Tracks are entirely one-way
No fixed solid objects at the side of race tracks
No pedestrians
Increasingly sophisticated driver protection
Large reduction in the power of the F1 cars.
But they're still driving very, very fast though aren't they?
But they're still driving very, very fast though aren't they?
I thought such speeds meant automatic death?
Well yes, in a way. Car doing 100 mph hits pedestrian full-on: Result = automatic death (of pedestrian). Probability I'd guesstimate is around 99.9999% so yes, pretty automatic.
Drivers have better protection than pedestrians and so a better chance of survival (but the chances are still related to the speed).
The anti-speeding lobby can't have their cake and eat it.
Take this, for example:
Fully 90% of all licensed drivers speed at some point in their driving career; 75% admit to committing this offense regularly.
Most people agree that going 100 mph is foolhardy and will lead to disaster. The problem is that exceeding the speed limit by only 5 mph in the wrong place can be just as dangerous. Traffic engineers and local governments have determined the maximum speeds allowable for safe travel on the nation's roadways. Speeding is a deliberate and calculated behavior where the driver knows the risk but ignores the danger.
So, in theory, almost everyone should have an accident at some point because they speed and speeding is guaranteed to cause accidents.
Yet I just do not believe that 90% of drivers will have an accident in their lives, I doubt it's even 75% (even though they speed regularly).
I regularly break the speed limit. When I think about it, I'm pretty sure I break it - at least once - on every journey I make... yet I've never once been involved in an accident of any kind. Why not?
The anti-speeding lobby can't have their cake and eat it.
Take this, for example:
So, in theory, almost everyone should have an accident at some point because they speed and speeding is guaranteed to cause accidents.
Yet I just do not believe that 90% of drivers will have an accident in their lives, I doubt it's even 75% (even though they speed regularly).
I regularly break the speed limit. When I think about it, I'm pretty sure I break it - at least once - on every journey I make... yet I've never once been involved in an accident of any kind. Why not?
Luck perhaps ?
Why do you feel the need to boast that you are a criminal and are part of the epidemic of speeding ? Are you addicted ?
Are you one of those great drivers that love to speed only too jam on the breaks as soon as they see the yellow box then floor it as soon as you get past ?
Are you one of those great drivers that love to speed only too jam on the breaks as soon as they see the yellow box then floor it as soon as you get past ?
No, I like to drive using my brakes as lightly as possible - and such driving also wastes far too much highly taxed petrol for my liking.
Interesting that you harp on about my honest admission that, yes, I don't always travel below the posted speed limit, yet completely ignore that I've never once been involved in a crash or road accident.
I'd have thought you'd have been pleased that I'm one of the safer drivers on our roads
Firstly I believe speed cameras are not the best way to reduce the speed.
Last year I was flashed doing 58 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The road in question was a leafy country lane. It had a previous 60 MPH limit but was taken down to a 40 MPH by the local council. They did a bad job of resigning the road, not compliant to the Road Traffic Regulations act.
The signs that they did put up over a couple of years had become damaged, defaced and weathered. (The red rings around one of the signs had faded completely, one had turned green with weathering and one had been bent around)
So I contested the PCN and was taken to court by the Police / CPS. In a hearing lasting just over two hours I was found not guilty of speeding as the magistrates felt I did not have sufficient time and notification to adjust my speed accordingly and that the highways authority had not adhered to the laws governing roadsigns and the placements of them in the first place.
Now, two things sprung immediately to mind:
1) If they had put road calming measures such as chicanes, humps, barriers, etc then they would be far cheaper to run as there'd be virtually no maintenance, no calibration of equipment and therefore no running costs.
2) If the above traffic calming measures were used then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to speed. As opposed to a speed camera where at the expense of points and a fine a driver still speeds at the end of the day and could possibly kill someone.
If the relevant highways authority has not adhered to the law (Road Traffic Act, Road Traffic Regulations Act and the Trafic Signs and General Directions (TSRGD 2002) then the limit imposed is illegal and the driver CANNOT be prosecuted. If a traffic officer does not carry out the correct calibration and set up of his mobile laser camera then again the reading as far as the courts are concerned is null and void.
A group of learned people sat down and worked out what gives the motorist, travelling at a given speed, the best chance WITHOUT DOUBT to adjust their speed accordingly. This gets approved and is set as statute law. If those conditions are not met then the motorist does not have a fair and reasonable chance of obeying the law.
I firmly believe that the majority of speed cameras do not work, are poorly sited and are just an easy way of making money out of the motorist.
Remember that the local councils have to fun the running of the cameras but it's the government who get the money from them. Hence the councils not being able to afford to run them as they are not making them any money.
To all the people saying "if you don't break the law then you have nothing to worry about" let me say this -
First of all, most motorists who get caught for speeding did not set out to arrogantly break the law by speeding.
Some people get caught speeding like I did because of poor signage not clear to them. It's a bit like prosecuting someone for walking on the grass when your sign said "Keep Off The Grass" but yet your sign was broken and only visible from one direction. Hardly fair and legal.
Secondly, people who go a few miles an hour over the limit because they didn't realise is not worth giving them 3 points all the time for and a fine. It's hardly the crime of the century.
You get people responding to that saying "you are in charge of a potential killng maching, etc". People say you should know your speed all time and be in control of it.
Well, imagine if you were told you should always know what your child is doing and where they are and if they got so much as a splinter or a scratch then that would be 3 points and a fine. If that happens more than 4 times you'd get Social Services in who'd take your children away from you.
It's about imposing machine-like tollerances on human beings. A person cannot guarantee that their child will never get a cut, graze, fall over or anything and yet as a parent you should be able to be in control of your child 24/7 and guarantee their safety.
Well it's the same in cars. You can't impose that sort of control on drivers. And yet we do.
I'm glad cameras are being switched off. I'd like to see better ways of restricting the speeds of problem roads. Then speeding becomes physically impossible whereas with cameras speeding is still possible at the expense of a few points on your licence.
Indeed. I'd love to know what the motivation here is. I've no doubt we'll not be told though!
It was the BBC link that you posted I was quoting from, You know the one that said that one third of all road deaths are speed related or words to that effect.
It was the BBC link that you posted I was quoting from, You know the one that said that one third of all road deaths are speed related or words to that effect.
This is more accurate:
By comparisson, exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for the conditions were reported as a contributory factor in 26 per cent of all fatal accidents,
So, we can be fairly sure that exceeding the speed limit was only a contributary factor in far less than 26% of fatal accidents and less than 15 per cent of all accidents involving injury (according to the official stats).
This is why it's so laughable when people demonise speeding to such hyperbolic extremes.
Simply 'not looking' is a much greater cause of accidents (32%), yet it's almost never discussed.
I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking that the evidence proves that it's all those 'safe' drivers who never speed that are actually the biggest problem - because, clearly, they're responsible for the vast majority of deaths.
Firstly I believe speed cameras are not the best way to reduce the speed.
Last year I was flashed doing 58 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The road in question was a leafy country lane. It had a previous 60 MPH limit but was taken down to a 40 MPH by the local council. They did a bad job of resigning the road, not compliant to the Road Traffic Regulations act.
The signs that they did put up over a couple of years had become damaged, defaced and weathered. (The red rings around one of the signs had faded completely, one had turned green with weathering and one had been bent around)
<snip>.
You must of been so shocked by the sudden drop in speed on a road that has had signs for a couple of years
With all the reasons that an accident can occur even at your new 26% is still very high, And why speed on public roads ? have you not heard of track days ? They are great fun and I know I have never had an accident at one.
Why do you feel the need to boast that you are a criminal and are part of the epidemic of speeding ? Are you addicted ?
Why is it boasting - and not just being honest.
I defy any driver who makes regular journeys to swear down that they have never - or dont ever break the speed limit - no matter for how short a time or by how small a margin.
I bet most drivers slow down just a little bit after the sign when the limit is decreasing, speed up a little bit before an increase in limit or creep ever so slightly over when the road is completely clear (e.g. on a clear dual carriageway which carries a 30mph limit).
You must of been so shocked by the sudden drop in speed on a road that has had signs for a couple of years
I had never been on that road before. When the Notice of Intended Prosecution came through I went back to the road as I was sure I hadn't missed the signs.
I took loads of photos and my brother in law sat in the passenger seat with a video camera and videoed the route and view I had from the car windscreen.
I'm happy to put my hands up and say "it's a fair cop guv" if I'm caught fair and square.
But this to me was really really unfair so I did lots of research and photograped the road and the signs and markings and stood my ground as I felt I had been not just unfairly prosecuted but illegally as well.
Er, because it deals in specific percentages from official statistics, rather than generalisations. Um, it's more accurate because it's more accurate.
Anyway, 26%, 33% - it's still the minority percentage, by quite some margin. You seem not to care though. It's ALL that matters to you, for some unknown reason.
With all the reasons that an accident can occur even at your new 26% is still very high,
No, 26% isn't very high, it's basically 1/4 - and even then that's not percentages where the speed limit has been broken (I notice you ignored that). You seem wholly unconcerned about the 75% causes of death, to the point you keep brushing them aside to return to the minority cause. Why is that?
And why speed on public roads ? have you not heard of track days ? They are great fun and I know I have never had an accident at one
How odd. I don't find speeding 'fun' and I certainly don't feel the need to drive fast around tracks. I simply drive in a manner that gets me from A to B at the least expense, without being involved in an accident, during a reasonable time period (congestion, roadworks and accidents - mainly caused by people driving under the speed limit - not withstanding).
BTW, I know I have never had an accident on any road. Odd how you've not been involved in an accident whilst driving fast on a track though, surely it must be very difficult not to crash whilst, you know, going a bit fast and that.
I had never been on that road before. When the Notice of Intended Prosecution came through I went back to the road as I was sure I hadn't missed the signs.
I took loads of photos and my brother in law sat in the passenger seat with a video camera and videoed the route and view I had from the car windscreen.
I'm happy to put my hands up and say "it's a fair cop guv" if I'm caught fair and square.
But this to me was really really unfair so I did lots of research and photograped the road and the signs and markings and stood my ground as I felt I had been not just unfairly prosecuted but illegally as well.
Forgive me for being so cynical but when you read dedicated forums designed just for how to avoid prosecution it's hard to tell when you read a perfect story to tell exactly who is telling the truth and hence I added the tongue out emote at the end.
Forgive me for being so cynical but when you read dedicated forums designed just for how to avoid prosecution it's hard to tell when you read a perfect story to tell exactly who is telling the truth and hence I added the tongue out emote at the end.
No probelm! I too hate people who know they are guilty but yet try to get away with it.
But the point of my post was that not all people who speed are guilty. There are sometimes other circumstances, such as in this case an illegal limit imposed, that catch drivers out.
Also, I disagree with machine-like tollerances and accuracies imposed on human beings. You wouldn't impose those sort of conditions on parents so why drivers?
Also, as I said before I think there are far, far better ways of controlling the speed of a road than cameras. Cameras still allow the driver to speed. Do 60 MPH in a 40 zone and get flashed then you have still done the speed and possibly put lives at risk.
Take the cameras away, which removes the ongoing cost of maintenance, calibration and film/checking and put in chicanes and other obstacles then the speed limit is physically reduced, lives are saved and there's virtually no running costs.
Er, because it deals in specific percentages from official statistics, rather than generalisations. Um, it's more accurate because it's more accurate.
Well I was quoting the RAC man from your provided link so I guess they are the guilty party for what you claim are "generalisations" And you was quoting ? And any link for your oft reiterated 95% of accidents as well ? Not forgetting that accidents would include things like car park dinks and vandalism ect neither normally involve speeding or cause death.
And any link for your oft reiterated 95% of accidents as well?
I genuinely do not remember. It may have been a driver's oriented website. However, it likely is derived from the fact that less than 26% of fatal accidents involve illegal speeding and less than 15% of accidents involving injury occur.
It's obvious that the vast majority of accidents where nobody is injured will not involve illegal speeds, mainly as these tend to happen in car parks, town centre roads etc.
A small minority of accidents are fatal and the vast majority of minor accidents involve no injury - therefore, when you actually take all accidents where illegal speeding is the sole factor (not just contributary) then it seems highly likely to be around 5% or so. I can't see how it could possibly be much higher.
I'm sure, if it were, the government would have been only to keen to tell us. In fact, that they seem very coy to release the actual statisitc:
Percentage of ALL accidents caused specifically due to illegal speeding
Take the cameras away, which removes the ongoing cost of maintenance, calibration and film/checking and put in chicanes and other obstacles then the speed limit is physically reduced, lives are saved and there's virtually no running costs.
I agree that keeping the speed down does save lives but I'm not convinced that some of your ideas work that well, I live on a road that has pinch points for traffic calming and all they have achieved is for those that want to speed to race through the pinch points to beat the car coming from the other direction.
Comments
To be fair though that was a freak accident, a small spring came off another car and hit him in the head.
Let's not get carried away grasping at straws here.
Firstly that post was tongue in cheek and secondly don't start comparing road accident with racetrack accidents, two totally different enviroments.
But they're still driving very, very fast though aren't they?
I thought such speeds meant automatic death?
Well yes, in a way. Car doing 100 mph hits pedestrian full-on: Result = automatic death (of pedestrian). Probability I'd guesstimate is around 99.9999% so yes, pretty automatic.
Drivers have better protection than pedestrians and so a better chance of survival (but the chances are still related to the speed).
just what i was thinking
The anti-speeding lobby can't have their cake and eat it.
Take this, for example:
So, in theory, almost everyone should have an accident at some point because they speed and speeding is guaranteed to cause accidents.
Yet I just do not believe that 90% of drivers will have an accident in their lives, I doubt it's even 75% (even though they speed regularly).
I regularly break the speed limit. When I think about it, I'm pretty sure I break it - at least once - on every journey I make... yet I've never once been involved in an accident of any kind. Why not?
As I've mentioned in this thread, a good driver should never receive a speeding ticket, regardless of how many times they break the speed limit.
Luck perhaps ?
Why do you feel the need to boast that you are a criminal and are part of the epidemic of speeding ? Are you addicted ?
Are you one of those great drivers that love to speed only too jam on the breaks as soon as they see the yellow box then floor it as soon as you get past ?
Criminal? Epidemic? Now you're just getting all emotional and silly.
Some might say you have "a bit of a bee in your bonnet" over this.:D
That simply must be it! How else could a person who breaks the speed limit not have had a crash?
BTW, I notice you don't actually have any idea - or even question - how fast I choose to drive. No surprises there though.
Boast? How is relaying the reality of a situation 'boasting'?
Addicted? What now?
No, I like to drive using my brakes as lightly as possible - and such driving also wastes far too much highly taxed petrol for my liking.
Interesting that you harp on about my honest admission that, yes, I don't always travel below the posted speed limit, yet completely ignore that I've never once been involved in a crash or road accident.
I'd have thought you'd have been pleased that I'm one of the safer drivers on our roads
Indeed. I'd love to know what the motivation here is. I've no doubt we'll not be told though!
Firstly I believe speed cameras are not the best way to reduce the speed.
Last year I was flashed doing 58 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The road in question was a leafy country lane. It had a previous 60 MPH limit but was taken down to a 40 MPH by the local council. They did a bad job of resigning the road, not compliant to the Road Traffic Regulations act.
The signs that they did put up over a couple of years had become damaged, defaced and weathered. (The red rings around one of the signs had faded completely, one had turned green with weathering and one had been bent around)
So I contested the PCN and was taken to court by the Police / CPS. In a hearing lasting just over two hours I was found not guilty of speeding as the magistrates felt I did not have sufficient time and notification to adjust my speed accordingly and that the highways authority had not adhered to the laws governing roadsigns and the placements of them in the first place.
Now, two things sprung immediately to mind:
1) If they had put road calming measures such as chicanes, humps, barriers, etc then they would be far cheaper to run as there'd be virtually no maintenance, no calibration of equipment and therefore no running costs.
2) If the above traffic calming measures were used then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to speed. As opposed to a speed camera where at the expense of points and a fine a driver still speeds at the end of the day and could possibly kill someone.
If the relevant highways authority has not adhered to the law (Road Traffic Act, Road Traffic Regulations Act and the Trafic Signs and General Directions (TSRGD 2002) then the limit imposed is illegal and the driver CANNOT be prosecuted. If a traffic officer does not carry out the correct calibration and set up of his mobile laser camera then again the reading as far as the courts are concerned is null and void.
A group of learned people sat down and worked out what gives the motorist, travelling at a given speed, the best chance WITHOUT DOUBT to adjust their speed accordingly. This gets approved and is set as statute law. If those conditions are not met then the motorist does not have a fair and reasonable chance of obeying the law.
I firmly believe that the majority of speed cameras do not work, are poorly sited and are just an easy way of making money out of the motorist.
Remember that the local councils have to fun the running of the cameras but it's the government who get the money from them. Hence the councils not being able to afford to run them as they are not making them any money.
To all the people saying "if you don't break the law then you have nothing to worry about" let me say this -
First of all, most motorists who get caught for speeding did not set out to arrogantly break the law by speeding.
Some people get caught speeding like I did because of poor signage not clear to them. It's a bit like prosecuting someone for walking on the grass when your sign said "Keep Off The Grass" but yet your sign was broken and only visible from one direction. Hardly fair and legal.
Secondly, people who go a few miles an hour over the limit because they didn't realise is not worth giving them 3 points all the time for and a fine. It's hardly the crime of the century.
You get people responding to that saying "you are in charge of a potential killng maching, etc". People say you should know your speed all time and be in control of it.
Well, imagine if you were told you should always know what your child is doing and where they are and if they got so much as a splinter or a scratch then that would be 3 points and a fine. If that happens more than 4 times you'd get Social Services in who'd take your children away from you.
It's about imposing machine-like tollerances on human beings. A person cannot guarantee that their child will never get a cut, graze, fall over or anything and yet as a parent you should be able to be in control of your child 24/7 and guarantee their safety.
Well it's the same in cars. You can't impose that sort of control on drivers. And yet we do.
I'm glad cameras are being switched off. I'd like to see better ways of restricting the speeds of problem roads. Then speeding becomes physically impossible whereas with cameras speeding is still possible at the expense of a few points on your licence.
It was the BBC link that you posted I was quoting from, You know the one that said that one third of all road deaths are speed related or words to that effect.
This is more accurate:
So, we can be fairly sure that exceeding the speed limit was only a contributary factor in far less than 26% of fatal accidents and less than 15 per cent of all accidents involving injury (according to the official stats).
This is why it's so laughable when people demonise speeding to such hyperbolic extremes.
Simply 'not looking' is a much greater cause of accidents (32%), yet it's almost never discussed.
I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking that the evidence proves that it's all those 'safe' drivers who never speed that are actually the biggest problem - because, clearly, they're responsible for the vast majority of deaths.
No wonder they attempt to shift the blame.
You must of been so shocked by the sudden drop in speed on a road that has had signs for a couple of years
And the reason it is more accurate is ?
With all the reasons that an accident can occur even at your new 26% is still very high, And why speed on public roads ? have you not heard of track days ? They are great fun and I know I have never had an accident at one.
Why is it boasting - and not just being honest.
I defy any driver who makes regular journeys to swear down that they have never - or dont ever break the speed limit - no matter for how short a time or by how small a margin.
I bet most drivers slow down just a little bit after the sign when the limit is decreasing, speed up a little bit before an increase in limit or creep ever so slightly over when the road is completely clear (e.g. on a clear dual carriageway which carries a 30mph limit).
I had never been on that road before. When the Notice of Intended Prosecution came through I went back to the road as I was sure I hadn't missed the signs.
I took loads of photos and my brother in law sat in the passenger seat with a video camera and videoed the route and view I had from the car windscreen.
I'm happy to put my hands up and say "it's a fair cop guv" if I'm caught fair and square.
But this to me was really really unfair so I did lots of research and photograped the road and the signs and markings and stood my ground as I felt I had been not just unfairly prosecuted but illegally as well.
Er, because it deals in specific percentages from official statistics, rather than generalisations. Um, it's more accurate because it's more accurate.
Anyway, 26%, 33% - it's still the minority percentage, by quite some margin. You seem not to care though. It's ALL that matters to you, for some unknown reason.
No, 26% isn't very high, it's basically 1/4 - and even then that's not percentages where the speed limit has been broken (I notice you ignored that). You seem wholly unconcerned about the 75% causes of death, to the point you keep brushing them aside to return to the minority cause. Why is that?
How odd. I don't find speeding 'fun' and I certainly don't feel the need to drive fast around tracks. I simply drive in a manner that gets me from A to B at the least expense, without being involved in an accident, during a reasonable time period (congestion, roadworks and accidents - mainly caused by people driving under the speed limit - not withstanding).
BTW, I know I have never had an accident on any road. Odd how you've not been involved in an accident whilst driving fast on a track though, surely it must be very difficult not to crash whilst, you know, going a bit fast and that.
Forgive me for being so cynical but when you read dedicated forums designed just for how to avoid prosecution it's hard to tell when you read a perfect story to tell exactly who is telling the truth and hence I added the tongue out emote at the end.
No probelm! I too hate people who know they are guilty but yet try to get away with it.
But the point of my post was that not all people who speed are guilty. There are sometimes other circumstances, such as in this case an illegal limit imposed, that catch drivers out.
Also, I disagree with machine-like tollerances and accuracies imposed on human beings. You wouldn't impose those sort of conditions on parents so why drivers?
Also, as I said before I think there are far, far better ways of controlling the speed of a road than cameras. Cameras still allow the driver to speed. Do 60 MPH in a 40 zone and get flashed then you have still done the speed and possibly put lives at risk.
Take the cameras away, which removes the ongoing cost of maintenance, calibration and film/checking and put in chicanes and other obstacles then the speed limit is physically reduced, lives are saved and there's virtually no running costs.
Well I was quoting the RAC man from your provided link so I guess they are the guilty party for what you claim are "generalisations" And you was quoting ? And any link for your oft reiterated 95% of accidents as well ? Not forgetting that accidents would include things like car park dinks and vandalism ect neither normally involve speeding or cause death.
Correct, glad you noticed.
The official statistics released by the UK Government Department for Transport (DfT). I'm surprised you didn't notice.
I genuinely do not remember. It may have been a driver's oriented website. However, it likely is derived from the fact that less than 26% of fatal accidents involve illegal speeding and less than 15% of accidents involving injury occur.
It's obvious that the vast majority of accidents where nobody is injured will not involve illegal speeds, mainly as these tend to happen in car parks, town centre roads etc.
A small minority of accidents are fatal and the vast majority of minor accidents involve no injury - therefore, when you actually take all accidents where illegal speeding is the sole factor (not just contributary) then it seems highly likely to be around 5% or so. I can't see how it could possibly be much higher.
I'm sure, if it were, the government would have been only to keen to tell us. In fact, that they seem very coy to release the actual statisitc:
Percentage of ALL accidents caused specifically due to illegal speeding
...seems to speak volumes.
Indeed, you're now arguing my case for me. Thanks
I agree that keeping the speed down does save lives but I'm not convinced that some of your ideas work that well, I live on a road that has pinch points for traffic calming and all they have achieved is for those that want to speed to race through the pinch points to beat the car coming from the other direction.