I agree that we should have more traffic police roaming the streets, but I bet not one is willing to allow an increase in income tax to pay for them.

Two people have talked about the indirect cost.We now pay more in taxes generally then ever (ignore income tax)

Why does there appear to be less of a police presence than in the last twenty years?

You lot make me laugh sometimes.

If an accident happens' date=' then a higher speed increases the chance of that accident being fatal. I agree that we should have more traffic police roaming the streets, but I bet not one is willing to allow an increase in income tax to pay for them. They need their training, uniforms, cars, equipment as well as wages. They do get pricey. Also, you are unlikely to find a traffic officer who always just sits there in a van/car and gets their speed gun out. Most are too busy dealing with other incidents and paperwork. Not sure if anyone has noticed but on some motorways now the DOT are employing people to help out on the motorways and major A roads in dealing with accidents, people broken and all sorts of things that are stopping the steady flow of traffic, look out for them, they drive 4x4's and have black and yellow battenburgs.

Aren't the motorway gantry signs controlled by DOT?[/quote']

???? Aren't Motorways the safest road type? the speed here is the highest..

I would rather pay for traffic police over speed scamera's.. As they would catch and deal with dangerous driving as i described in my post above...

Of course the higher the speed the worst the impact, thats the simple answer, but because dual carraigeways and motorways have crash barriers and other safety features then you are less likely to hit something solid..

where as lower speed impacts, country lanes, in towns etc.. If you hit a wall or oncoming vehicle this might be worse....

Speed is not a killer!!! Airliners are the safest way to travel, and they are the

fastest by far....

Dazz

Speed is not a killer!!! Airliners are the safest way to travel' date=' and they are the

fastest by far....[/quote']

And how many of their crashes are non-fatal?

Not quite a useful comparison is it?

You lot make me laugh sometimes.

If an accident happens' date=' then a higher speed increases the chance of that accident being fatal. [/quote']

I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise. The general consensus on that subject, is speed does not necessarily cause an accident in the first place.

I agree that we should have more traffic police roaming the streets, but I bet not one is willing to allow an increase in income tax to pay for them. They need their training, uniforms, cars, equipment as well as wages. They do get pricey.

Erm...we used to have alot of policemen, already bought and paid for. They have been replaced by money making gatso's and talivan's run by "safety partnerships". You used to find policemen in police stations too, but now you have civvies with a uniform instead. The facty of the matter is, we should have a decrease in income tax due to the lesser amount of policemen, and the

Speed is not a killer!!! Airliners are the safest way to travel' date=' and they are the

fastest by far....

Dazz[/quote']

I agree but accidents will and do happen. Fact of life sadly. Surely a lower impact at 70mph is better than an impact at 130mph?

Don't forget that motorways can require a lot of concentration to judge what is happening around you, who's moving where, is it safe to move out etc. Just think about the last time you was on a busy motorway, people darting from lane to lane etc, did your brain hurt after while thinking about whats going on? Thats at 70mph. Now double the rate in which you have to think about your decisions, thats gonna be hard on anyone. I hope you always think, can I move over to let the faster idiot through, is that car going to move to the middle to overtake the lorry, will he get in my way, whats the traffic doing up ahead, how close am I to the car in front, am I correctly positioned in my lane, is anyone in the middle lane, is it safe to indicate.... I hope you all ask those questions when moving from lane 3 to lane 2 when a BMW wants his lane back. If not, maybe you should be asking if you are competant enough to drive on a motorway. But I'll assume you are asking all of those. Say you ask them at 70mph, it takes a few seconds to check whats going on, now say the speed limit is 140mph and in your new car which can do that speed, you are travelling at 140mph. You now have 1 second to judge everything. Think it'll be safe still? I don't.

My thoughts only, I'd rather the speed limit stay the same and we all start to worry about other things, which are arguably more important in this life. We only get 1 short at life and I'd rather live til I'm 80 or so than 23 and die in a high speed car crash.

Your country, your choice though.

And how many of their crashes are non-fatal?

Not quite a useful comparison is it?

Word....air travel maybe safe, but alot of air tragedies have happened, and when they do happen, it's at least 200 lives & cars worth or 500 if you're in a Jumbo...

moose i don't know about anyone else but i am consantly asking mysef those questions whether i am doing 20mph or 120mph, obviously if a road is ery busy then people wouldn't be doing 140mph weaving in and out of traffic as it is plain stupid to do so.

i am 100% with shfty on this one, speed in itself is not a killer, stupidity, ignorance, lack of skill are all killers.

i drive shed loads and see people driving about at 50% of the posted limit causing hassle and turning/changing lanes withno idea whats going on about them with no indication and these are the people thta cause accidents.

today whilst driving down my road on m way home the car in front indicated right and pulled over so i continued past only to have to perform an emergency stop 2 seconds later when the stupid cow swings out sharply to the left, when i manage to stop about 2" from the side of her car she starts ranting and raving at me to watch were i'm going and to stop driving like a lunatic :confused:

apparently it was obvious(according to her) that by indicating right she was going to pull over to the right, nearly stop then swing out sharp left right accross the road so she could reverse into her garden and i was an ignorant SOAB(her words) for attempting to drive past(what i assumed) a parked car :confused:

its things like the above that cause accidents, stupid ignorant people who drive aroud in their own little world cutting everyone up and not realising

i am 100% with shfty on this one, speed in itself is not a killer, stupidity, ignorance, lack of skill are all killers.

What I was trying to say was while speed doesn't always cause the accidents, it does turn an accident into a fatal accident. And if you think about how easy it is to have a bump with mindless idiots about, is it not better to have a bump, write the car off, sore neck or so for a few weeks than be killed?

Or is being killed a better option? And I thought I was the pyscho on this forum.

I wish people driving it at 40 mph in a 60 zone when they can clearly see there are 50 cars behind them should accelerate to the national speed limit. Not only do they cause road rage in drivers following but certain age groups (young lads inparticular) will cut up the entire road in an attempt to get by them, skipping in and out of cars. If people actually drove at the correct speed limits then I have no doubt these people in question would be more sedate in their driving style.

The most frustrating thing is that no matter what we say it wont make a blind bit of difference, the government will continue to rake it in and we'll be left with average speed counters that will fine us if we exceed the speed limit by 5 mph. How you say? New GPS Black boxes currently being trialed.

And how many of their crashes are non-fatal?

Not quite a useful comparison is it?

Why not? 'Speed kills' is the phrase that is banded about with rgd's to road safety...

Statistics prove that airlines are the safest form of transport...

The point is that speed alone is not the problem..

Dazz

???? Aren't Motorways the safest road type? the speed here is the highest..I would rather pay for traffic police over speed scamera's.. As they would catch and deal with dangerous driving as i described in my post above...

Of course the higher the speed the worst the impact' date=' thats the simple answer, [b']but because dual carraigeways and motorways have crash barriers and other safety features then you are less likely to hit something solid..[/b]

where as lower speed impacts, country lanes, in towns etc.. If you hit a wall or oncoming vehicle this might be worse....

Speed is not a killer!!! Airliners are the safest way to travel, and they are the fastest by far....

Dazz

But then pilots undergo a LOT of training and aren't out on their own making their own decisions- air traffic control are there to help and guide them!

how great would it be to have someone telling you constantly - 'theres nothing round the corner, go for it!' or 'theres a people carrier full of children pulling out 200yds round the corner, slow down'!!

Speed itself has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that motorways are the safest type of road - FACT. The only reason motorways are safer than A/B roads is because of segragated direction of travel, crash barriers and 'other safety features' that you mention. And the fact that motorways have no roundabouts/crossroads/junctions/traffic lights/pedestrians/cyclists on them. imagine how safe our roads would be if they all conformed to the motorway standard! you'd have a bl**dy great long slip road just to pull off your driveway!! (we'd also have no fields/greenery etc as it'd all be tarmac! )

Whilst I agree that motorway speed limits could be higher due to the above remember that if you find yourself approaching a 'situation' that could potentialy cause you to crash are you not better approaching it at 70mph and possibly avoiding it alltogether? or braking from 150 and still entering the 'situation' at 80mph ish??

You have to remember that there are other people on the roads and that they might not be as amazing a driver as some of us think we are, and they probably know it so they will drive to the best of their ability and not exceed it, this might include driving below the speed limit and although they are p*ssing you off by driving slower they are probably actually a better driver as they know their limits and dont drive beyond them!! they are also perfectly within their rights to do so, a speed limit is exectly that - the MAXIMUM you can legaly drive at - not the speed you must drive at!

On the pedestrians front - yes hitting one at slower speeds will result in less injury/risk of death, and i believe limits should be reduced by schools/housing estates etc but then i'm a great believer in natural selection where the strongest/fittest/most intelligent survive and the rest should not be molly coddled by a nanny state putting up railings everywhere to stop stupid people running in front of cars, if your that stupid then your asking for it really. similarly if you 'chose' to drive at 150mph and kill yourself (not to mention innocent people who dont chose to) whos gonna serve my chips in Mc'Donalds? :dunce:

I agree but accidents will and do happen. Fact of life sadly. Surely a lower impact at 70mph is better than an impact at 130mph?

Don't forget that motorways can require a lot of concentration to judge what is happening around you' date=' who's moving where, is it safe to move out etc. Just think about the last time you was on a busy motorway, people darting from lane to lane etc, did your brain hurt after while thinking about whats going on? Thats at 70mph. Now double the rate in which you have to think about your decisions, thats gonna be hard on anyone. I hope you always think, can I move over to let the faster idiot through, is that car going to move to the middle to overtake the lorry, will he get in my way, whats the traffic doing up ahead, how close am I to the car in front, am I correctly positioned in my lane, is anyone in the middle lane, is it safe to indicate.... I hope you all ask those questions when moving from lane 3 to lane 2 when a BMW wants his lane back. If not, maybe you should be asking if you are competant enough to drive on a motorway. But I'll assume you are asking all of those. Say you ask them at 70mph, it takes a few seconds to check whats going on, now say the speed limit is 140mph and in your new car which can do that speed, you are travelling at 140mph. You now have 1 second to judge everything. Think it'll be safe still? I don't.

My thoughts only, I'd rather the speed limit stay the same and we all start to worry about other things, which are arguably more important in this life. We only get 1 short at life and I'd rather live til I'm 80 or so than 23 and die in a high speed car crash.

Your country, your choice though.[/quote']

I spend most of my driving life sitting on motorways.. I've seen plently of good and bad driving... In 95% of the incidents i've seen are not anything to do with speed, HGV's wandering into the centre lane, vehicles move lanes then indicate.. etc etc.... I'm allways looking well ahead for things like vehicles in other lanes approaching slower traffic, anticipating there actions.

I usually drive with my lights on, helps me to be seen...

I can usually spot a police car well before anyone else does around me..

I then sit and watch amused as car after car almost go upto level with the patrol car and throw the achor out to slow down to below 70mph, they then sit there not wanting to go past....

Just another point I have seen 3/4 fatal accidents and I do not think speed was a factor in any of them..

one was a HGV in which the driver had fell asleep, lost control and literally ran over a car...

An other was caused by a HGV unable to stop in time because he was tailgating to close and squashed the car against another HGV...

The final one I saw happening, a 4x4 and caravan got caught by a gust of wind which flipped them both and caused the 4x4 to hit the central barriers..

So you could die at 70mph the same as if you were at 100mph..

Also if you are driving quickly and constantly checking then you are more than likely more aware of things around you than just cruising along at 60mph...

Dazz

I wish people driving it at 40 mph in a 60 zone when they can clearly see there are 50 cars behind them should accelerate to the national speed limit. Not only do they cause road rage in drivers following but certain age groups (young lads inparticular) will cut up the entire road in an attempt to get by them' date=' skipping in and out of cars.[/b'] If people actually drove at the correct speed limits then I have no doubt these people in question would be more sedate in their driving style.

The most frustrating thing is that no matter what we say it wont make a blind bit of difference, the government will continue to rake it in and we'll be left with average speed counters that will fine us if we exceed the speed limit by 5 mph. How you say? New GPS Black boxes currently being trialed.

The bad drivers in that case would be the ones 'experiencing' road rage and cutting other people up, being impatient etc. the person at the front of the que is well within their rights to be driving at that speed!

The bad drivers in that case would be the ones 'experiencing' road rage and cutting other people up, being impatient etc. the person at the front of the que is well within their rights to be driving at that speed!

Fine, I'm going to spend the rest of the month crawling around town at a constant 5mph. I wonder how many people are going to be in an 'accident' because people are trying to overtake me or get round me?!

Yeah, it'll be them driving badly and killing people or causing damage, but it will be me that caused it, when I could have quite easily driven at a totally safe 30mph for most of the duration.

When I get out of town, around all the 60mph limit country roads I'll be going 25mph. Absolutely no one will drive into the back of me, or nearly hit me at all. Because they are all going 30mph 'expecting' me to be going so slow round a corner in front of them.

It's bloody stupid. Going excessively slower than the limit is just as dangerous, if not more, than going over the limit in some situations.

Fine' date=' I'm going to spend the rest of the month crawling around town at a constant 5mph. I wonder how many people are going to be in an 'accident' because people are trying to overtake me or get round me?!

Yeah, it'll be them driving badly and killing people or causing damage, but it will be [b']me [/b]that caused it, when I could have quite easily driven at a totally safe 30mph for most of the duration.

When I get out of town, around all the 60mph limit country roads I'll be going 25mph. Absolutely no one will drive into the back of me, or nearly hit me at all. Because they are all going 30mph 'expecting' me to be going so slow round a corner in front of them.

It's bloody stupid. Going excessively slower than the limit is just as dangerous, if not more, than going over the limit in some situations.

Complete and utter rubbish!!

Have you ever run into the back of someone because they were driving too slowly? if you have then the insurance claim would have been in your fault!

You should not drive round a corner at 30mph just because you can legally do so, you should only ever drive fast enough so that you can stop the vehicle in the road space you can see ahead of you! what if someone pulled out of a driveway? they might be accellerating to 30mph but at the time you come across them they are only doing 5mph -your doing 30mph despite the fact you cant see round the bend and stop in the space you can see and bang - your fault!

They don't "help out", they directly replace the bought and paid for policemen we used to have.

BY SHIFTY

These people in the shoguns & rovers are employed to remove the debris from the motorways , left by accidents or bits falling off vehicles, I would sooner these people were sweeping up broken glass & bits of car off the motorway after the accident, to let the Police go and get the nutter drivers.

Now if you are talkin about the " Community Officers" complete waste of space.

These people in the shoguns & rovers are employed to remove the debris from the motorways , left by accidents or bits falling off vehicles, I would sooner these people were sweeping up broken glass & bits of car off the motorway after the accident, to let the Police go and get the nutter drivers.

Very much agree

Now if you are talkin about the " Community Officers" complete waste of space.

Thats a new can-o-worms

Complete and utter rubbish!!

Have you ever run into the back of someone because they were driving too slowly? if you have then the insurance claim would have been in your fault!

You should not drive round a corner at 30mph just because you can legally do so' date=' you should only ever drive fast enough so that you can stop the vehicle in the road space you can see ahead of you! what if someone pulled out of a driveway? they might be accellerating to 30mph but at the time you come across them they are only doing 5mph -your doing 30mph despite the fact you cant see round the bend and stop in the space you can see and bang - your fault![/quote']

I'm not saying it wouldn't be my fault. I'm saying you don't expect people to be driving at half the limit when conditions are optimal.

The country lanes around my house are windey and narrow. Yet all 60mph limits. Driving them all at 60 is stupidity, but if you drove them all at a speed that you could come to a stop in the space you can see would be a case of driving around at 20mph - and my point is, noone drives them at that speed, so if you do you will likely cause an accident.

Many a time I've been going down the road by my house and a car has stoppped at the side, blocking the road. If you are driving that road at 40mph (20 below the limit - and this is a road that is fine to drive 60 down) this stopped car can come up on you damn fast. Is it my fault for not driving that road at 20mph? perhaps, but just as much as their fault for stopping after a blind corner and blocking the lane.

On the A52 in Derby there are turnings out of small villages like Draycott onto the dual carriageway with no sliproads. Are you suggesting we all drive at 30mph on the dual carriageways we have never been on just in case one of these turnings is there?

In Surrey I've been on a road that crosses all 4 lanes of a dual carriageway. Should I expect people on the carriageway to be going 30mph so they can stop if they see me pulling across 2 lanes to the central reserve?

Going too slow in places where there is no reason to be going slow is dangerous. If you can't handle your car to keep up with the majority of traffic, use a different road. Simple.

The country lanes around my house are windey and narrow. Yet all 60mph limits. Driving them all at 60 is stupidity' date=' but if you drove them all at a speed that you could come to a stop in the space you can see would be a case of driving around at 20mph - and my point is, [b']noone [/b]drives them at that speed, so if you do you will likely cause an accident.

Then if you are driving safely on these roads you should be driving at 20mph, anyone who is driving faster is driving dangerously and if you should be involved in an accident with them and you can show you were driving correctly for the distance you can see ahead of you then the accident would be the other parties fault!

Many a time I've been going down the road by my house and a car has stoppped at the side' date=' blocking the road. If you are driving that road at 40mph (20 below the limit - and this is a road that is fine to drive 60 down) this stopped car can come up on you damn fast. Is it my fault for not driving that road at 20mph? perhaps, but just as much as their fault for stopping after a blind corner and blocking the lane.[/quote']

Yes it would be solely your fault, if there are no restrictions on parking they are doing nothing wrong, aside from being a bit thick of course. also what if they had broken down or something? this is why you should only ever drive fast enough so you can stop in the distance you can see! A blind corner is not a blind corner if you are driving correctly.Simple!

On the A52 in Derby there are turnings out of small villages like Draycott onto the dual carriageway with no sliproads. Are you suggesting we all drive at 30mph on the dual carriageways we have never been on just in case one of these turnings is there?

The turning will be sign posted' date=' so a competent driver will be aware of the danger, and yes you should take appropriate action if you see a car pulling out, or waiting to pull out, or even if you just see the sign but cant spot the turning as it could be hidden, this may involve slowing down, changing lanes or a combination of both.

In Surrey I've been on a road that crosses all 4 lanes of a dual carriageway. Should I expect people on the carriageway to be going 30mph so they can stop if they see me pulling across 2 lanes to the central reserve?

You should expect them to be aware that you may be pulling across the carriageway and that they should be prepared for such a situation yes.

Going too slow in places where there is no reason to be going slow is dangerous. If you can't handle your car to keep up with the majority of traffic' date=' use a different road. Simple.[/quote']

The majority is not the law. Simple!

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, but my point is most people have vague expectations of how fast people will travel. You don't expect someone to be driving down the motorway at 25mph, even if it is legal.

Personally I would class it as bad driving to be on the motorway at 25mph, and I would also find it quite dangerous. As I would find someone cycling on the motorway dangerous - not because they are on a bike, but because they cannot keep up with the traffic.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this' date=' but my point is most people have vague expectations of how fast people will travel. You don't expect someone to be driving down the motorway at 25mph, even if it is legal.

Personally I would class it as bad driving to be on the motorway at 25mph, and I would also find it quite dangerous. As I would find someone cycling on the motorway dangerous - not because they are on a bike, but because they cannot keep up with the traffic.[/quote']

The minimum speed limit on a motorway is 40mph. I did listen to some parts during my learning.

The minimum speed limit on a motorway is 40mph. I did listen to some parts during my learning.

And this is because going slower than that causes problems and is dangerous, so why does that logic not cross over to other roads?

EDIT: I'm also sure that there is no legally enforced minimum speed limit in the UK.

We should stop all the scrounging jobless scum, asylum seekers, drug users, refugees/immigrants taking all of our country's money, stop butting in to other peoples civil wars, and get our house in order.

Not all immigrants are bad for Britain, ask the NHS about 40 % of its staff, who happen to be immigrants. Ask the hospitality and farming industry in fact. One immigrant doctor saves the UK several hundred thousand pounds in training costs and they are ready to work straight away. The same counts for Immigrant accountants, lawyers, plumbers, technicians etc. and I do agree about the "jobless scum" or parasite class as I like to call them. :thumbdwn:

Back on topic, want to see the best driving in Britain, spot any police car on the road and then watch the cars around them, model drivers. best safety device known to man is a large volvo in bright colours with two policeman inside.

I am totally opposed to cameras, they serve as a revenue generation tool. The cameras have spawned an industry which needs to pay for itself though fines.

"according to local paper The Huddersfield Daily Examiner, the number of offences committed by drivers in West Yorkshire has jumped by a staggering 2,400 per cent in the last five years, from 3,789 in 1999 to 94,923 in 2004. Meanwhile, the numbers of traffic police have fallen from 313 to 252, coinciding with the introduction of speed cameras. Yet the numbers of road accident-based fatalities remains at or around 3,000 nationally"

so according to this evidence they may contribute to accidents. Here are a few more interesting reads

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=11380

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=11392

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=11379

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=11560

Makes good reading.

Many a time I've been going down the road by my house and a car has stoppped at the side' date=' blocking the road. If you are driving that road at 40mph (20 below the limit - and this is a road that is fine to drive 60 down) this stopped car can come up on you damn fast. Is it my fault for not driving that road at 20mph? perhaps, but just as much as their fault for stopping after a blind corner and blocking the lane.

[/quote']

If a tree had fallen, and you came barrelling around a corner into it, would it be the tree's fault?

If a tree had fallen, and you came barrelling around a corner into it, would it be the tree's fault?

If a tree fell onto the motorway as I was doing 70, and I hit it. Would it be my fault for not doing 30mph?