Government to target excess speed and drugs & driving

Bear said:
I was watching GMTV the other day and they were doing a piece on what a trajedy 3000 people die on the roads a year, yes its bad but in percentage terms it isnt that bad at all. They then went on to do another arcticle about winter and said over 6000 old people die from the cold during winter which made me go WTF !!!!

They spend huge amounts of money and effort to try and save 3000 people dieing on the roads but not more to save the 6000 old people that have paid their dues all their life !!

This is complete and utter BS and the whole campain is sold to morons that buy into the speeding thing. You cant fine old people for sitting at home freezing to death so demonise the motorist so you can continually fleece them.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Bear said:
Snip
Click to expand...

Exactly, sure its bad that people die and it must be horrid for those who have lost someone, but i don't understand why its such a bad thing as its such a low percentage, can't they accept that driving is optional and own risk you can't eliminate the risk totally which is what they seem to want.

if you have 35million cars driving towards each other at 60mph within 3foot some are bound to crash, accept this and move on imho.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Yes a top speed of 75mph, mine can do 140+mph but like any cars top speed (that isn't limited) it takes a while to get upto it.
Click to expand...

fini said:
I said most would struggle
Click to expand...

Sure but this was hardly a high performance vehicle, I was just trying to point out that cars have been able to do in excess of 70MPH for a very long time!

If a run of the mill Vauxhall could do 75MPH I'm sure there were plenty of other cars that could do far more, how about a nice Jag:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XK150

1957 ;)
 
Last edited:
HEADRAT said:
Sure but this was hardly a high performance vehicle, I was just trying to point out that cars have been able to do in excess of 70MPH for a very long time!
Click to expand...

Yes and in 1902 the land-speed record was 75mph - but that really doesn't take anything away from my point.

EDIT:Can you stop editing your posts within a minute of posting them :p It makes it look like I'm selectively quoting
 
A XK150 could "struggle" to 135MPH in 1957, sure it's a fast car for it's age but I'm sure there were plenty more!
 
The Daily Mail said:
Only 3 per cent of car accidents are caused by speeding drivers, Government figures have revealed.

Yet there are nearly 7,000 speed cameras across the country which are unable to detect 'careless or reckless' drivers who cause three times as many accidents.
Click to expand...
Well that has persuaded me. Let's get rid of all speed cameras.

Whilst we are about it, I don't think that there are many instances of passenger aircraft crashing because the pilots were paralytic, so let's stop worrying about drunk pilots - it just isn't a problem.


I look forward to reading the Daily Mail's innovative proposals for ways of detecting and successfully prosecuting 'careless or reckless' drivers ;)
 
HEADRAT said:
A XK150 could "struggle" to 135MPH in 1957
Click to expand...

That counts as 'most' cars now does it? It's hardly the average 'just popping to the shops' car is it? I'm sure we could start mentioning F1 cars that could go even faster - there are plenty more that could go that speed and faster. The point, however, was that most cars, like your original example, would struggle to reach 70mph on a motorway.
 
stockhausen said:
I look forward to reading the Daily Mail's innovative proposals for ways of detecting and successfully prosecuting 'careless or reckless' drivers ;)
Click to expand...

It's called more traffic police, a very rare thing on our roads theses days as they are usually responding to social disturbances.


Ford Anglia at the time could do 85mph, and it will get to its speed limit, doesn't matter if it's full of people or not.
 
In 30 years time --->

'most cars would struggle to do 150mph back in 2008'

Reply, no look at this 'RS$ that could do over 160mph so as you see most could.

HEADRAT said:
What actually is your point, I've already proved that a bog standard vehicle in 1959 could do over 70MPH, other vehicles to do far more than that! ;)
Click to expand...

His key word is struggle mate, its more than fair to say a 75mph max speed car would find it hard to do 70mph all the time.
 
A Mini could do more than 70MPH in 1959, LOL!

Plenty of MPV struggle to do 100MPH but I see plenty of them in my rear view mirror flashing me to get out of the way ;)
 
HEADRAT said:
What actually is your point, I've already proved that a bog standard vehicle in 1959 could do over 70MPH, other vehicles to do far more than that! ;)
Click to expand...

To quote my original post:

When they were first built most cars really struggled to hit 70!
Click to expand...


All you've done is proved my point that the above is true.

You found that a brand new car of that year had a theoretical top speed of 75mph assuming it was fresh off the production line, had nothing in the boot, perfect conditions, no passengers and a bit of luck. To say that most cars (which will have been older than 1959, will have had one or more passenger and usually something in the boot etc) will have struggled to hit 70 is entirely accurate. You quoting sports cars at me doesn't disprove that statement.
 
stockhausen said:
Well that has persuaded me. Let's get rid of all speed cameras.

Whilst we are about it, I don't think that there are many instances of passenger aircraft crashing because the pilots were paralytic, so let's stop worrying about drunk pilots - it just isn't a problem.


I look forward to reading the Daily Mail's innovative proposals for ways of detecting and successfully prosecuting 'careless or reckless' drivers ;)
Click to expand...

The same way they were always detected... Police officers on the road. I know it's a strange concept, having human beings with discretion judging whether people are driving safely or not, rather than using a random arbitary number than has no link with safety, but well, I'm concerned with actually dealing with improving the road safety, not money making.

The percentage of speeding related accidents hasn't really changed since the introduction of speed cameras, the number of people convicted of speeding has skyrocketed, but it's not achieved anything in actually improving safety. All your sarcasm is meaningless in the face of such overwhelming factual evidence.
 
Doing 40-50mph past a primary school (or similar), yes that deserves points and a fine.

Going a little fast (<100mph) in the middle of the night on an emtpy motorway is not going to harm anybody.

I remember watching some traffic police program a few months ago and some loser who had just come to this country only got a fine of a few hundred pounds for having several people in the back of his van, driving on a provisional, no insurance and a photocopied tax disk.
People are going to take the pee when the fines are so pathetic!

Surely he is more likely the child killer than the man doing 45 in a 40?
I am also fully behind banning drivers under the influence of booze/drugs for long periods.
 
Last edited:
This wont affect many people to be honest. A lot people think they are doing 90 on the motorway, but the actual speed is a lot lower. So if you currently cruise at an indicated 90 you will be fine - well, fine as in no worse than before.

I'd be all in favour of zero tolerance on drink, drugs and mobile phone useage, all resulting in an automatic ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom