[Stuart]

Originally Posted by me283

Firstly, why is it stupid? You constantly make the point that higher speed = greater risk of death/injury. I am pointing out that there are still deaths/injuries when drivers have not broken the speed limits. Therefore, if we as a nation are committed to trying to stop ALL deaths/injuries on the road then why not reduce all speed limits to the point where accidents/injuries don not happen? Why is that stupid? I notica also that you didn't answer...

There is a greater risk of death or injury if an accident occurs at higher speeds. That's not to say there is no risk at low speeds. You can be pulling out of your drive at less that 10 MPH and still hit and kill a predestrian. If you hit a car at 10 Mph, then it's likely that you will just dent your car, and be a bit angry at the cost of repairs. If you hit a car at 90 mph and they are doing seventy, then there is a much greater risk of death or serious injury.

Second point, is actually wrong to say. Different cars, different drivers, different conditions... all have an impact on stopping distances. You might as well say "that car would have stopped from 30 mph in a much shorter distance if it had ABS brakes. The driver is to blame because he chose a cheaper option on his car". As has been pointed out, why always assume it's the driver's fault?

Surely the driver should be used to his car? He should be aware of the safe stopping distances for that car (even if he doesn't know the distances in feet or metres, he should be aware of how quickly he can stop).

I do agree with you on driving conditions though. They can have a massive impact on safety (after all, I am sure you would agree even 30 MPH is not safe if there is low visibility, snow or ice).

Last point - very poor. I think it is safe to say that nobody on this board would want anyone to die. But to then heap the blame on just one factor is grossly unfair. How about, for example: HERE LIES THE BODY OF X. HE GOT DRUNK AND WALKED IN FRONT OF A NON-SPEEDING CAR. HOWEVER IF THAT DRIVER HAD BEEN TRAVELLING AT 1MPH LESS HE MIGHT ONLY HAVE MAIMED OR CRIPPLED POOR X".

True, but I don't think anyone is blaming speeding exclusively. As I have stated, bad driving causes accidents and speeding can be a symptom of bad driving.

And, yes, your last state is exxagerated, but true.


Some people (and I am not having a go at anyone here) forget that a car, if not used correctly, can KILL. IMO controlling your speed is part of that "correct use".

The facts are that speeding is always pointed at. There are no GATSOs that I know of which can detect a drunk driver, which is far more dangerous in my opinion that having an extra stopping distance of a few feet. However there is a much smaller effort put in by the police to snare drink drivers than there is to catch speeding motorists. Incidentally, drink driving is (I believe) impossible to defend, unlike speeding.

I think you can query the results of the roadside test, but if that happens, the police re-test you at the station on a machine which I believe is far more accurate.

Actually, I suspect the only reason the police do not use Gatsos or any automated devices to test for drunk driving is simply that they don't exist. I am sure if someone invented one, the police would use it. In fact the only way I can think of that something like that would work is if your car automatically breathalysed you when you started the Engine.


BTW, if you don't believe the police do try and catch drunk drivers, just go to the main exit of the New Covent Garden fruit and veg market in Vauxhall, London at around 1pm any day around Christmas. Not quite sure why, but the pubs in that market have had 24 hour opening since the early 70s (apparently something to do with the market's main trading hours being 11pm to 4 am). The Police hang around the exits of that place and pounce on anyone driving even slightly erratically.