Speeding

[squerble]

Whilst I agree that most places are 30mph for a reason...

Placing the honus entirely on the driver is ridiculous... how about you teach your kids to not run out in front of a moving vehicle or if they're too young to judge then they shouldn't be walking along the road unaccompanied.

Thank you!

I by no means speed but when a guy walked out in front of my whilst I was driving an Asda van to have a go at me for "speeding" because "it might kill his kids" was ridiculous. I'd put the auto in manual mode, and forgotten, and pulled away from a junction, hence me hitting the limiter in 1st gear. He thought that I had raced away from a junction (despite the fact I was probably doing barely over 10mph) and tried to punch me through my open window. He mentioned that loads of people speed and nearly hit his kids, which is a shame, because it's his kids who just ride their bikes out of the drive straight into the road without looking, or follow balls and in fact just walk out in front of cars. If he'd teach his kids some road sense there would be much less of a problem.

 

[Morbius]

nope, although its basically just a way for the police to get busy bodies off their back, do a days training, get a few letter sent out and the reality is that they won't do it more than once or twice a year, if that. Makes the local anti speed brigade think they are getting what they want but no real effect is had.

Yep, there was one in one of the villages I go through on the way to work. In the first week they were out every morning but as soon as the weather turned bad the turnout fell dramatically. I haven't seen them for about a year.

 

[Matt82]

If you did fly by at 100mph and they caught you on camera, it is still inadmissible in court. It is evidence that must be gathered by the police.

really? what about the people who have been "done" based upon videos they have posted on youtube?

 

[-Ad-]

Whilst I agree that most places are 30mph for a reason...

Placing the honus entirely on the driver is ridiculous... how about you teach your kids to not run out in front of a moving vehicle or if they're too young to judge then they shouldn't be walking along the road unaccompanied.

Completely agree.

Maybe purchase a multi-way leash.

 

[Witcher1979]

Whilst I agree that most places are 30mph for a reason...

Placing the honus entirely on the driver is ridiculous... how about you teach your kids to not run out in front of a moving vehicle or if they're too young to judge then they shouldn't be walking along the road unaccompanied.

OK you tell that to all the kids who have died from cars speeding around bends in a 30 who have no idea whats around the bend.

If anyone dies/gets hit from a car going faster then 30 in a 30, it is 100% the drivers fault.

You sir are a bit of a numpty.

 

[crinkleshoes]

You sir are illiterate...

I didn't say it was entirely the parents fault. It's never the kids fault.

Kid running out infront of a driver following every "rule" of the road... the driver would have done nothing wrong other than fail to predict the unpredictable. Entirely the parents' fault... if anyone's to blame at all... you know there are these things called accidents too.

When 'speeding', it would depend on too many different factors that would cumulate to a %age of who is to blame.

I imagine it's extremely rare for the driver ever to be 100% at fault.

Roads are rather obvious things, surprisingly easy to avoid if you're taught well and have a reasonable centre of balance.

In the scenario you possit, was the child deaf/blind/stupid/un-accompanied?

 

[Gaygle]

If anyone dies/gets hit from a car going faster then 30 in a 30, it is 100% the drivers fault.

So if i'm doing 32 in a 30 and a kid jumps out in front of the car at the last second - it's 100% my fault?

I'd say it was the total opposite!

 

[Conscript]

So if i'm doing 32 in a 30 and a kid jumps out in front of the car at the last second - it's 100% my fault?

I'd say it was the total opposite!

Similarly, I'f Im doing 29 in a 30 on black ice and it's raining and Im on my phone, and the kid gets run down it's not my fault, because I was driving at less than the arbitrary speed limit? Cool!

Speed is not the only factor in determining the cause of accidents, and making reference to the number on the sign without taking into account the hundreds of other factors in play makes you the numpty.

 

[Witcher1979]

Errr did I say being on the phone and doing anything below 30 was OK.

Come on guys a bit of common sense is needed here. I am saying if you are doing over 30 in a 30 you are breaking the law. If you kill someone while you are breaking the law it is your fault, every single time you hurt someone while you are breaking the law it IS down to that person, that is why the law is there. Same as if you get caught on a speeding camera, you can say oh I was only doing 35, oh thats ok then, nevermind we will let you off.

If you have a major crash and people die the first thing that gets checked is the tire marks on the road, why? So they can prove if one party was to blame through speeding or some other kind of dangerous driving, ie on the phone and all over the road.

 

[Tute]

Speed doesn't kill. Dangerous driving does.

 

[Haggisman]

Errr did I say being on the phone and doing anything below 30 was OK.

Come on guys a bit of common sense is needed here. I am saying if you are doing over 30 in a 30 you are breaking the law. If you kill someone while you are breaking the law it is your fault, every single time you hurt someone while you are breaking the law it IS down to that person, that is why the law is there. Same as if you get caught on a speeding camera, you can say oh I was only doing 35, oh thats ok then, nevermind we will let you off.

If you have a major crash and people die the first thing that gets checked is the tire marks on the road, why? So they can prove if one party was to blame through speeding or some other kind of dangerous driving, ie on the phone and all over the road.

So, say I saw someone coming along the road who was obviously speeding, and at the last minute I jump out in front of them and they hit me and I was killed/seriously injured, it would still be 100% the driver's fault?

Surely you don't actually believe that? Real life events are never as black and white as you seem to be making out.

 

[PMKeates]

I am saying if you are doing over 30 in a 30 you are breaking the law. If you kill someone while you are breaking the law it is your fault, every single time you hurt someone while you are breaking the law it IS down to that person, that is why the law is there.

If you drive along and drive over someone at 20 in a 30 it is your fault, too.

 

[Scania]

Placing the honus entirely on the driver is ridiculous... how about you teach your kids to not run out in front of a moving vehicle or if they're too young to judge then they shouldn't be walking along the road unaccompanied.

The onus is on the driver as he has to be ready & able to react to whatever situation presents itself in his path, sure teach kids all you like, then you'll have to teach any stray dogs that run into the road, obstacles, the deaf & the myriad of other things that could crop up.

The onus is on the driver to expect the unexpected.

 

[Gaygle]

Come on guys a bit of common sense is needed here.

I agree - why don't you start posting some?

I am saying if you are doing over 30 in a 30 you are breaking the law. If you kill someone while you are breaking the law it is your fault, every single time you hurt someone while you are breaking the law it IS down to that person, that is why the law is there.

This is the most ridiculous interpretation of the law i've ever heard. You never answered my question - if i was doing 32 in a 30mph and a drunk ran out into the road at the last second, it would be 100% my fault? What happens if someone was lying in the road? Would it be my fault again?

In fact, let me answer this for you - NO IT WOULD NOT.

Same as if you get caught on a speeding camera, you can say oh I was only doing 35, oh thats ok then, nevermind we will let you off.

I have no idea what you're banging on about here?

If you have a major crash and people die the first thing that gets checked is the tire marks on the road, why? So they can prove if one party was to blame through speeding or some other kind of dangerous driving, ie on the phone and all over the road.

What's your point?

 

[Witcher1979]

The onus is on the driver as he has to be ready & able to react to whatever situation presents itself in his path, sure teach kids all you like, then you'll have to teach any stray dogs that run into the road, obstacles, the deaf & the myriad of other things that could crop up.

The onus is on the driver to expect the unexpected.

This

Finally someone who understands

When you get into a car, you are in control of a weapon if you will. Driver has to control it at all costs. If you cant control your car and want to blame everything else, get a push bike.

If a drunk jumps out in front of you, yes you should have been aware of your surroundings. Instead of on your mobile driving over the speed limit or day dreaming or whatever

I can always tell when to a bit clear of someone in towns when they are walking a bit funny. It is called observation on the drivers part. This country likes to blame everything and anyone else apart from them.

This seems like it is turning into an arguement, please do not think that, This is my point of view same as yours is yours.

Cheers

 

[PMKeates]

This

Finally someone who understands. I am not coming back to this thread, some people are getting a little bit over the top. Enjoy

The onus is on the driver to drive responsibly, but the responsibility for all eventualities is not. You are wrong.

 

[Witcher1979]

You typed that as I edited my post

 

[Basher]

I am saying if you are doing over 30 in a 30 you are breaking the law. If you kill someone while you are breaking the law it is your fault, every single time you hurt someone while you are breaking the law it IS down to that person, that is why the law is there.

What if the person you killed was also breaking the law?

What if you're doing 34 in a 30 and some guy comes driving down the road in the wrong direction (at 30) - and he dies - who's fault is that?

 

[PMKeates]

You typed that as I edited my post

Thing is, there's your moral point of view, then there's you saying someone else is responsible from some kind of legal perspective. That starts turning in to you claiming fact. If I was driving at 80 MPH along a motorway and someone jumped off the bridge above and I hit and killed them, I would not be convicted of death by dangerous driving. I'd imagine I'd be convicted of absolutely nothing at all, as it wouldn't be my fault for the accident nor my responsibility for the jumper's actions.

 

[ubersonic]

Come on guys a bit of common sense is needed here. I am saying if you are doing over 30 in a 30 you are breaking the law. If you kill someone while you are breaking the law it is your fault

lol, so if you are doing 71mph on an empty motorway in perfect conditions and a junkie runs into the road and you mow them down its 100% your fault however if your doing 70mph on a motorway in a monsoon and heavy traffic and the same thing happens it isn't?

Sorry dude but the is a big difference between speeding and dangerous driving. They have made all the areas outside schools round here 20mph zones and fitted speed bumps and it has had no effect, the is still an accident every couple of years because almost all accidents outside schools are due to stupid children not bad driving (in this area anyway).

It doesn't matter what speed you are doing if somebody walks into the road without looking and gets hit its partially their fault.