this drops to 45% at 30mph, and at 20mph it becomes 5%.

Now how do we sensibly get drivers to keep to the speed limit, Cos basically if any wank toss is driving above 40 mph in a built up area, he is going to kill whatever he hits.

Personally I want a blanket maximum of 20mph in built up areas. You will know the speed limit, no need to calculate changing speed as you go from one zone to another, Everyone will be encouraged to drive safely and I bet we will become less aggressive and be more careful drivers.

 

[bhaexpress]

In fact Govt thieving bastards stats say:

if hit by a car driving at 40 mph 85% of pedestrians are killed, this drops to 45% at 30mph, and at 20mph it becomes 5%.

Now how do we sensibly get drivers to keep to the speed limit, Cos basically if any wank toss is driving above 40 mph in a built up area, he is going to kill whatever he hits.

Personally I want a blanket maximum of 20mph in built up areas. You will know the speed limit, no need to calculate changing speed as you go from one zone to another, Everyone will be encouraged to drive safely and I bet we will become less aggressive and be more careful drivers.

Sorry but you're clearly overlooking those drivers who are, by their own admission, 'Good Drivers'.

 

[Franks Wild Years]

I'm still gob smacked at some of the comments on here.


I went through a red light, does that make me a bad driver.

Erm................... let me see.

 

[smellis]

I'm still gob smacked at some of the comments on here.


I went through a red light, does that make me a bad driver.

Erm................... let me see.

Going through a red light at 10 mph, studying a sign as you haven't a clue where to go on a complex road system that you've not driven before, in my opinion, does not make you reckless or dangerous, so maybe that shoukd have been re phrased?

Can all drivers on here honestly say they have NEVER in all thir lives made a driving mistake?

Does that mean, if so, that it was simply an error, or intentional?

Surely, it is those that are intentional that are bad drivers, wreckless, and dangerous?

 

[Billy the Fish]

In fact Govt thieving bastards stats say:

if hit by a car driving at 40 mph 85% of pedestrians are killed, this drops to 45% at 30mph, and at 20mph it becomes 5%.

Now how do we sensibly get drivers to keep to the speed limit, Cos basically if any wank toss is driving above 40 mph in a built up area, he is going to kill whatever he hits.

Personally I want a blanket maximum of 20mph in built up areas. You will know the speed limit, no need to calculate changing speed as you go from one zone to another, Everyone will be encouraged to drive safely and I bet we will become less aggressive and be more careful drivers.

I'd like to see the source for those statistics. That is what it says on the advert, with their slogan being 'it's 30 for a reason', but that limit was set donkeys years ago and unless they had a crystal ball there's no way that they set it with modern cars and accident statistics in mind. I do however agree with the sentiment, although I feel that speed limits need to be rethought and place better. These days 30 is too much in some built up areas and needs to be 20, but I also see a lot of roads that could easily be put up to 40.

I think the abuse towads the steward is a bit unwarranted. I know where he is coming from, I do about 20-25k a year and speed all the time, when road conditions allow of course. In a new car 90mph on the motorway is perfectly safe, but I know it's breaking the law so I won't bleat about it if I'm caught.
I think there should be a variable speed limit on all motorways, with the upper limit set at 100mph, that way the limit would always, in theory, be consistant with the road conditions.

 

[Brovion]

I'd like to see the source for those statistics. That is what it says on the advert, with their slogan being 'it's 30 for a reason', but that limit was set donkeys years ago and unless they had a crystal ball there's no way that they set it with modern cars and accident statistics in mind. I do however agree with the sentiment, although I feel that speed limits need to be rethought and place better. These days 30 is too much in some built up areas and needs to be 20, but I also see a lot of roads that could easily be put up to 40.

I think the abuse towads the steward is a bit unwarranted. I know where he is coming from, I do about 20-25k a year and speed all the time, when road conditions allow of course. In a new car 90mph on the motorway is perfectly safe, but I know it's breaking the law so I won't bleat about it if I'm caught.
I think there should be a variable speed limit on all motorways, with the upper limit set at 100mph, that way the limit would always, in theory, be consistant with the road conditions.

I know where you're coming from and I 'sort of' agree with you - certainly with regard to variable limits, and I think all out-of-town limits could be upped by 10mph tomorrow with zero impact on road safety.. The problem is we all think what we do is ok and perfectly safe - and it's all the other stupid bastards who cause the accidents. For example I don't drink and drive but I do speed on motorways when conditions allow. My justification for that is I've been driving for 33 years, never had an accident, never had a speeding ticket, I used to do around 30k miles a year and I believe with my experience I can judge when it is 'safe' to exceed the limit.

The problem is in essence there is absolutely no difference between me and some 17 year old who's been driving a week, thinks it's ok to do 90 in a 40 limit because they can handle a car at speed, thinks nothing of steering with their knees as they're busy texting with one hand whilst swigging from a bottle of Jack Daniels with the other - which they only put down to inject some more heroin. "Yeah, it's ok, I know what I'm doing." We all think we know where to draw the line.

 

[El Presidente]

Sorry but you're clearly overlooking those drivers who are, by their own admission, 'Good Drivers'.

I think you will find that they also all read The Daily Express, and are also 'not racists' but wouldn't want a 'Paki' living next to them (just in case).

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Now, as i understand it speeding is now anti-social ? As bad as drink driving so why dont the Police patrol close to pubs near chucking out time ? Mug someone and you may get community service,and while i agree 'doing' say 40 in a 30 zone is asking for it,i fail to see whats i wrong on a clear day on a clear road driving alittle above the limit ?

 

[Franks Wild Years]

I think you will find that they also all read The Daily Express, and are also 'not racists' but wouldn't want a 'Paki' living next to them (just in case).

What ? Do you mean those law abiding citizens who will vote BNP because they're tough on crime ,disorder and anti social behaviour ?

 

[fatbadger]

I don't know. What is this country coming too, eh? The government isn't satisfied with taxing our lawful employment, they also want to tax our illegal activity. It's a bleedin' liberty, it is, an' make no mistake.

 

[London Calling]

I'd like to see the source for those statistics. That is what it says on the advert, with their slogan being 'it's 30 for a reason', but that limit was set donkeys years ago and unless they had a crystal ball there's no way that they set it with modern cars and accident statistics in mind. I do however agree with the sentiment, although I feel that speed limits need to be rethought and place better. These days 30 is too much in some built up areas and needs to be 20, but I also see a lot of roads that could easily be put up to 40.

I think the abuse towads the steward is a bit unwarranted. I know where he is coming from, I do about 20-25k a year and speed all the time, when road conditions allow of course. In a new car 90mph on the motorway is perfectly safe, but I know it's breaking the law so I won't bleat about it if I'm caught.
I think there should be a variable speed limit on all motorways, with the upper limit set at 100mph, that way the limit would always, in theory, be consistant with the road conditions.

Dept of Transport?

 

[London Calling]

Can't find my source from earlier, but punters will know I knock out these stats regularly, but from june the Times quotes thus

"Research from the Department for Transport indicates that 1 in 40 pedestrians struck by a car at 20mph dies, compared with 1 in 5 at 30mph. At 40mph the survival rate falls to 10 per cent. A 1mph cut in average vehicle speed reduces crash frequency by about 5 per cent."

Similar.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

A good driver would not drive at 90-100mph on a public road.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

How many drivers have been caught on a speed camera and fined / prosceuted for:- tail-gating, weaving and undertaking, driving while drunk or high on drugs, dangerous driving, driving unsafe or overloaded vehicles, or those who don't give the road there full attention such as when they use a mobile whilst operating their vehicle?

These are the true area that officials should be focusing on if they are serious about improving road safety and saving lives, and stop being obsessed with speeding drivers, most if not all drivers will speed at some point, whether deliberately or unintentionally.

Is it safer to travel at 45 in a 50mph zone just 2 feet behind the car in front, or for both cars to travel at 55 in a 50mph zone, but with a more than adequate braking and stopping distance between them?

Look at the official figures for causes of accidents and speed is makes up only a tiny percentage of those. The reason speed is targeted is that it is easier to catch and prosecute the driver, and also money can be made to go into the coffers of a Government that is obsessed with sqeezing every single penny that they can from people in this country to spend on headline grabbing, short-term schemes.

Surely it is just as easy to have a system / scheme in place that the authorities can use to catch and deal with dangerous drivers, whose actions are likely to lead to an accident which may result in death or serious injuries - a strategy that would make the roads even safer - having more traffic police, and start stopping and fining / prosecuting the truely dangerous drivers.

Begs the question, - how many drivers have recently been fined / prosecuted for those more dangerous (and becoming more common) offences?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

A good driver would not drive at 90-100mph on a public road.

Surely that would depend in which country you were in, a perfectly good and safe driver could drive at 100mph legally and safely in Germany on the Autobarn. -so yes they would and could

 

[Guy Fawkes]

In fact Govt thieving bastards stats say:

if hit by a car driving at 40 mph 85% of pedestrians are killed, this drops to 45% at 30mph, and at 20mph it becomes 5%.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics, - stats can be produced to support anything that you want to try to prove.

What are the circumstances behind each fatal accident? - do they get taken into account in these types of statistics. Could lowering the speed limit to 20 in built up areas ultimately lead to more accidents, because pedestrians become complacent about the road.

Often a cause of incidents with pedestrians involved in crashes is that the pedestrian isn't paying attention and steps out into the road infront of a vehicle, therefore wouldn't banning the following do as much for road safety as reducing the speed limit, the things being:- Banning I-pods / walkmans etc, Banning Mobile phone use while walkling alongside a road, or from talking to other people as they walk on a pavement, etc.... thus reducing the chance their actions causing the accident in the first place

If your thinking that sounds stupid, unfair and ott, then that is exactly the same as drivers would think about a blanket 20mph speed limit in all build up areas.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Surely that would depend in which country you were in, a perfectly good and safe driver could drive at 100mph legally and safely in Germany on the Autobarn. -so yes they would and could

Certain drugs are legal in various countries. It is lawful to have sex with people under 16 in various countries. Why not abibe by the rules set by the state. Why do you need to speed?

How many drivers have been caught on a speed camera and fined / prosceuted for:- tail-gating, weaving and undertaking, driving while drunk or high on drugs, dangerous driving, driving unsafe or overloaded vehicles, or those who don't give the road there full attention such as when they use a mobile whilst operating their vehicle?

These are the true area that officials should be focusing on if they are serious about improving road safety and saving lives, and stop being obsessed with speeding drivers, most if not all drivers will speed at some point, whether deliberately or unintentionally.

Er, have you missed the drink drive campaigns? Heavy sentences? Besides, how are the police obsessed with speeders? They set up a camera and it catches them without having to leave their desk or miss a street on their beat.

How do you propose they catch those that drive irresponsibly or dangerously?

Speeding is one of many factors when it comes to dangerous driving. But it should not be ignored.

You sound like a speeder. Do let me know when you hit the roads.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Often a cause of incidents with pedestrians involved in crashes is that the pedestrian isn't paying attention and steps out into the road infront of a vehicle.....

How about we stick to the speed limits and take human error into account, rather than shift the blame onto the pedestrian?

People make mistakes, but I am DAMN sure that most normal, concientious, caring and generous people would be willing to accept various speed limits if it meant that someone who made a mistake were to have an increased chance of survival, rather than whinge akin to a child who does not know better.

There is absolutely NO case in favour of speeding. I am surprised that there are so many ignoramuses on here that do not see otherwise.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

How about we stick to the speed limits and take human error into account, rather than shift the blame onto the pedestrian?

People make mistakes, but I am DAMN sure that most normal, concientious, caring and generous people would be willing to accept various speed limits if it meant that someone who made a mistake were to have an increased chance of survival, rather than whinge akin to a child who does not know better.

There is absolutely NO case in favour of speeding. I am surprised that there are so many ignoramuses on here that do not see otherwise.

So if people are sticking to the speed limit then there are no accidents? - I think not

 

[Barrel of Fun]

So if people are sticking to the speed limit then there are no accidents? - I think not

Of course there are still accidents, but surely you can't claim that if all speed limits were adhered to at all times, that there would be the same amount of accidents than if speeding was rife?

The speed limits set are not unreasonable. I really do not see the problem here.

Braking distances....

20 Mph = 40 Feet

30 Mph = 75 Feet

40 Mph = 120 Feet

50 Mph = 175 Feet

60 Mph = 240 Feet

70 Mph = 315 Feet

80 Mph = 400 Feet

Now give me a good example as to when it would be acceptable to travel above 30 mph in a built up area or buzzing along the motorway at 80 mph?