GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: tinman on 31 March 2004, 18:41
-
Back to the speeding thread which is mysteriously locked.
Moving along from the original "i got a speeding ticket - its gonna screw my life" message and onto the facts regarding speeding.
The number of deaths on the roads fell every year until 1997-1998 when Tony Blur got into power. It levelled off at around 3,500 deaths each year.
One of the wonderful things OUR government did in 97 was give carte blanche to every person with an opinion access to our roads and what we can do to them.
So we now have loads of 20mph zones, reduced parking, obstacles in the road, and cameras to name but a few.
After all this was done - how many lives are being lost on the road:
Still 3500 or thereabouts every year.
There are some worrying trends in this 3,500 per year. For instance, before 97 only 100 children were being killed. It is now over 200. The London Ambulance Service has said that speed humps are killing 500 people a year due to the reduced speed of getting them to hospital. What is worrying about the London Ambulance Service - is the possibility that their name implies only the region of London.
If this was spread over the rest of the country then 500 becomes 5000, although I will accept that the problem will be in large cities, and so is only probably killing 2000 patients a years extra.
So in every sense of the word - our roads are now less safe.
Does speed kill. No. Inappropriate speed kills.
We all know what inappropriate is, and we've all done it once. But we were lucky - someone didn't step out in front of us, or pull out from a junction and we got away with it. So before any goody two shoes steps forwards and pretends they are saint - please, save the post.
Is speed a killer - yes and no. There is a 85 percentile graph at www.atb.org.uk which explains why speed limits should not be set too low or too high. It also shows why anyone that anyone who does not have a grasp of maths shouldnt be involved in road saftey.
What is ultimately distugsting is the fact that the powers that be are still looking for the magical forumla to stop road deaths, and asking the question:
"what are we doing wrong?"
When you look at the figures, and the year on year improvement in road deaths until 97, the question should be:
"what were we doing right? And how can we do it better?"
And for anyone brave enough to get the road kill figures from other countries - you'll discover UK roads are the safest, even today, than any other country at anytime in the last 100 years.
Regards,
Tin
-
Well done Tinman :)
-
i agrea fully , but before 1997 Tony blair was'nt making any money, they would'nt like that would they, its all politics bull
-
I concur.
At busy times in built up areas, 30 mph (or even 20mph) zones might be appropriate. But cameras in sneaky places, and stupid speed bumps are just out of order!!! There's loads of both round where I am.
Having said that, some speed limits should be raised. 70 or 80 mph is sometimes safe to do on long straights on country roads, and 70 is definitely too low for motorways. When I drive home on the M40 towards London every night absolutely no-one is driving under 70. In fact most poeple do nearly a ton. ;D
Rich
P.S. I hope I don't get grounded on a speedbump when I get my car lowered!! :P
-
the 30mph speed limit was introduced back in 1930's!
70 years on and most roads which were higher than this are coming down to this speed despite having ever safer cars / braking systems..
fat is the government wants us out of our cars!
if a kid gets knocked over its there own fault for running in the road ive seen a girl walking in the road shouting knock me over!!! :D thats the mentality of kids / people theses days!!
yes car crashes at higher speeds are nasty but how many do you see not alot thats because at 60mph most people have and drive with care.......
but its theses other type of people which cause accidents being whombats...... hog fast lane doing 40mph! in a 70mph zone!!!!!
and despite all the speed limits coming down accidents go up its a proven fact ! i have evidence!!!!!!
http://www.abd.org.uk/suffolk_accident_trends.htm (http://www.abd.org.uk/suffolk_accident_trends.htm)
or see below!!!
Suffolk County Council introduced 450 new 30MPH speed limits at the end of 1995, many of them on roads where no driver would expect to see such a low speed limit. Most of these roads were previously NSLA (National Speed Limit Applies), some have just one or two houses alongside them, others pass near to a village but not through it.
The graphs below show the trends for various categories of accident before (blue) and after (red) the introduction of the 30MPH speed limits.
The equations shown are for the linear trendline which averages out fluctuations each year to indicate how the figures are changing over the longer period. A negative multiple of x indicates that the casualty rate (y) is reducing each year (x), a positive figure indicates that it is increasing.
fatalities!!!!!
(http://www.abd.org.uk/images/graphs/suffolk_fatal.gif)
Before the introduction of the 30 limits, fatalities were reducing by an average of just over 6 per year. Since the introduction of 30 limits, fatalities are increasing by about 1 per year. In 1996 when the limits were imposed fatalities jumped from 35 to 59, a massive increase of 69%, and the worst figure for six years
slight injuries!!!!!
(http://www.abd.org.uk/images/graphs/suffolk_slight.gif)
This is the most damming of all, and it is obvious that the 30MPH limits are to blame. Before the introduction of the 30 limits, slight injuries were reducing by an average of about 87 per year. Not only did slight injuries increase by a massive 272 (12%) following the introduction of the 30 limits; but since then they have been increasing by an average of 50 per year.
this proves low speed limits are s***! and dont work!
where theres a blame theres a claim dont help!!!!!! >:(
accident helplines etc etc...............
-
Your graphs are quite interesting.
Apparently there is an ongoing argument that all crash statistics should be made public.
At the moment you need 4 fatalities within 1km of a camera, or something like that. However, because we don't know the circumstances around the 4 fatalities, there are suspicions that cameras are placed without taking into consideration the fatalities.
For instance. If a minibus drives off the road and kills its 4 occupants, and the driver was 10 times over the limit - there you have your 4 fatalities.
So the argument being put against the authorities is that because they wont release the actual circumstances surrounding these accidents, we cannot guage whether the camera is there to make a road safer, or to raise cash.
Interesting huh?
Tin
-
But at the end of the day, most are "accidents" caused generally by human error. Which can never be irradicated. We may just be having a few clumsy years.
-
if a member of your family was killed by a dangerous driver would you want it to be considered an 'accident'. if someone is driving illegally for whatever reason, in my opinion it cannot be classed as an accident.
it is a selfish, deliberate and stupid act to drive a car without consideration of others that might be using the road and thus not an 'accident'
3500 deaths each year is a hell of alot of accidents. just for some perspective of how many that is, it is the equivalent
5 Lockerbie disasters,
plus 140 Hatfield disasters
plus 50 Paddington train crashes
plus the Concorde disaster in Paris
about time for a public enquiry me thinks!!
-
if a member of your family was killed by a dangerous driver would you want it to be considered an 'accident'. if someone is driving illegally for whatever reason, in my opinion it cannot be classed as an accident.
it is a selfish, deliberate and stupid act to drive a car without consideration of others that might be using the road and thus not an 'accident'
3500 deaths each year is a hell of alot of accidents. just for some perspective of how many that is, it is the equivalent
but this is the problem i mentioned earlier - the causes and events surrounding fatal accidents are not put into the public domain.
so the question becomes - how many fatalities were the result of dangerous driving? how many fatalities were caused by illegal drivers?
we havent got the answers, and until we get these answers, then I for one am going to continue thinking that accidents are exactly that - accidents.
i would also suggest that because these facts are not in the public domain, that they are indeed accidents.
at the end of the day - why let let facts spoil a perfectly good road saftey campaign?
Tin
-
on another note.
on the road outside my house, there have been 4 deaths in the last 3-4 years. by rights, we should a speed camera near our house.
the first two deaths were a couple of young ladies who met with two pillocks racing down the road. they were killed instantly. the pillock are now serving fairly stiff sentences.
the second two deaths was a woman who they think lent down to pick up her mobile phone whilst overtaking a bus. She hit an oncoming bus and she and her child were both killed.
Would a speed camera, or a 20mph zone of saved any of these people? Would a speed limiter of even saved the second set of deaths.
It is sad when this happens, but we need road saftey campaigns based on facts and not sentiment.
Tin
-
3500 deaths is nothing compared to 27 million motorists!!!!!
its down to people being brianwashed by government
officials!
-
but this is the problem i mentioned earlier - the causes and events surrounding fatal accidents are not put into the public domain.
court reports???????
so the question becomes - how many fatalities were the result of dangerous driving? how many fatalities were caused by illegal drivers?
whats the difference both of these examples are breaking the law. is it possible to accidently drive dangerously or accidentally drive illegally
we havent got the answers, and until we get these answers, then I for one am going to continue thinking that accidents are exactly that - accidents.
thats because you have no idea what pain road deaths can cause, if i had no conscience about my lack of driving ability when i kill someone i will call it a accident to
i would also suggest that because these facts are not in the public domain, that they are indeed accidents.
i could name many court cases very much in public domain that still fulfil your accident criteria
at the end of the day - why let let facts spoil a perfectly good road saftey campaign?
road saftey shouldnt need facts, what it needs is serious responsibility to be taken by ignorant road users
-
just to repeat the words used by judge brown in the case of r v clayton (2001) HL. where the driver although admitted driving up to speeds of 85mph before killing his passenger was found not guilty of death by dangerous driving
' a car is not a toy and the roads are not a playground'
please leave out the 'accident' stuff. it can be extrememly offensive
-
but this is the problem i mentioned earlier - the causes and events surrounding fatal accidents are not put into the public domain.
court reports???????
have a look at http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/394.htm
so the question becomes - how many fatalities were the result of dangerous driving? how many fatalities were caused by illegal drivers?
whats the difference both of these examples are breaking the law. is it possible to accidently drive dangerously or accidentally drive illegally
they are very different things. and they should be tackled in different ways.
if there is a cause to think that dangerous driving is leading to a large percentage of deaths, then you will want to work on increasing driver education. if the problem is unlicensed drivers, then you may want to introduce a custodial solution and greater detection methods.
we havent got the answers, and until we get these answers, then I for one am going to continue thinking that accidents are exactly that - accidents.
thats because you have no idea what pain road deaths can cause, if i had no conscience about my lack of driving ability when i kill someone i will call it a accident to
some accidents are exactly that. there are occasions when our eyes are not on the road immediately in front of us. we get distracted. someone does something totally unexpected - like step in fornt of you.
accidents really happen.
but in our "blames direct" society - there is no such thing as an accident.
because of "blames direct" we have removed all senses of proportion. so if speed kills - then we should drive slower - regardless of the fact that maybe - just maybe it was excessive speed by a dangerous driver that caused the accident in the first place.
and that is the crux of the problem. we are not using the facts in front of us to create policy.
i would also suggest that because these facts are not in the public domain, that they are indeed accidents.
i could name many court cases very much in public domain that still fulfil your accident criteria
at the end of the day - why let let facts spoil a perfectly good road saftey campaign?
road saftey shouldnt need facts, what it needs is serious responsibility to be taken by ignorant road users
road saftey and every possible law that we make in this country needs facts to back it up. what sort of land would we live in if policy was decided without recourse to a simple fact?
facts are very important.
Tin
-
just to repeat the words used by judge brown in the case of r v clayton (2001) HL. where the driver although admitted driving up to speeds of 85mph before killing his passenger was found not guilty of death by dangerous driving
' a car is not a toy and the roads are not a playground'
please leave out the 'accident' stuff. it can be extrememly offensive
why?
I'll talk about accident as much as I want thanks. i've been involved in my fair few.
If the person got off a death by dangerous driving charge then please contact the CPS who you should vent your spleen at for handling a case badly rather than me. Someone got the case wrong.
But I dont see why that should dictate road saftey policy.
If the speed limit was 20, would the driver of the car still be doing 85? Probably.
So whilst the rest of us languish along at 20mph, people will still die at 85mph because we simply dont look at the facts.
Tin
-
why?
I'll talk about accident as much as I want thanks. i've been involved in my fair few.
ok if u like offending people go for it. i prefer to discuss things like an adult. if u have been involved in a fair few accidents then that will explain why u call them accidents
If the person got off a death by dangerous driving charge then please contact the CPS who you should vent your spleen at for handling a case badly rather than me. Someone got the case wrong.
Ever heard of Double Jeopardy??? u cant be tried for the same offence twice. This case is just one of many so called 'accidents' i thought i should give as an example of 'in the public domain'
But I dont see why that should dictate road saftey policy.
do u not think tougher penalties would deter driving like an idiot and causing so many so called 'accidents'
So whilst the rest of us languish along at 20mph, people will still die at 85mph because we simply dont look at the facts.
if people kept speed for the open roads and race tracks instead of country roads and built up areas we would have no need for speed limits
perhaps as a substitute to accident i would like to see road crash or road death. i can understand why u think they should be called accidents since u have so many of them
-
Why are you getting so angry?
My advice of venting your spleen to the CPS wont get a retrial that i know thanks, but someone got the case wrong and you obviously want an explanation - I cannot give that explanation.
I thoroughly agree that events of the one you describe require much tougher sentences. I think the statute books should make some cases of death by dangerous driving into manslaughter charges, because thats what it is.
But slaving everyone to drive at 20mph will not prevent this from happening again in the future.
If you are offended by my use of the word accident, then I apologise unreservedly.
Heaven help me when i get to words starting with B. Got a whole alphabet to go, doh. If you'd like to publish a list off offensive words I'd gladly try and avoid them in the future to save you from any further stress.
Tin
-
im not angry tin - but yes i do feel using the word accident to describe deaths of thousands of people a year on the roads offensive because its obviously more serious than an accident.
im no angel on the road, but i dont drive like a maniac with friends in the car or during the day. if i want a buzz i go out when the roads are empty or out of built up areas.
i think speed enforcement is necessary to save innocent lives, if a speed camera stops one death in the next 20 years its got to be worthwhile
-
i think speed enforcement is necessary to save innocent lives, if a speed camera stops one death in the next 20 years its got to be worthwhile
but this the problem surely. depite a huge increase in prosecutions - are the roads any safer?
there is an awful lot of evidence that shows it has made zero difference.
so why are there thouands of cameras - might they be something to do with collecting extra taxes?
question - have you ever braked for a camera?
Tin
-
I would like to add.
When have you actually seen a camera outside a school?
You don't
Why are cameras placed on fast moving roads that high volumes of traffic use?
To earn revenue.
I'm with tin on this, cameras earn cash, plain and simple.
-
3500 deaths is nothing compared to 27 million motorists!!!!!
its down to people being brianwashed by government
officials!
That's a bit harsh, mate. 3500 deaths a year is a lot. I know its only about 0.01% (1 ten-thousandth) of the total motorists, but its still too much.
If 1 in ten thousand people who got on a plane died a year, no-one would get on one. (I bet someone will come up with a stat that says this many people do die on planes, but hey, I'm trying to make an analogy).
Killing someone by dangerous driving its not an accident. I break the odd speed limit, but not when there's people about, or in built up areas. If I killed someone when I was breaking a speed limit, or not watching what I was doing, i WOULD be guilty dangerous driving.
-
^ yup agree with that :)
but theres many angles.. you can be driving dangerously without being over the limit, plus theres things like drunk/drug driving..
but accidents do happen.. its not ALL down to speeding drivers like these partnerships try yo make out.
there aren't many fixed cameras around here.
all the ones that are, are in stupid places.
for example, the main one here is on the entrance to town on a dual carriageway. its on a 50 limit after a set of lights at a large crossroads, most people can't even even get to 50 when they pull away from the lights.
the reason its there is because in about '94 a couple girls were killed when the car they were in shot through a over the junction shortly after it was changed from being a large roundabout to how it is now.
problem is.. the camera is in the wrong place to have prevented that accident anyways...
plus what happens is this.. when the lights aren't red, people fly through, hit the anchors to coast through at 50, then once clear put their foot down...
it acheives nothing, i'd be amazed if anyones been caught there in the last year or 2.
even more stupid, occasionally the turn the camera 180 degrees so it would actually catch people going intot he junction, not away from it. (still not the road the accident happened on..)... but the problem there is, unless its the middle of the night you'll have been stopped before then because of traffice queues.
the idiots i want caught are those low slammed honda's with all blacked out windows that go through the town centre at 50 if they see a sniff of another slightly modified or sporty car. plus drunk drivers, i can spot em a mile off when driving around at night, several times i have seen a car and said "that persons pissed" just before they have a near miss, or jump a light..
-
3500 deaths is nothing compared to 27 million motorists!!!!!
its down to people being brianwashed by government
officials!
That's a bit harsh, mate. 3500 deaths a year is a lot. I know its only about 0.01% (1 ten-thousandth) of the total motorists, but its still too much.
but why dont we start to spend cash on things that would make a difference. something like 200,000 people a year die from cancer.
if we pump in ?1b into Road Saftey in a year, we should be pumping ?15b a year into cancer research.
to be honest, dying in a car crash doesn't scare me half as much as dying from cancer. whilst i've had very few friends die on the road - i've had plenty of family and friends taken early by cancer.
ah yes, i remember now. cancer is much more difficult to cure so we dont try very hard.
tin
-
plus you can't tax cancer victims!!!!!
-
Good point... Well made.
3500 deaths is nothing compared to 27 million motorists!!!!!
its down to people being brianwashed by government
officials!
That's a bit harsh, mate. 3500 deaths a year is a lot. I know its only about 0.01% (1 ten-thousandth) of the total motorists, but its still too much.
but why dont we start to spend cash on things that would make a difference. something like 200,000 people a year die from cancer.
if we pump in ?1b into Road Saftey in a year, we should be pumping ?15b a year into cancer research.
to be honest, dying in a car crash doesn't scare me half as much as dying from cancer. whilst i've had very few friends die on the road - i've had plenty of family and friends taken early by cancer.
ah yes, i remember now. cancer is much more difficult to cure so we dont try very hard.
tin
-
the speed limts are coming down due to the fact that the government wants us out of our cars and people lack respect for motor vehicles! they step out in the road as if they have '' right of way'' which they dont!
it doesnt help when people get behined the wheel and think there it and they can drive how they want!
this morning i had someone swerve infront of me on a roundabout and because i knew they would do this i kept back but i did keep flashing my lights at them and there responce is like whats the problem type of look or its your fault look they give you!
only the other day my mates said about fast road cam and brake pads they will stop making them or call them something else as there arnt any fast roads left!
:D slow road brake pads :D slow road (town / city) camshafts :D ;D
most crashes could be avoided if the manufactuers made abs standard since 1980's at least!
or if they made the braking systems better! only recently have they been doing this abs now starndard about bloody time!
at the end of the day the government doesnt give a s*** how many people die, millions die of aids no one says jack s*** millions die of cancer same again..... children have diseases or some type of gene error which kills them at early age ie no chance in life....
yet a few people get knocked over on the roads (due to there own fault unless the car mounted the pavement!) and there is uproar we want cameras etc etc...... its just bull!!!!
its sad but true the government doesnt care about you!
if you get cancer they wont fund the treatment!
this is there way of keeping the population down!
bse,aids cancer and all other nasty diseases they can 95% sure they can or have got the cure for them!
they can geneticly engineer viruses so they can make a virus to destroy a virus but they wont do that in time they might release the cure when an even deadly virus come to light!!!!!!!!
the speed limits are out of date! they need changing!
police want to clamp down on people running out and being stupid on roads they also want to clamp down on drivers who hog fast lanes, cut people up ,dont singnal, dont to the speed limit! (like 40-45 in a 60 zone) or 45 up the motorway! >:(
but its too hard to do this they just drop the speed limit people know its too slow and do 40 -45 and get caught speeding!
if we got back to 1990 there wasnt this much hassle back then! why have everyone started to complain about speeding now!! reason is governemnt brainwashing and they think there ''doing good'' but there not!
take this for an example
2 kids are in hospital 1 is a rta victim lying there in a right mess broken ribs fractured skull etc.. jumped out in the road got knocked over he's 13 year old....
or 2 little lad who is on the verge of death because he has got cancer he's only 7 years old and there is no cure for him because the government is wasting money (millenium dome) which could help to save him!
which kid i would feel sorry for well personaly it would be no.2
as this isnt self inflicted he's done nothing to deserve this! where as no.1 its all his own fault even if the driver was speedling of which he may not have been he's ran in the road he should know better! may be when he's fully recovered he wont be so stupid to do it again! where as little lad no.2 well he's got no future! :-\ makes you think eh?
the government and speed campaigners want to take a trip in the cancer ward of a hospital! and get there act together!
speed kills they say its there utter dribble which is killing me!..... i know far worse things that kill and you dont have to go near cars to get them!
there just anti car they want strapping in a vr6! i'll show them that cars are fun ;D
-
If a ran over a pedestrian (unless they're on a zebra or pelican crossing) it would probably be their own fault. They should watch what they're doing. ;D
... but seriously, there are some idiots who just walk out and even when they see you they just keep walking slllloooooowly just to be a tw*t. We should make it illegal to jaywalk. That might have an effect. :)
Rich.
(P.S. I don't mean to offend anyone who's lost a friend/relative in this way.)
-
arent the braking distances based on like an old ford escort or something??
cars are better now and the limits should reflect this. and dont make a road a lower speed limit cos its got pedestrians around it, build them a bridge. simple.
-
yeah a few years ago top gear did a comparison on the original highway code braking distances. I think they were done using a ford anglia back in the late sixties. Performance cars far out break standard cars, eg compare a 911 to golf, nuff said
-
the speed limts are coming down due to the fact that the government wants us out of our cars and people lack respect for motor vehicles! they step out in the road as if they have '' right of way'' which they dont!
dunno when you learned to drive mate, but anytime a person is on the road (with the exception of the mway) they have _instant_ right of way.
-
the speed limts are coming down due to the fact that the government wants us out of our cars and people lack respect for motor vehicles! they step out in the road as if they have '' right of way'' which they dont!
dunno when you learned to drive mate, but anytime a person is on the road (with the exception of the mway) they have _instant_ right of way.
What a load of rubbish.
If someone is already crossing the road when you turn up, then they do have the right of way. If not then they don't.
Otherwise anyone could just walk out if they see you driving along.
Its called jaywalking.
-
Just to add.
Speeding isn't the main cause of accidents.
Its unfortunate that anyone dies on our roads, no-one wants that.
However most people that creep over the speed limit ie. 40 in a 30 (not in estates and near schools) ARE being prosecuted.
THIS DOES NOT CUT ROAD DEATHS.
DO NOT BELIEVE THE PROPAGANDA THE GOVERNMENT SPINS, ITS SIMPLY TO RAISE REVENUE.
Ask yourself the question, how many people have got SP30s? How did they get them?
Speeding at 50 up the high street or past schools? NO
THE GOVERNMENT DO NOT GIVE A sh!t ABOUT ROAD DEATHS.
If they did they would do more to educate people about dangerous driving.
How many people TAILGATE?
Answer - nearly bloody everyone
I would like to see more education rather than cutting speed limits.
Most speed limits ARE ONLY CUT TO CATCH OUT GENUINE PEOPLE.
ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY. ITS JUST DRESSED UP TO LOOK LIKE ITS TO CUT ROAD DEATHS.
DON'T BELIEVE IT FOR f**kS SAKE.
-
hi there :D
i did say they step out as if they have right of way.....
what i should have said they do it infront of you!
ie they dont wait for you to go passed they just step out! and either expect you to stop or knock them over so they can phone claims direct! no win no fee people!
they dont seem to do it if you sound like your going fast! i would also like to mention that they also have an habit of standing at the edge of the road on the dubble yellow lines! old people and young parents seem to do this with their childerens pram!
they stand on the kerb with pram on the yellow lines!
or old biddies shopping trolley little back pull ones!
about the government they do want you out of your car! they put the tax up , petrol, and all of this is failling so whats next making driving hell by the use of speed cameras and low speedlimits visit
www.speedcam.co.uk (http://www.speedcam.co.uk)
and on there you will see that since 1999 there has been a hell of alot of speed limits which have had there speed reduced by about 30 mph!
there no doubt that they want us out of our cars!
and on buses like they keep saying!
you may also like to read a police letter which was sent to the Association of British Drivers
www.abd.org.uk (http://www.abd.org.uk)
http://www.abd.org.uk/police_letter.htm (http://www.abd.org.uk/police_letter.htm)
and 1 more thing i would like to mention
the police set up a gatso on a road which had a speed limit of 40mph!
thousands of people were being caught by this that they couldnt cope with the demand for the film!
so they upped the speed camera trigger device to 60mph!
so in fact this must mean that it is safe to do 60mph on that road! if it wasnt then why have they set the trip limit that high! also why didnt they up the speed limit to 50 or 60mph!
because they want to keep you down!
and make driving hell!
-
golfvr6 i dont know who you are refering to me or him as there is a quote from us both!
i'm not arguing! just making a point!
i dont want any arguing as it spoils the forum makes it look bad! it was also this type of topic which forced me to leave another gti forum! and ive found a good forum this one and up till yet ive had no arguments and i wouldnt like any....
yes if someone is in the road they do have certain right of way it all depends how close you are too them!
the people who i was refering to are the people who step out on top of you and then look at you like their in the right the same look other drivers give you if they cut you up! its like yes i ve cut you up but what are you doing there, its that type of stare!
-
I have two big gripes at the moment.
1. people who do not use the paths.
i see mums and dads with pushchairs using the road??
i see an old guy every day walking down our road rather than the path.
I went to a local meeting about proposed changes to our road and the Malden Road (our link road to the A3). All proposals got stepped on big time.
Interestingly enough, a local resident complained to the Police about cyclists using the pavements on the Malden Road. (These are pavements at least 10feet wide at parts).
The Police response - we are not going to ask cyclists to use that road as it is far too dangerous. We would prefer them on the pavement to be honest.
Which leads me to my next point:
2 Why do cyclists between Robin Hood and Coombe Lane on the A3 have to use the A3. It is a dark, fast, stretch of road, with an empty pavement which includes a cycle lane!!?
3 Why do oncoming motorcyclists claim my bit of road when they are overtaking?
tin
-
golfvr6 i dont know who you are refering to me or him as there is a quote from us both!
i'm not arguing! just making a point!
i dont want any arguing as it spoils the forum makes it look bad! it was also this type of topic which forced me to leave another gti forum! and ive found a good forum this one and up till yet ive had no arguments and i wouldnt like any....
yes if someone is in the road they do have certain right of way it all depends how close you are too them!
the people who i was refering to are the people who step out on top of you and then look at you like their in the right the same look other drivers give you if they cut you up! its like yes i ve cut you up but what are you doing there, its that type of stare!
Not you mate, i meant Overseer.
Pedestrians don't have an automatic right of way unless they are already on the road.
Otherwise people would just walk out in front of you and you would have to stop.
Like Guildford town centre :D
-
lol... so you don't stop? :D
i was told that was the rule when i was learning ;) (only 2.5 years ago.. )
-
A mate of mine once gave me a bit of advice about pedestrians and town centres.
Treat them like sheep. Apparently they get out of the way.
Tin
-
Aii they are sheep! 98% of uk population are :D ;D
baa baa we want cameras :D baa baa
there like kids...............
all i seem to hear we want we want we want!!!!!!
well campaigners you having nothing.....................
its about time we had something.....like cheap petrol and no speedlimits!!!!!!!!! and of course jay walking cameras! ;D ;D
-
dunno about the sheep thing mate..
here there's spot in the town centre where people are forever driving into pedestrians.
-
I have a four year old daughter, who is absolutely crazy.
She has, on occasion, ran out into the road, even despite the fact her mum and I know she is prone to do this and hold her hand and keep an eye on her.
If you were to knock her down in a 30 zone, and you were doing 29, then it would obviously be her fault.
But she's four,
But I would still like to think that anyone who did this would feel guilty.
After all, you could have been doing 5mph.
It IS a fact that the slower a car is moving, the less likely it is to kill you - thats just physics.
The people who want cameras and other traffic calming aren't all idiots or buzy-bodies, mostly just concerned parents and suchlike.
The more camaras there are, the more you will be aware of, and respect, the speedlimits.
I don't like them anymore than anybody else, but can any of us say we don't watch our speed in general more in the last few years ?
The cameras themselves may not be saving lives, but if they can help promote a culture of awareness - of just how devastating a fast moving car can be, then that definitely will.
I'm not going to repeat the old 'if you don't speed, you won't get caught' thing.
But it's really not that hard to stick to the speedlimit.
And I'm definitely not saying I don't slip over every now and then, and I'm not saying I wouldn't be well miffed if I got caught on camera (again), but it's still a fair cop.
There is still fun to be had without going fast, in a great looking, handling and sounding car like the Golf.
Are we really in a position to moan so much about cameras ?
-
thing is.. i don't know about everywhere else, but i know of 4 fixed cameras within 10 miles of here.. 2 are on dual carriageways inaccessible by foot, and the other 2 are on single carriageways on country roads. nowhere near civilisation.
i'm all for cameras near schools, in town etc etc.. but they aren't been put in those places.
doesn't add up.
-
I have a four year old daughter, who is absolutely crazy.
She has, on occasion, ran out into the road, even despite the fact her mum and I know she is prone to do this and hold her hand and keep an eye on her.
If you were to knock her down in a 30 zone, and you were doing 29, then it would obviously be her fault.
But she's four,
But I would still like to think that anyone who did this would feel guilty.
After all, you could have been doing 5mph.
It IS a fact that the slower a car is moving, the less likely it is to kill you - thats just physics.
but the problem is - being hit by a car isn't the thing that kills you.
smashing your head on the concrete surface is the bit that kills you. whether you are hit at 30-20 or even 10, thats not the problem. its smashing your skull on the deck that kills you.
the problem with 20 speed limits and speed humps, and the whole issue of "speed kills" is that we have convinced alot of drivers that that is what happens.
this logic must therefore follow through, speed kills, going slowly doesn't kill. wrong. going slow increases the chance that you will avoid the fatality in the first place. but it doesn't make you less lightly to kill.
I once heard the statistic about the likelyhood of being killed at certain speeds, and someone showed quite effectively that the statistics had been changed to create a point of view. If i could remember the exact wording i would repeat it.
Anyway, back to the logic. If speed kills, going slow doesn't. But what happens when we go slow. Remember, going slow doesn't kill, so we start to get distracted, we look at the scenery, all of a sudden our attention isn't on the road anymore.
Hey, were going so slow what could possibly happen?
The next time you or anyone else slows down for a speed bump, go through in your mind exactly what you are doing.
When I drive, just like many others here. I'm not interested in exactly what is in front of me, i'm interested in the things much further down the road, i'm interested in things i may not be able to see at this moment, i'm interested in finding the bits that might catch me out too late. I am constantly looking under cars to see if i can see kids behind them before i pass.
I am constantly looking for information that allows me to drive my vehincle safely along the carriage way.
But what happens when i see a speed hump, i start to brake, i concentrate on the speed hump now, i concentrate on getting my car over without to much damage.
All of a sudden, i'm not looking at parked cars, i'm not looking at pavements, or the dog on a lead, or the small child. I have been distracted my a man made obstacle.
Just for the notes, with all the speed humps and 20mph zones we now run over 200 children a year against the 100 we used to run over when we drove like mad men.
-
The people who want cameras and other traffic calming aren't all idiots or buzy-bodies, mostly just concerned parents and suchlike.
The more camaras there are, the more you will be aware of, and respect, the speedlimits.
I don't like them anymore than anybody else, but can any of us say we don't watch our speed in general more in the last few years ?
The cameras themselves may not be saving lives, but if they can help promote a culture of awareness - of just how devastating a fast moving car can be, then that definitely will.
i totally disagree. if you want to create a culture of awareness, then driver education is the answer, not flashing revenue earning criminalising tincans on posts.
the only thing i've learnt so far from cameras is how to spot them from a distance, and pulling up for them. virtually every one is a nuisance. thats why other countries around the world started pullng them up and got back to good old Policemen. (Canada was the latest)
I'm not going to repeat the old 'if you don't speed, you won't get caught' thing.
But it's really not that hard to stick to the speedlimit.
But the speedlimits have been reduced. We are now going nowhere as fast. No one minds speed limits if they are justifiable. The 85 percentile graph at www.adb.org.uk shows how speed limits should be set. A proven methodology that has comprehensively been binned as it does not give the polictial goals currently required by Government.
And I'm definitely not saying I don't slip over every now and then, and I'm not saying I wouldn't be well miffed if I got caught on camera (again), but it's still a fair cop.
There is still fun to be had without going fast, in a great looking, handling and sounding car like the Golf.
Are we really in a position to moan so much about cameras ?
Going fast? You must be breaking the speed limit.
The use and defence of cameras is quite insidious. They aren't there for any good reason other to raise cash, and yet people defend them. Their isn't one drop of evidence that suggest the camera policy has made the roads any safer today than 7 years ago. In fact, theres no difference.
What is most distgusting is that the 20 most dangerous roads in the UK - still do not have cameras on them. Just by getting sensible speed limits on those roads would save over 100 deaths every single year!
If we make rules just for the fun of it, how long before David Blindgitt has us all tatooed in the name of the War on Terrorism. 1984, here we come.
Tin
-
If you want to believe that the speed you hit someone at will have no bearing on how likely to kill them you are...
The momentum of the car is transfered to the pedestrian, the momentum of the pedestrian is then a factor in how hard they strike the ground (or whatever), or indeed how likely they are to be inverted in the firstplace.
Would it matter to you how fast the car that hit you was going ?, 20mph or 50 mph?, I know which I'd prefer.
The problem is that no-one really thinks they are going to run someone over, and that people feel that speedbumps and cameras somehow take away their civil liberties, or else patronise their competence as a driver. People are very good at believing these things are there to their detriment rather than their benefit just because they don't like them
There will be a piece of data or a statisitc to grab hold of no matter what your viewpoint.
The real reason the death toll on the roads refuses to diminish is because the culture of speed continues, not because people are concentrating on tackling speedbumps or too worried about watching their speedo.
I'm not defending the cameras.
But how are we to be convinced to slow down ? Driver Education is would be a farse, we are told that smoking is bad for us, yet millions continue to smoke...
It's like I said before, no-one really thinks it will happen to them.
Put fags up to ?20 a packet, a lot more people would stop smoking then because of any educational campaign.
Put a GATSO on every street, and we will be far too worried about our wallets to ever consider speeding.
That is how you create a culture of awareness these days, because everyones too ignorant to be taught any other way.
And yes, the Government continues to rake it in.
-
Yes thats all well and good if the cameras were placed in the right places, as to reduce accidents, BUT THEY CLEARLY AREN'T, that is the argument.
We can't be expected to all drive at 20mph everywhere just incase someone might jump out infront of us, it just doesn't work.
I am in favour of cameras near schools for example, as no decent person would speed there, but do you ever see any cameras by schools? I haven't yet.
They are well placed to make money, ie. a road that used to be 40 or 50mph which has been dropped to 30 totally unnessarily, or where a 50 limit turns into a 30.
Speed does kill, but its not the main cause of deaths on the road.
Unfortunately some people have got carried away with the speed argument. I believe there would be fewer accidents if people could actually drive in the first place.
Why doesn't the government do anything about tailgating??
It has become an epidemic, most people do it, it is far more dangerous than creeping over a 30 mph limit.
The answer is they don't care, it doesn't make cash.
-
Anyone who has been up the A3 from Esher into London will know exactly that speed cameras are there to earn money.
Theres about 8 on the one stretch of road.
Ones on a bend, which in itself is illegal position as the guidelines say they should be positioned on a 400m (at least) straight road.
another is behind a sign.
Cash,cash, cash.
-
the thing is how does a camera prevent you from speeding ie thousands are being caught out by them and no one is getting killed because of people speeding through a camera! like i say if people are getting caught cameras arnt working they are not slowing people down!
a camera cant stop you from speeding and killing some one it cant phsyicly stop you! it just sends a ticket out thats if there a camera in it!
my niece ran out into the road when she was little i saw her do it and my sister grabbed her and gave her a good smack.........and rightly so! as far as i know she never did it again!
she didnt have any sense but she soon learned!
and so should all kids!
they teach kids not to play on railways so why not on the roads. stop look and listen and. the green cross code went out the window years ago!
....you dont see the speedlimit on the trains coming down! so why should the roads not be the same!
we've turn into a driver always gets the blame nation!
fact is people dont learn........and they never will!
like golfvr6 says its all about money!! and it wont change!
if i ever have kids i will tell them cars are killers it wont matter what speed there doing if he's doing 20mph or 60mph you dont play with them treat them with respect......wait till its clear or until a car flashes you to cross!
cars and trains are the same they both move fast and should be not be played with. >:(
.....unless your driving! ;D
-
Why doesn't the government do anything about tailgating??
It has become an epidemic, most people do it, it is far more dangerous than creeping over a 30 mph limit.
your right my mate went down the m6 and it was raining he said people were tailgating and doing 100mph!
i wouldnt blink if there were millions of cameras on the m6 if they were only turned on in wet weather conditions like in germany!
-
Modulater...
The A3 is a wicked road tho...if you know where dem pesky cameras are! Just watch out for the hidden cop cars too. I live in Walton - always drive back down the A3 to 'remove the cobwebs' from the engine ;) when returning from Kingston area.
-
Theres about 8 on the one stretch of road.
i count 14 in 7 miles.
WestHill => L
Tibbets Corner =>L
Asda =>Guildford
Asda+200m => G
Robin Hood => London
CoombeLane => G
CoombeLane => L
Bushey Road => L
Shannons Corner => G (currently removed cause a lorry reversed into it)
South Lane => G
South Lane => L
Tolworth Girls => L
Hook => G
Hook => L
Any I've missed?
tin
-
Modulater...
The A3 is a wicked road tho...if you know where dem pesky cameras are! Just watch out for the hidden cop cars too. I live in Walton - always drive back down the A3 to 'remove the cobwebs' from the engine ;) when returning from Kingston area.
Well its a small world then, i grew up in Walton, Mod still lives there.
-
fear!!!
(http://www.playmobil.de/intershoproot/eCS/Store/gb/imagesOnline/products/4900.jpg)
-
LOL :D
I preferred vwsystems liking traffic cops to the gastapo :D
-
thats actually real.. scary huh..
i think mobile cameras / guns are more effective than fixed ones.
they do operate near schools too, but i'm not sure at what times.
-
thats funney! ;D
tony blair was informed that
london bridge is falling down....... he says.....
theres gatso on there
so any people speeding trying to get off will get zapped .........
that should happen more often! ;D