Further proof that speed is not the problem...

kaiowas said:
I think you'll find that if it was *purely* about road saety then insurance wouldn't even be a legal requirement ;)

Having insurance doesn't make you safer, it just ensures that victims of your bad driving are recompensed for your cockups.
Click to expand...

Nicely edited quote...;)

Insurance is a must because we are all can make mistakes. I could have driven for the last 12 years without insurance and it would have made no dfference, infact I'd be around £8k better off. That's not the point.

The point is, if you drive without insurance, you are ignoring one of the main rules of the road, so why are you going to abide by any other? 'An MOT doesn't make a car any safer, it just means it's safe on the day of the test' - this IS true, but leave an old ****box Corsa for 3 years without an MOT or a service and it WILL 99.99% certain be dangerous. Driving with bald tyres doesn't mean you'll crash, but having 1.6mm minimum on your tyres is there for a reason. Drinking 6 pints of lager doesn't mean you'll kill someone, crash your car or even not make it home.

All of the above though, are what the Police should be looking for, as ALL of the above are MORE dangerous than someone doing 34 in a 30 zone and all of the above are dangerous because the driver is aware of the risks. Too much emphasis is placed on speed and not enough on drivers actually driving properly.
 
166mph biker 'seduced by speed' - but entirely safe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8329590.stm)

Clear, irrefutable evidence that anyone can drive at >160mph on a public road and not kill or get killed; demonstrating once again that speed doesn't kill - let's abolish all speed limits, everywhere, for everyone.

While we are at it, let's do away with this "80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood" nonsense, there must be any number of people who have driven quite safely when they were incapable of climbing on board a bus.

And that MOT nonsense should go as well.
 
Limits on speed should go up as well as down. Reactive speed limit signs that could change with the weather conditions and the amount of traffic on the road is the answer. Going 80mph on an empty dual carridgeway is not going to kill anyone.
 
matt_fsr said:
Possible understatement of the century? :p
Click to expand...

Not really it was more of a jocular comment, whilst it was true some 10+ years ago, they've sinced rolled out a lot of advanced driving courses/lessons, improved driving lessons as well as better policed roads (which are FAR better than speed cameras) and the number of crashes have fallen dramatically. :) In fact the number of accidents have dropped by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. :)
 
Dolph said:
Will we see similar sensible policies in the UK? Or will the speed facists carry on their campaign of FUD to prevent it from happening?
Click to expand...

of course not dont be silly.

the problem with this country is the civil service. Its not our MPs who sit in the house of commons, or the cabinet, its all the other pencil pushers. The real people with the power.

Its these idiots in local councils that want to ban christmas in case it offends muslims, ban conkers in case children get hurt, ban faulty towers for being politically incorrect.

And its the idiots in the department for transport, that keep peddling this same rubbish about speed kills, and the need for speed cameras and the like. The government only comes out with this stuff because the "advisors" tell them to.

We need a "final solution" starting with a ethnic cleansing of all civil servants from the employees at the local council up.

Only then will we see change. Either that or in a generation or twos time when the current staff are all retired and gone, and replaced with our children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom