Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Speed Kills Slow Down
18 Answers
Why is that drivers say it wrong to be prosecuted for going over the speed limit if they go over they are braking the law? If someone overtakes me doing over the speed limit and they break the speed limit. They have an accident I will be first one to stop and tell the law what a menace they are driving at a high speed. Is it worth it? The hassel? The points? The insurance? The life of a person? The faster you go it take longer to stop. You dont know the condition of the tarmac. SLOW DOWN. YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by marcus5771. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The trouble is (and I work in the car insurance business) is that speed isn't the major contributory cause of accidents.
It's highlighted by the whinging do-goodies who protest on treetops because they haven't got a realistic view.
I deal with the policyholder's side of things, and can categoriallcy state that 90%+ of claims are due to driver error, and not speed.
The High Court has even ruled that speed cannot be used as an act of negligence unless you're talking doing ridiculous speeds.
Passing someone at 80 on a motorway may well be breaking the law, but when you consider that the speed limits on motorways were implemented umpteem years ago, then consider how the steering and braking systems of cars has developed since then, braking distances (in certain circumstances) can be almost half that stated in the highway code.
Before any arguments are raised about the above, I have attended courses and presentations put on by the motorway police from several counties in relation to my job.
The main cause of accidents are people having no idea how to drive at low speeds, NOT people overtaking.
The amount of people who don't use their mirrors, and pull out of roads without looking, greatly outweigh the amount of claims I've dealt with that have resulted in prosecutions for speeding. I've seen countless prosecutions resulting from the accidents that are for reckless or careless driving, but in which speed have had no factor.
The Government put all the spin on speed, but fail to do anything other than put up speed cameras, because there is no real problem.
If speed was such a major contributor to RTA's, surely the government would be increasing the police on the roads rather than increasing cameras and cutting patrols??
Hmm
Only part of the story really isn't it?
Speed increases the energy of impact and hence the resulting damage.
This months MG Owners club magazine had a picture from the Swedish Police of a motorcycle that collided with the side of a car at roughly 150 mph.
It's estimated the motorcyclist did not even have time to attempt to brake.
Most of the motorcyclist and motor cycle was recovered from the inside of the car.
Nobody could argue that speed didn't cause that accident and obviously the deaths of all invoved
However many speed limits are somewhat arbitrary and doing 80 as opposed to 70 on the motorway hardly makes you a hazard to life and limb.
I'd have a lot more respect for the Governments position if they'd taken the simple and cheap step of insisting that all new cars be fitted with anti-lock brakes. Instead of waiting all these years for the EU to bring it in.
Thank you Homer75. I'm sick of bleedin heart liberals and all these bloody human rights groups (don't start branding me a Nazi - I'm a white boy, and my girlfriend is half-Iranian).
Whilst I don't condone dangerous driving in any shape or form, you can't blame one thing for all the world's woes.
Prime example - watching horror films doesn't make someone a murderer - different subject, but same principle. Speeding doesn't make you a bad driver (or a dangerous one).
In regard's to jake-the-pegs comment about the motorcyclist, then this is completely correct. I've come across plenty of claims where a motorcyclist has hit the side of a car, but this can equally be the fault of the car driver - whilst speed may have contributed, the driver not looking before pulling out into the path of the cyclist wouldn't have helped matters either (not having a go at you mate - haven't seen the picture, so could equally be the cyclists fault, but this is the usual spin you see being put on the anti-speed campaigners bollox)
Hi...i think gouldc should dig up some papers on car accidents in the Gt Yarmouth area as any local can tell you about the shockingly high number of accidents and deaths because of speeding and over taking on the Alce New Road (A47) The Government seem to ignore the problems there and choose to target motorist on a 1/4 mile section of Duel Carriageway outside of the town. The first 1/4 mile is limited to 40mhp (for no reason) untill you just come over the top of a hill where it goes to 70mph. But the police love to sit on the other side of the hill (where they can't be seen) and zap you as you pop up over the hill (only just in the 40 zone)
Not in this particular case. At the speed this guy was travelling there was no way the driver could have done a thing.
She'd have seen him what a bit under about 100 yards away 1 second before they were all killed.
Thing is I don't care what you drive, unless it's bomb-proofed you're not going to survive that.
The motor cyclist had got his full license about 2 weeks before
If I seem as if I'm going on about this a bit its because I live in Tingewick exactly where this idiot was caught doing exactly the same speed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3068731.stm
I guess there's different degrees of "breaking the speed limit"!
More of a menace is people doing substantially less than the speed limit on an ordinary road, causing aggravation and impatience to other road users who take silly chances to overtake.
I NEVER speed in a built up area. But get me on a motorway you wont see me doing 70mph!! I am a courteous, sensible, alert and safe driver and I laugh at drivers who are up the @rse end of a lorry because overtaking might mean they have to do 75mph!!
Another load of rubbish from gouldc. who doesn't bother to read the question. Speed Kills. Get It? The faster you are going the more chance of a fatality. The question was not about what causes accidents but about the effects of speeding.
If gouldc really works for an insurance company, which I seriously doubt, then God help us all.
If gouldc really works for an insurance company, which I seriously doubt, then God help us all.
Re: gouldc's point about police high speed pursuits. The police have to follow in cars in case the suspect abandons the car and makes a run for it. They will also call off a high speed pursuit, if they believe it has become too fast and dangerous and poses a risk to the driver, themselves and members of the public.
Speeding really irritates me - there is no need for it. So you arrive at your destination 10 minutes earlier...at what risk? Do you really value your life that little? And if not your own life what about others around you? I am not saying that you need to crawl along - I love putting my foot down! But it needs to be at the appropriate time and situation. You may know what you are capable of as a driver and what your limits are in your car, but you can't account for everyone else on the road. All it takes is for one idiot to pull out in fornt of you. Simple logic tells you that a crash at 50mph is going to be worse than at 30mph. My driving instructor gave me such a piece of valuable advice when I was learning - treat everyone else on the road as if they are idiots because you never know what they are going to do next.
People also moaning about speed cameras also p**s me off too. Ok, they may be nothing more than a money making scheme lining the Governments pockets, but you will only get caught if you are speeding. So the simple answer is don't speed! Speed limits are there for a reason and I don't understand why some people seem to think that they don't have to abide by them.
Rant over. :o)
Gef, I have several years experience in this field. Tahnks for the opinion, duly noted and ignored.
Statistics can be twisted for any purpose necessary.
Whilst I acknowledge that speed can be a contributory cause of deaths, no-one seems to acknowledge that poor driving skills, poor driving conditions, poor weather conditions, and poor car maintenance all contribute to a higher degree than speeding.
The trouble is that it's difficult to prove dangerous driving without an expert witness, poor weather is an act of god, poor road conditions is an act of government, and poor car maintenance is blamed on the garages who do shoddy jobs.
It's true that what you drive doesn't really make a difference to whether you get killed or not, but as I've said, based on all my years delaing with total loss claims (ie where the car is written off a s aresult of the accident), well over three-quarters of the accidents have been caused by poor driving practice, NOT speeding.
I used to deal specifically with modified and RS Owner's club cars in the previous insurer I worked for, and can tell you that I saw more Sierra Cosworths written off by people who didn't check both ways before puilling out of a junction, than the boy-racers doing doughnuts in Halfords.
Gef, based on a previous answer you gave to an insurance thread I posted, you clearly live i na fantasy world, and I hope that when you have an accident in your car, your insurance company kicks the claim out on a technicality
goulldc is partly correct - most accidents are caused by driver error but (and its a big but) the faster you are travelling the more chance there is of causing or obtaining a more serious injury and the more chance there is of you reacting to a hazard. He must have seen the stats about how much more chance there is of a child surviving being hit by a car at 30mph rather than 40mph. If we all stuck to the speed related to the road conditions (not necessarily the speed limit then there would still be accidents but at least there would be less chance of a serious injury.
We need to take stock here. The only question posed by marcus5771 related to whether speeding is actually worth the hassle/points/lost lives etc. Most of what has been said is true. Speeding alone does not kill or even cause collisions. There has to be other contributory factors involved and these other contributions may not have been made by the person who is speeding.
Nonetheless, it cannot be disputed that in the event of a collision (whatever the cause) the faster a vehicle is travelling, the less time the (perhaps blameless) driver will have to react. Similarly, the level of damage and injury increases significantly as the speed of impact goes up. It must be remembered that vehicles are driven by human beings, all of whom make mistakes from time to time.
Of course, the ideal way to prevent any of this is to prevent vehicles moving entirely. That is neither practical nor desirable, so a compromise has to be found. MPs (who are elected to decide where such compromises should lay) have decided that the current speed limits are appropriate. Whether they are or are not is not the question posed here.
So we come to the question of �is speeding worth it?� You have to travel 100 miles before you save a quarter of an hour by driving at 85mph rather than 70mph. Looking at driving at �town speeds�, in a 30mph zone you are lucky to average 20mph overall when keeping to the limit. If you travel at up to 45mph in such a zone (for which, incidentally, you would probably be disqualified for a single offence alone under magistrates� sentencing guidelines), you may be lucky to increase your average speed to 30mph. So on a typical journey of five miles across town, you might just save 5 minutes. I�ll leave it to individual correspondents to decide whether the additional risk presented to your fellow road users (including pedestrians) by your speeding is really worth it.
1 to 18 of 18
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.