Grenfell speeder

Dis86 said:
  • In 2013, 3,064 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor
  • The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph
http://think.direct.gov.uk/speed.html

Yup. Speed is a total none issue to those 3000 people and their families.
Click to expand...
I've been on a speed awareness course (for 72 on a 3 lane 60 limit road, overtaking some slowpoke who turned out to be a plain-clothed non-marked traffic cop :p).

It was actually pretty useful and informative. One of the things that stuck with me, was the fact that the vast majority of people hit at 30mph survive, whereas the vast majority hit at 40 mph die. Any excess speed over 40 doesn't really matter to your chances of survival. However it does make a difference to stopping distances, of course.

Actually the people running the course were awesome, I don't mind saying. Not judgemental or preachy like that a-hole on Police Camera Action (who got busted for speeding :p). And one of the things they asked us to take away was that speeding in a 30 zone is a heck of a lot more irresponsible than on a 50,60,70 road. The vast majority of accidents and fatalities are in 30 zones (urban areas).

This has been a party political broadcast for the Lollipop Ladies party.
 
VincentHanna said:
I'm no fan of speeders, but this is the road in question


It's not like a kid is going to be crossing the road.

I just think with the NHS in the state it's in, we need people like this in the job saving lives, not banned because he drove fast.

I'm sure the guy knows first hand exactly what accidents do to people....
Click to expand...

If people didn't speed then that would have been 3k people who wouldn't need treatment.
If hes so important then he should have known better.
Sure he could do what a lot of other paramedics do; ride shotgun in am ambulance.
 
Dis86 said:
  • In 2013, 3,064 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor
  • The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph
http://think.direct.gov.uk/speed.html

Yup. Speed is a total none issue to those 3000 people and their families.
Click to expand...

How many people have been killed on the motorway due to speeding?

With regards to your life-saving machines, is a driving licence an absolute requirement for you? It probably isn't - if you require a car to get from home to work, or work to a client you could opt for public transport or a taxi.

In 2013, only 6% of total road fatalities occurred on the motorway which speaks volumes. What's the change in the risk of death of a car travelling at 70mph and 100mph or 70mph and 130mph when a pedestrian is hit? How many pedestrians have you seen in the middle of the motorway?
 
Thekwango said:
Exactly. He's a paramedic and knows how important his license is to him. Yet decided it was sensible to drive at 116mph. He didn't make a woopsie and drive at 75 or 80mph. He stuck his foot to the floor without a thought. He should have been banned.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I couldn't give a monkey's what job he does or who he works for (speaking as a fellow NHS employee). The speed he was travelling deserves a more severe punishment. I would agree that pleading hardship and let off a ban is understandable if he was a few mph over the limit but not this. Also the fine should be been a lot more. Seems he got away with it.
 
Tingle said:
How many people have been killed on the motorway due to speeding?

With regards to your life-saving machines, is a driving licence an absolute requirement for you? It probably isn't - if you require a car to get from home to work, or work to a client you could opt for public transport or a taxi.

In 2013, only 6% of total road fatalities occurred on the motorway which speaks volumes. What's the change in the risk of death of a car travelling at 70mph and 100mph or 70mph and 130mph when a pedestrian is hit? How many pedestrians have you seen in the middle of the motorway?
Click to expand...

You do understand that accidents don't just involve pedestrians don't You? There are other road users. And...mr uber important to the universe himself? How selfish is he potentially removing himself from the genepool just to drive quick? If he crashes and dies how many more people will die as a result? Selfish *******!
I'd also struggle to do my job without a car as it's the only way to reach some more remote locations.
 
Dis86 said:
You do understand that accidents don't just involve pedestrians don't You? There are other road users. And...mr uber important to the universe himself? How selfish is he potentially removing himself from the genepool just to drive quick? If he crashes and dies how many more people will die as a result? Selfish *******!
I'd also struggle to do my job without a car as it's the only way to reach some more remote locations.
Click to expand...

Of course, the majority of accidents on the motorway do not involve pedestrians, my discussion about speed limits and pedestrians being hit on the motorway is in direct response to your point about the increase in death from 30mph to 40 mph.

My surmise is the probability of him killing somebody was small, slightly increased but small. Probably no worse than going 50mph in a 40mph zone.

To access the remote locations you could just hire a helicopter out for the day... Duh!
 
Tingle said:
Of course, the majority of accidents on the motorway do not involve pedestrians, my discussion about speed limits and pedestrians being hit on the motorway as in direct response to your point about the increase in death from 30mph to 40 mph.

My surmise is the probability of him killing somebody was small, slightly increased but small. Probably no worse than going 50mph in a 40mph zone.

To access your remote locations you could just hire a helicopter out for the day... Duh!
Click to expand...

I don't have access to one. The nhs does though so he could travel in that...
 
Tingle said:
To access the remote locations you could just hire a helicopter out for the day... Duh!
Click to expand...
and the paramedic in the op could transfer to air ambulance where he wouldn't be required to have a driving license. (i'm guessing here!)

you can deflect and talk about any other points all you want, the fact remains this guy should not have been allowed to walk away with virtually no punishment for driving on the public roads at 116mph, completely irrespective of his job. my surmise is that he is an adrenaline junkie, first responder, fast driver. as they would say in CSI the profile fits :p I doubt he adheres to many of the speed limits.
 
I bet doing 116mph on a straight section of motorway is safer than doing 32 in a 30 in most urban roads.
 
Thekwango said:
I bet you you've changed the parameters of your original bet :p
Click to expand...

Fine make it 116mph. I was just trying to give a nice threshold. The principle stands.

I've been looking at motorway crash statistics (where pretty much half of all people speed *my estimate*) and they are ridiculously low. I don't think driving at 116mph will increase enough to make it less safe than driving on urban roads at legal speeds (most of the time you couldn't speed even if you wanted to).

Only 57% of casualties are to car drivers/passengers. The other types aren't even possible on a motorway (where you are mainly a danger to yourself and passengers in your own car).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras45-quarterly-statistics

See RAS45009 and RAS45010 for injuries (and severity of injury) by Road Type. See note 2 for where motorways are included.
 
Last edited:
muon said:
Fine make it 116mph. I was just trying to give a nice threshold. The principle stands.

I've been looking at motorway crash statistics (where pretty much half of all people speed *my estimate*) and they are ridiculously low. I don't think driving at 116mph will increase enough to make it less safe than driving on urban roads at legal speeds (most of the time you couldn't speed even if you wanted to).

Only 57% of casualties are to car drivers/passengers. The other types aren't even possible on a motorway (where you are mainly a danger to yourself and passengers in your own car).
Click to expand...
in fairness you're probably right with the statistics. urban roads by their very nature contain more dangers/risks. that doesn't justify the guy driving at 116mph though. i'd also suggest that the type of person happy to drive at 116mph won't be adhering to any speed limits unless absolutely necessary or where they have no option but to adhere to them.
 
Thekwango said:
in fairness you're probably right with the statistics. urban roads by their very nature contain more dangers/risks. that doesn't justify the guy driving at 116mph though. i'd also suggest that the type of person happy to drive at 116mph won't be adhering to any speed limits unless absolutely necessary or where they have no option but to adhere to them.
Click to expand...

I agree that driving at those speeds on a motorway mean you are willing to break rules and are very confident, and hence more likely to do so in actual dangerous situations and be overconfident. I would suggest that isn't always a perfect overlap.

I will also concede that on any road people inevitably have accidents and speed limits are a mitigation of the result, but I think frequency should also play a part in what we should be outraged at.
 
Last edited:
It’s not just the speed either. A lot of people who exceed the speed limits on these types of roads by large amounts also put their selves in danger in other ways, such as aggressive tailgating. Excessive speed is one thing, but they’re often also driving way too close.

Conditions is another. Many people still speed irrespective of visibility, surface conditions, etc. Any regular trunk route commuters know how bad the standard of driving is!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom