Serves him right

snowdog · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:46

Captain_Slick said:
Yep.

If you hit a rock/debris or a wild animal/person runs out at 120mph, the effect will be greater than if you hit it at 60mph. Speed exacerbates accidents and makes them worse, and in some cases is the actual cause.

Training and skill only helps up to a point.

Another point then, why is it the governments business if I'd kill myself at 120mph on that stretch at 3am ? Nobody but me is hurt.

And meh, I'd rather have that extra risk of an accident than having to drive up to 60 mph for the rest of my life on that stretch. It used to be 76mph BEFORE they widened the motorway from 3 to 5 lanes.

Captain_Slick · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:47

snowdog said:
Another point then, why is it the governments business if I'd kill myself at 120mph on that stretch at 3am ? Nobody but me is hurt.

It's the governments business because the taxpayer then has to clear the wreckage from the road way in time to prevent any more accidents from occurring as a result of your choice to drive at 120mph.

Jokester · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:48

snowdog said:
Another point then, why is it the governments business if I'd kill myself at 120mph on that stretch at 3am ? Nobody but me is hurt.

Who's to say that you didn't hit the only other car on the road though. It isn't about specifics, it's entirely about risk reduction in general.

Jono8 · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:49

snowdog said:
http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...=tREN-8Xz9a6i78O4yHgmNg&cbp=12,286.45,,0,4.18

Imagine that motorway, at 3am, no roadworks and completely empty, do you really think the chance of an accident is higher at 120mph than 60 mph ?

erm..yes

DM · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:50

snowdog said:
Another point then, why is it the governments business if I'd kill myself at 120mph on that stretch at 3am ? Nobody but me is hurt.

And meh, I'd rather have that extra risk of an accident than having to drive up to 60 mph for the rest of my life on that stretch. It used to be 76mph BEFORE they widened the motorway from 3 to 5 lanes.

Thats not the best argument, because not many offences happen at 3am on empty motorways.

You do need limits and they do need to be enforced.

lovedaddy · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:51

snowdog said:
Another point then, why is it the governments business if I'd kill myself at 120mph on that stretch at 3am ? Nobody but me is hurt.

And meh, I'd rather have that extra risk of an accident than having to drive up to 60 mph for the rest of my life on that stretch.

Same reason seat belts are fitted and required and we drive on the left. Then again, I suspect retards would argue that they shouldn't have to adhear to that either.

snowdog · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:54

Captain_Slick said:
It's the governments business because the taxpayer then has to clear the wreckage from the road way in time to prevent any more accidents from occurring as a result of your choice to drive at 120mph.

The government has already, despite me not driving for so long, got much more money from me in taxes and duty than I'd probably cost for crashing my car.

Jokester said:
Who's to say that you didn't hit the only other car on the road though. It isn't about specifics, it's entirely about risk reduction in general.

Same reason seat belts are fitted and required and we drive on the left. Then again, I suspect retards would argue that they shouldn't have to adhear to that either.

Why do you ( and others) find accident risk reduction more important than mobility ( for me, or the company I work for anyhow, time means money), fun and freedom ?

DM · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:55

Your time and money are not worth my health though.

Captain_Slick · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:56

snowdog said:
The government has already, despite me not driving for so long, got much more money from me in taxes and duty than I'd probably cost for crashing my car.

Why do you ( and others) find accident risk reduction more important than mobility ( for me, or the company I work for anyhow, time means money), fun and freedom ?

It's not about the cost of removing your wrecked vehicle and body from the road way, it's about preventing any more loss of life or limb.

Though with that second bit I think you're just trolling now.

Jokester · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:56

snowdog said:
Why do you ( and others) find accident risk reduction more important than mobility ( for me, or the company I work for anyhow, time means money), fun and freedom ?

You think it's acceptable to recklessly endanger the lives of other innocent motorists, for fun or money?

Dolph · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:58

Captain_Slick said:
You would only get fined £25k if that was the same, proportionally, to you as £1500 is to you now and £300 is to a poorer person.

It's not about us all being equal or communism. It's about justice being fair.

Should we punish people differently based on other arbitrary factors such as race, religion, gender or sexuality that are unrelated to the crime?

Should we punish groups within those who correlate to criminal behaviour more? (incidentally, if this is the case, we should be harsher on the poor than the rich).

Again, the trigger for punishment is the crime, not the criminal.

Dolph · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:59

Captain_Slick said:
It's not about the cost of removing your wrecked vehicle and body from the road way, it's about preventing any more loss of life or limb.

Though with that second bit I think you're just trolling now.

This sounds just like trolling to me, because exceeding the speed limit, by the government's own figures, is only a contributory factor to about 3% of accidents.

Captain_Slick · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:59

Dolph said:
Should we punish people differently based on other arbitrary factors such as race, religion, gender or sexuality that are unrelated to the crime?

Should we punish groups within those who correlate to criminal behaviour more? (incidentally, if this is the case, we should be harsher on the poor than the rich).

Again, the trigger for punishment is the crime, not the criminal.

Race, religion, gender or sexuality do not have an impact on the effectiveness of the punishment. Income does.

Jokester · 14 Aug 2010 at 14:59

Dolph said:
Should we punish people differently based on other arbitrary factors such as race, religion, gender or sexuality that are unrelated to the crime?

Should we punish groups within those who correlate to criminal behaviour more? (incidentally, if this is the case, we should be harsher on the poor than the rich).

Again, the trigger for punishment is the crime, not the criminal.

When the punishment itself is money based, it entirely makes sense to consider the impact that fine will have on the person getting it.

Captain_Slick · 14 Aug 2010 at 15:01

Dolph said:
This sounds just like trolling to me, because exceeding the speed limit, by the government's own figures, is only a contributory factor to about 3% of accidents.

Because most people don't exceed the speed limit, and the vast majority of accidents therefore involve those who respect the speed limit and are caused by bad driving/pure accident.

If everyone exceeded the speed limit, that percentage would rise exponentially.

DM · 14 Aug 2010 at 15:01

Jokester said:
When the punishment itself is money based, it entirely makes sense to consider the impact that fine will have on the person getting it.

But be honest do you not think a cap needs to be in place as we have at the moment?

The fine has to fit the crime as well as the person surely?

Captain_Slick · 14 Aug 2010 at 15:03

DiamondMark said:
But be honest do you not think a cap needs to be in place as we have at the moment?

The fine has to fit the crime as well as the person surely?

I think percentages depending on the crime would serve as adequate caps. Fair and not ridiculous.

snowdog · 14 Aug 2010 at 15:07

Dolph said:
This sounds just like trolling to me, because exceeding the speed limit, by the government's own figures, is only a contributory factor to about 3% of accidents.

You've proven my point exactly, if it's only a factor in 3% of the accidents, why are they still reducing limits everywhere, at the cost of the 3 things I mentioned ?

Up to a certain point it gets too far, why does the line between safety and the other things still move towards safety? The roads are already more than safe enough imo...

Jokester · 14 Aug 2010 at 15:08

DiamondMark said:
But be honest do you not think a cap needs to be in place as we have at the moment?

The fine has to fit the crime as well as the person surely?

To be honest, I'm not convinced either way. I guess if he had done that in this country he would have ended up in prison for a month or two.

Whether the Swiss take account of his income and his speed he was doing I'm not sure.

Captain_Slick · 14 Aug 2010 at 15:12

snowdog said:
You've proven my point exactly, if it's only a factor in 3% of the accidents, why are they still reducing limits everywhere, at the cost of the 3 things I mentioned ?

Up to a certain point it gets too far, why does the line between safety and the other things still move towards safety? The roads are already more than safe enough imo...

He really hasn't. The vast majority of drivers don't speed or are lucky enough not get caught speeding without causing an accident. Therefore the vast majority of accidents involve those who aren't speeding. That's obvious.

That doesn't prove that speed doesn't cause accidents. It just proves that 97% of accidents involve people who don't speed or weren't speeding at the time or are accidents where speed wouldn't have made a difference.

If everyone exceeded the speed limit for an entire day, there would be many more deaths and much outrage.

Depends where you live really. Speed limits on the roads I use often haven't changed for the past decade at least.

Who judges and how do they judge how safe is safe enough?