Serve him right

[Quillan]

If we go back to the original post I think they should take his car away. Everyone knows or should know the speed limits here in France. This guy was doing 221kph in a 110kph limit, double the speed. It does not matter if he was or was not a safe driver it's that he broke the law and by a huge amount. He obviouly thought he would get away with it and he hasn't. This has absolutly nothing to do with the UK, if speed kills, speed cameras in the UK or anything else it's about a guy who has broken the law here in France. At the end of the day it's a very, very simple case really.

[Cassis]

I think the problem with really high speed on the public road, such as in this case, is that it leaves little margin for error, not only on the part of the speeding driver (regardless of his self-estimated skill level) but also those he is bearing down on and overtaking.  At this kind of speed it just takes one peson to pull out unexpectedly in front of him and everyone's stuffed.  I've no problem with speed on track days, but if I get nicked for speeding on the public road that's life, tough, no point in my whingeing about it, trying to justify myself or banging on about how fast my car can brake/accelerate/corner. 

[Dick Smith]

Chris - I was thinking about this driving home along the A3 (Kingston Bypass). The limit there is 50mph, most people do about 55, some nutters do 70. I have never driven at 221kph, but I have driven at 130, so I just imagined what doing 100+mph would be like on that road. Then I slowed down just a bit...

I don't care how good you think you are you can't legislate for the other drivers, and you can't handle such a speed differential unless you are highly professional.

[Cassis]

Oops! Voluntarily withdrawn!

Phil

[Russethouse]

I had a look at the Thames Valley Police web site, actually 'answers' some of Alcazars points, but no doubt, not to his satisfaction! [;-)]

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/roads/about/speeding.htm

[Sunday Driver]

[quote user="Quillan"]

If we go back to the original post I think they should take his car away. Everyone knows or should know the speed limits here in France. This guy was doing 221kph in a 110kph limit, double the speed. It does not matter if he was or was not a safe driver it's that he broke the law and by a huge amount. He obviouly thought he would get away with it and he hasn't. This has absolutly nothing to do with the UK, if speed kills, speed cameras in the UK or anything else it's about a guy who has broken the law here in France. At the end of the day it's a very, very simple case really.

[/quote]

Says it all, really.  The rest of this debate is just irrelevant....

[Just Katie]

AMEN

[Quillan]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]Chris - I was thinking about this driving home along the A3 (Kingston Bypass). The limit there is 50mph, most people do about 55, some nutters do 70. I have never driven at 221kph, but I have driven at 130, so I just imagined what doing 100+mph would be like on that road. Then I slowed down just a bit...
I don't care how good you think you are you can't legislate for the other drivers, and you can't handle such a speed differential unless you are highly professional.
[/quote]

I know this road, lived in Cheam Village for 8 years and New Malden before that and Raynes Park as well. I love the way they speed down toward Tolworth from Guildford where it goes from 3 to 2 lanes just to get in front. I expect it's changed a lot in 15 years. Sorry bit off topic.

[Dick Smith]

A bit more restrained now it's down to a 50mph limit, but still crazy. There's a speed camera there, so those in the know slam on the brakes, those who don't desperately try to avoid them.

To get back to a France-related topic, I find that sort of craziness much less in France. Old men in sans-permis, complete madmen in tractors turning left with no warning, hanging on my bumper at 110kph yes, but not that mad rush to get to the slow bit first.

[neiljr]

Russethouse wrote:

I' m sorry but the long and short of it is, the safest way to drive and the way to avoid fines, is to keep to the speed limit.

Sorry but this is just plain wrong, a good driver will drive correctly for the conditions and make a judgement as to a safe speed not just blindly adhere to a speed sign.  

[chris pp]

Neiljr, Perhaps what she meant (not that I know what she meant) was "to drive within or below the speed limit"

is that better?

Chris

 

[Russethouse]

Absolutely Chris. Thanks.

 

[Alcazar]

More PC mumbo-jumbo, from your favourite PC mod, Russethouse![:P]

Alcazar

[Quillan]

Who said speeding does not kill?

ITV or was it C4 News last night, 12% of road deaths are as a direct result of speeding. They were talking about a new speed "gun" that can be put in place of a cats eye and does not need a flash at night. So that blows that myth out of the water. No speed limits in Germany on motorways, another myth, there are on the city and dangerous sections and they are considering putting a 130kph limit on all motorways because thats where they have the highest number of accidents. The Road Research Lab in Berkshire claim somewhere I read that most normal drivers are not capable of driving safely over 160kph because they can't repond quick enough.

Personaly I think on the spot fines like in France are a really good way of stopping speeding, well at least most of it, plus the threat of having you car taken away. At the end of the day in most EU countries there are speed limits, you go over, you get a fine. It's really quite simple. Yes you can justify it to yourself that you might be speeding in the eyes of the law but you were actually driving very safely. Well thats up to you, pay the fine and you can't really complain. Just to say I am using the word 'you' in a general sense and am not refering to any individual.

[Russethouse]

Alcazar - ever heard that saying 'Better to arrive late, than dead on time' ?[:)]

[Alcazar]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Alcazar - ever heard that saying 'Better to arrive late, than dead on time' ?[:)][/quote]

Yep: another mantra isn't it?[:D]

Seriously, the "speed kills brigade" are full of 'em. Easy to remember, easy to recite.

I've just read Quillan's post too, "12% of deaths directly caused by speeding".

Says who? It wasn't so long ago that the DfT, (isn't that pronounced "daft"?), were telling us 38%.

Now they've been LEGALLY forced to lower that quite a ways on their website.

And the bit about German motorways? OK, but what are the fastest and most heavily populated roads in the UK? Motorways. And where, in the UK are accidents at their lowest level, especially fatalities? You guessed it. So if speed kills, why aren't all motorway users dead? Because THEIR speed is APPROPRIATE, that's why.  See the next but one paragraph.

However, DON'T get the idea I'm condoning speeding, nor am I encouraging others to speed. What I AM about is exploding the myth that speeding is the "Bete noir", they all say it is; trying to stop people from blindly reciting the anti-speeding lobby's mantras, and falling for government spin.

I ask again: WHY is it legally OK to drive at 30 mph past a school where the kids are coming out, but NOT OK to do 80 mph on a dry, deserted well lit motorway? Yes, I know, a RESPONSIBLE driver would NOT drive at 30mph past said school, but NO-ONE could be prosecuted for so doing, should they hit a child who ran out. The law is the law, as many of you on here keep reminding me.

And WHY is the preferred, (ACPO guidelines), camera the forward facing one, when it can't catch the one group of speeders that are largely involved in fatalities? Ah yes, it helps to rake in fines from the 96% of motorists it can catch.....despite the fact that THEY have a MUCH lower poulation : accident ratio. "Safety Cameras"? I think NOT[:@] 

I give up. Seriously, I give up. You are all brainwashed. "Speed kills". Long live the scamera partnerships.

Alcazar[:(]

[CBC]

Why doesn't one of you who have never broken a speed limit ever or anywhere start campaigning for motor manufacturers to have to restrict speeds on their cars .....................  If the cars were unable to go so fast, there wouldn't be the problem with people doing 221kph or similar, would there? 

Drivers are the main problem, antiquated speed limits on motorways don't help either.  People driving too slowly on all types of road  and those who are no longer fit to drive are no safer.  

Locally a man was killed on the motorway because he was driving in the wrong direction, not the first incident of this type of road death.  He was 79 

[Sunday Driver]

[quote user="Alcazar"]

I ask again: WHY is it legally OK to drive at 30 mph past a school where the kids are coming out, but NOT OK to do 80 mph on a dry, deserted well lit motorway?  Yes, I know, a RESPONSIBLE driver would NOT drive at 30mph past said school, but NO-ONE could be prosecuted for so doing, should they hit a child who ran out. The law is the law, as many of you on here keep reminding me.

[/quote]

You constantly refuse to accept the "speed kills" concept - then you go on to declare that a responsible driver would not drive at 30mph past said school.  So, why would he not? Could it be that by reducing his speed, he wants to reduce the risk of possibly hitting/killing a child?  After all, if there was no risk, then there'd be no need for him to reduce his speed, would there? 

You really need to make up your mind.  Or have you finally decided to join the "speed kills brigade"?

You say that the law is the law, and tell us that it is legally OK to drive at 30mph past a school where kids are coming out.  Furthermore, you emphatically declare that no-one could be prosecuted for so doing if they hit a child who ran out.

However, your statements are clearly contradicted by the UK Highway Code which states:

104: The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions can be dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when

• the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends

• sharing the road with pedestrians and cyclists, particularly children, and motorcyclists

• weather conditions make it safer to do so

• driving at night as it is harder to see other road users.

The UK Crown Prosecution Service take the view that failure to observe a provision of the Highway Code does not itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or dangerous driving (eg, speed, which is highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions).  Section 38(7) RTA 1988 is the statutory authority for this point.

Sorry to keep reminding you.....[;-)]

[Quillan]

Perhaps the figure of road deaths due to speeding has dropped because theres more cameras around I really can't say. It's not a thing I am normally interested in it's just it was mentioned on the news, somebody mentioned it here as well so I thought I would post it.

I believe there are experiments to do with GPS, black box's, plugging them in to car 'brains' at the moment. There was a thing on TV were a guy was driving for a year with such a system that limited the car speed to match the limit imposed on the road. It also monitors the driving practices and can use the information for things like insurance (the worse you drive the more you pay) and some form of tax on distance travelled. Many modern cars have a speed limiting system, my 307 has such a system. I can set mine to 50kph and it does not matter how hard I push the foot down it stays at a maximum of 50kph. It's something I have only just found out about and would have saved me from a 90€ fine for speeding in a 50kph zone. Won't get caught on that one again I hope.

[Alcazar]

Sunday driver:  in response to your first point, I refer you once again to my statement thast I am NOT condoning speeding, nor am I encouraging others so to do.

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment over slowing outside schools etc etc

However, I am certainly NOT going to join the "speed kills brigade", either now, or in the future.[;-)]

In response to your point from the Highway Code..........have you EVER known anyone face a successful prosecution while driving within the speed limit? No? Nor have I. Not unless there was some OTHER evidence that he/she was driving erratically, eg: drink, eating at the wheel, mobile phone use etc.Not when a man found to be 3 times over the limit, couldn't be prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving, as there was, and I quote, "no evidence that he was actually driving dangerously"! He WAS within the speed limit! He killed an 8 year old boy, and then ran off.

I reiterate: what I am against is the blind following of the "speed kills mantra", and it's use to criminalise drivers, and mainly, to make the collection of fines for speeding, a good thing in the public's eyes.

I am against the cynical siting of SOME, in fact quite a few, speed cameras both in the UK and in France.

I am against the LACK of speed cameras outside most schools etc.

I am against the way speeding fines are pursued to the very limit of the law, while other, PERHAPS more serious? crimes aren't.

I am against the way that the provision of speed cameras, and their lauding as the answer by Scamera partnerships, the police, the local authorities and the governemnt, has led to a lessening of other, more worthwhile policing on our roads.

I am against the lies told about speed cameras: a surpressed report has recently found that many scamera sites actually see a RISE in accidents, due to people braking.........often people already within the limit, scared of being criminalised Go on, tell me YOU'VE never done it?

I am against the way scamera partnerships are investing the money collected from speeding fines, not in road safety IMPROVEMENTS, but in more cameras, to collect even more money. At the same time, they trot out their tame police officer after every accident to state that "there are no such things as dangerous roads, only dangerous drivers". Yep, a road never killed anyone, but isn't that rather splitting hairs? In order to make it OK to do nowt? Even the French recognise that SOME roads are dangerous, and either post them as such, or do something about it. And in the UK?????

I could go on, but I'm boring myself, so you scamera worshippers probably turned off a few paragraphs back.[:D]

Alcazar

[Pads]

speeding in any shape or form on any road should be crushed as hard as possible, I hope they do take his car away and ban him for live .

4 years ago a speeding car coming towards us clipped her side of the headge  lost control and rolled her car down the lane and it landed on top of ours and we were crushed. My head was split open from forehead to jaw(you could of rolled 10 pound coins between my two front teeth) and my leg was broken 16 times, I was in bed for 6 months and another 8 months learning to walk and getting back my fitness. I have been left with plates and pins all over the place, but the worse thing is i lost my sense of smell and a lot of my taste( if you are a foodie or a gardener like i use to be imagine that)

Her speed 60mph  not that fast you might thing but add that to our 40mph and look at the damage it caused, let alone the damage to my 2 friends and husband and to her self.

her punishment 60pound fine and 3 points  mine a life time of pain in my leg and head and knowing i will never smell my husband, dogs, flowers, food, or anything ever again (things that were very important in my life)

Now some one tell me its ok to speed    

[arthur smith]

interesting debate, my two penneth;

there was a time when speed cameras were first mooted that i thought what a good idea, as i was led to believe that it would free up police officers for other crime prevention duties, but whilst speed cameras seem to have flourished, there doesn't seem to be (imo) a corresponding number of police visibly on other crime prevention duties.

i agree with speed limits, but i think that they should be flexible a la 110/130 french system. 80 mph on a motorway if it's fine, 70 mph if it's raining / foggy etc. seems to work okay in france.

as for residential areas, i think the limit should be 20 mph, aren't most residential journeys less than 1 mile ? what would that cost time wise ?  6 minutes, not a lot in the scheme of things.

to play devils advocate, if it's accepted that excess speed is responsible for 12% of fatalities, who's doing something about the other 88% ?

i would have more sympathy with a driver doing 95 mph on a clear dry motorway, than with all the d**ks i see driving with a mobile stuck to their ear, reading, smoking, eating, drinking, and for g*ds sake, even texting.

arthur

 

 

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="neiljr"]

I' m sorry but the long and short of it is, the safest way to drive and the way to avoid fines, is to keep to the speed limit.

Sorry but this is just plain wrong, a good driver will drive

correctly for the conditions and make a judgement as to a safe speed

not just blindly adhere to a speed sign.  

[/quote]

Yeah, and part of the problem is that so many people think that they

are "good" drivers. About 80%, appearantly, consider themselves to be

drivers of above average ability. It does not take a genius to realise

that many of these people are deluded. Since there is no easy way to

sort the wheat from the charfe (except, perhaps, letting people drive

in whatever way they see fit UNTIL they kill someone, and then impose

some restrictions upon them [:)]), the rules of the road must be

pitched to the average. This is tough on those of "above average

ability", but then life isn't fair, is it?

[Sunday Driver]

[quote user="Alcazar"] I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment over slowing outside schools etc etc.

However, I am certainly NOT going to join the "speed kills brigade", either now, or in the future

[/quote]

It was actually your sentiment that I was analysing.  You seemed to agree that speed increases the risk of killing someone.

[quote user="Alcazar"]In response to your point from the Highway Code..........have you EVER known anyone face a successful prosecution while driving within the speed limit? No? Nor have I. Not unless there was some OTHER evidence that he/she was driving erratically, eg: drink, eating at the wheel, mobile phone use etc.

[/quote]

Sorry, you've totally missed the point. 

It's useless asking me if I know anyone who's been prosecuted for driving within the speed limit because that's not what I was saying.  My point was that they could if it was not safe to do so.  You originally stated that NO-ONE could be prosecuted for driving at 30mph past a school, but you didn't qualify this with any mention about "other evidence".

As I've already pointed out, the CPS would consider "speed, which is highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions" as grounds for prosecution for careless or dangerous driving.  I would have thought that driving at 30mph between children crossing the road outside a school would surely meet the CPS criteria, wouldn't you?  You don't have to be driving erratically, eating at the wheel or using your mobile phone to be charged with the offence.

[ali-cat]

Seriously, the "speed kills brigade" are full of 'em. Easy to remember, easy to recite.

I always prefer - it's not the speed that kills, it's the asshole behind the wheel, that does the damage.

I've just read Quillan's post too, "12% of deaths directly caused by speeding".

Says who? It wasn't so long ago that the DfT, (isn't that pronounced "daft"?), were telling us 38%.

Now they've been LEGALLY forced to lower that quite a ways on their website.

Due to the fact that most accidents go unseen - & it's hard to prove.  Who says it can't be more?  Crystal balls to the ready!!

And the bit about German motorways? OK, but what are the fastest and most heavily populated roads in the UK? Motorways. And where, in the UK are accidents at their lowest level, especially fatalities? You guessed it. So if speed kills, why aren't all motorway users dead? Because THEIR speed is APPROPRIATE, that's why.  See the next but one paragraph.

Possibly due to the fact that country roads had a lot more hard objests, like walls & trees to be hit, by drivers losing control or having to stop or swerve to avoid something in the road?  Less speed = shorter stopping distance.

However, DON'T get the idea I'm condoning speeding, nor am I encouraging others to speed. What I AM about is exploding the myth that speeding is the "Bete noir", they all say it is; trying to stop people from blindly reciting the anti-speeding lobby's mantras, and falling for government spin.

Well what are you doing?  Saying that's ok to speed, as it's only a small number of people get killed?  One person killed by a speeding motorist, is one too many.

I ask again: WHY is it legally OK to drive at 30 mph past a school where the kids are coming out, but NOT OK to do 80 mph on a dry, deserted well lit motorway? Yes, I know, a RESPONSIBLE driver would NOT drive at 30mph past said school, but NO-ONE could be prosecuted for so doing, should they hit a child who ran out. The law is the law, as many of you on here keep reminding me.

Yes it's the law not to speed - well remembered!!

And WHY is the preferred, (ACPO guidelines), camera the forward facing one, when it can't catch the one group of speeders that are largely involved in fatalities? Ah yes, it helps to rake in fines from the 96% of motorists it can catch.....despite the fact that THEY have a MUCH lower poulation : accident ratio. "Safety Cameras"? I think NOT 

More motorbikers are killed, in proportion, because of the lack of protection they have.  I wonder what the ratio would be if serious injuries & near fatilities, were taken into consideration.  Also - who's to say it wasn't the result of a car driver, hitting a bike, that caused the accident in the first place.  Your assumption has as much credibility as mine.  But at least I don't have the same disregard for fellow road users, as you.