Depends on the at-risk person(s).
Driver awareness course ......
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Depends on the at-risk person(s).
Sponsored Links
Interesting virtue signalling it's just a shame you're not morally consistent being quite happy to hear no Ill of cliff Richard, for example, despite the fact he frequently fraternised with high profile peodohile filth within the BBC and upper echelons of government.
B
Brigade77
Would you rather crash at 20mph than 120mph?
Or, would you rather not crash at all?
Speeding is a symptom & not the cause.
Typically, we treat the symptoms & expect the cause to dissappear.
I'd rather be hit (as a pedestrian) by someone going 20mph than 40 mph, ta. You are still locked into your motorway/race track mentality boyo. You need to look at where authorities want to slow the traffic down then come back on that one.
You seem to be in a different argument to the one that is relevant.
Sponsored Links
Zero useful to add as per Nutter Hawk.
How many at risk pedestrians and cyclists do you see on the motorway and race track Brig?
Now have a guess where they put traffic calming measures such as speed bumps, 20mph zones etc, Brig?
Penny dropping yet?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,336
- Reaction score
- 2,120
- Country
@noseall - Do you understand the difference between free travelling speed and impact speed? The only part of "speed kills" that is relevant is the pure physics of the force (mass x speed). However, the "speed kills" mantra is all about attacking free travelling speed, which is bonkers.
The only thing that matters in setting your speed, is being able to stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear. If that is 40ft then you need to being at less than 20mph, if its 200ft then 50mph is safe.
The difference between free traveling speed and impact speed is entirely dependant on the conditions and a drivers reaction time.
The casualty stats don't support either the boom is speed cameras or the mass reduction in speed limits. The only thing that really hit road casualties in the last 10-20 years was the Financial crisis, which saw traffic volumes decrease.
The only thing that matters in setting your speed, is being able to stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear. If that is 40ft then you need to being at less than 20mph, if its 200ft then 50mph is safe.
The difference between free traveling speed and impact speed is entirely dependant on the conditions and a drivers reaction time.
The casualty stats don't support either the boom is speed cameras or the mass reduction in speed limits. The only thing that really hit road casualties in the last 10-20 years was the Financial crisis, which saw traffic volumes decrease.
None of the above factors in the stupidity of children stepping out into the road. The fact is that if they are hit by a car doing a slower speed then their chances of survival are a lot higher.
Diddums. Don't you like the way the argument has gone boyo.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,336
- Reaction score
- 2,120
- Country
examples of speed kills gone mad
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
They weren't red when I went through them, red as I exited the junction I was about 2 foot not out of the junction when they went red.
AMBER MEANS STOP ! that what I learned !!
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
5,000 deaths 200,000 injuries police figures NHS estimates are the higher figure quoted.
When I go competitive racing, I prepare the car, and myself for a crash. Sooner or later it WILL happen. It's part of the thrill, pushing past the limit, or a sudden reaction to a bad move by somebody else.
If I didn't expect a crash to happen I would be dangerous to myself and others. Hence why strict safety requirements are set.
I do accept speed itself does not kill. But 30mph outside a school at kicking out time is far more dangerous than 80mph on a clear motorway at 2am. 1 is legal though.
But the general public do not do this, they travel through built up areas in excess of 30mph, and that is, or can be, dangerous.
Do you think speed limits in built up areas are a good or bad idea? Safer to have limits, or not ?
Motorway limits are a different argument, but are generally too busy to allow excess speeding. The average driver (most of us are average, or around average) is not good enough to speed in busy traffic.
Speeding is therefore dangerous and life threatening. Yes? Or no ?
Luckily you managed to avoid the glaring road casualty deaths amongst children. They have been falling year on year for many years. Have a guess where motorists are greatly encouraged to do slower speeds...….?
Sponsored Links
