speed does kill,2 women coming back from dropping the kids off at school yesterday got wiped up when a woman driver manged to get a vauxhall astra rubber side up on a busy rush hour inner city road in leicester yesterday morning,the driver legged it but got caught later on.....poor kids ,no mummy to pick them up ever again
(I'm sure I'll regret this.) The cause of death was dangerous driving, not speed per se.
|
|
I bet the copper who nicked this bloke is the talk of the station. He might even have got a few free beers from workmates on the basis of being "The copper who got Britain's fastest speeding conviction".
|
|
|
You're probably correct. My thoughts go out to the family, there is no reason to suggest in the few details provided that speed (or any other factor) was wholly or partly to blame.
Accidents happen above and below the speed limits because drivers overestimate their (or the cars) abilities, misjudge situations or are simply not paying attention. If you're doing everything else right, then you'll only speed when you're not putting someone else at undue risk, and the flip side is also driving well below the speed limit when it is required.
|
|
|
"The cause of death was dangerous driving, not speed per se."
I think that if you had seen the length of the skid marks on the road, like joe probably did, (shown on local news last night) and where the car finished up you might also have jumped to the conclusion (perhaps wrongly, I admit, , as I did, that "the driver must have been going at a heck of a rate to do that". TV also showed the police doing skid tests in a similar car at the speed limit at the location and their car stopped within a few yards, skid marks from accident were at least twice as long.
--
Phil
|
'speed' on its own is not a problem.................'inappropriate speed for the circumstances' most certainly is
there is a big difference
clamping down on all speed is overly simplistic...... (agreed with by some and not by others).
If clamping down on 'inappropriate speed for the circs' was concentrated on, who but the truly selfish or stupid wouldn't fully support that
|
"'inappropriate speed for the circumstances' most certainly is"
Ah, I see, it was not the speed she was going, it was the fact that she was going too fast for the circumstances ( driving down the wrong side of the road).
Mind you, you would have a job persuading me that if she had been driving very slowly down the wrong side of the road she would have still killed those poor people. At a low speed she would have a) stopped before getting to them, b) not turned the car over onto them.
Skid marks went from correct side of road to wrong side of road for tens of yards - 30? - this on an urban street with a 30 limit.
Speed WAS the problem.
--
Phil
|
"'inappropriate speed for the circumstances' most certainly is" Ah, I see, it was not the speed she was going, it was the fact that she was going too fast for the circumstances ( driving down the wrong side of the road). Mind you, you would have a job persuading me that if she had been driving very slowly down the wrong side of the road she would have still killed those poor people. At a low speed she would have a) stopped before getting to them, b) not turned the car over onto them. Skid marks went from correct side of road to wrong side of road for tens of yards - 30? - this on an urban street with a 30 limit. Speed WAS the problem.
you are completely correct.........in these circs speed was the problem, because it was wholly inappropriate to do that speed, at that time, in that place........no arguement
around the corner perhaps ( i don't know the venue, so you'll have to allow some poetic licence), with a straight road, 0500, on a sunny summers morning, good vision, decent driver, well maintained car etc.......then the speed wouldn't have been necessarily inappropriate (sorry about the double negative)...... i'm making the point that 'speed kills' is generally far too simplistic a statement.
what caused this particular accident?............ drink/drugs, lack of driving skill, ignorance, pig headedness, sheer stupidity, mechanical defect, lack of maintenance, speed alone? who knows the full picture.........speed played it's part, significantly by the sound of it, but with the other reasons as well no doubt .......
who's to say that Jenson Button in the same car at the same speed would have had the same result.........maybe, but unlikely in my view.....and no i'm not advocating that better drivers can have a free for all......just some common sense applied to the causation factors, not a blanket statement that ignores other elements
|
|
|
A see a fast approaching speeding thread ...
"'inappropriate speed for the circumstances' most certainly is" Ah, I see, it was not the speed she was going, it was the fact that she was going too fast for the circumstances ( driving down the wrong side of the road). Mind you, you would have a job persuading me that if she had been driving very slowly down the wrong side of the road she would have still killed those poor people. At a low speed she would have a) stopped before getting to them, b) not turned the car over onto them. Skid marks went from correct side of road to wrong side of road for tens of yards - 30? - this on an urban street with a 30 limit. Speed WAS the problem.
Speed was clearly a large part of the problem. I agree with that. IMO driving too fast (whether or not within the limit) is dangerous and such people should be punished (or re-educated). In that horrendous example, speed was no doubt a primary factor in the deaths and I hope the driver was prosecuted for dangerous driving. I suspect that Westpig agrees with me.
However safe driving is not simply about keeping within the speed limit. For example, only a fool would go round all corners at the speed limit. Similarly in icy conditions it might not be safe to go anywhere near the speed limit (or even to be on the road). On a sunny day, with a straight country road, no hedges, no traffic, good visibility, exceeding the speed limit is not in the least bit dangerous
But IMO we are seeing a too simplistic focus on speed limits rather than safe driving, with too many dumb speed cameras often placed in places that generate a big income. And I also see speed limits on many roads across the country being reduced each year, often dramatically, to levels that I find surprising. Safe driving is partly about appropriate speed, but also about observation, keeping a safe distance, anticipation and so on. Concentrating on speed alone is disingenuous. Speed cameras do not catch people who race each other on the motorway, dodging across lanes. I was nearly side swiped by one such car on the M4. I later saw the car pulled over, next to an unmarked police car. Can cameras do that?
I would love speed cameras along our residential streets, but they would not generate much income, so I doubt we will see any.
Apologies to the regulars for rehashing yet again the same old stuff.
|
|
couldn't agree with you more Leif
|
|
|
Can you imagine the court case? Absolute speed limits have been abolished. Cases of "speeding" are judged on the basis of inapproriate speed:
Brief: It is clear to me that the defendant was driving at an inappropriate speed for the circumstances.
Defendant: Was not, so nyer.
B: Yes you were.
D: Was not.
B: Yes you were.
D: No mate, you're wrong there.
B: Under what circumstances would you say 172mph on a rural A-road is appropriate?
D: When you're in a hurry.
Magistrate: And were you in a hurry that day Mr Imaplonker?
D: Yes I was. A very great hurry. And I am the world's greatest driver as well, everyone says so. Well, my 10 year-old son does anyway.
Magistrate: Then I find you not guilty. Case Dismissed.
|
Leif and WP,
Think we will have to agree and disagree!!
I certainly agree with many of the things you say about the (over) emphasis on speed being the cause of accidents and the need for all to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions - yes, a limit of 30 does not mean that in all conditions one should drive at 30, dumb speed cameras, whether drink/drugs etc ere involved etc etc.
BUT, remember I was disagreeing with one particular statement ""The cause of death was dangerous driving, not speed per se."
I merely wished to point out that, from evidence of Central TV, East Midlands Today TV footage and Leicester Mercury, that TO ME, speed appeared to be (and I stress those last three words) a major contributor to the accident in which 2 women lost their lives, because:- (and perhaps each point should include the words ("appeared to" or "allegedly")
It was a bright morning in Leics at 8 -9 am yesterday.
Roads were not wet or frosty
Road is straight
Traffic was heavy
Car involved was initially on correct side of road
Skid marks first appeared on correct side of road
Skid marks then veered across to wrong side of road
Skid marks were about 30 yards long
car then hit kerb on wrong side of road and flipped over onto pedestrians a few yards from primary school
Woman driver of car ran off
Woman driver later arrested and charged with dangerous driving
Witnesses said car was travelling "very fast"
Police tested a similar car on same stretch of road - it braked, without deviating significantly from straight line in a much shorter distance than the car involved in accident.
On this basis, I thought that speed may be a major contributor to the accident, hence my comment that my first impression was "the driver must have been going at a heck of a rate to do that".
I may well be completely wrong but that's why I said in my initial post "you might also have jumped to the conclusion (perhaps wrongly, I admit,) , as I did, that the driver must have been going at a heck of a rate to do that".
Emphasis on the "jumped", "perhaps wrongly"
Now we need to wait for the court case to see what the verdict is.
Either way, our sympathy must be with the victims, and perhaps even with the driver, who could have been involved in an accident for which she was not to blame (fault with car? other car involved? dog ran across road, child ran across road??)
Regards
--
Phil
|
How about if rolled car hadn't got abs and hit patch of diesel while braking, it would then slide and turn towards the wheel with grip assuming the loss of grip was left front thus hitting the kerb would flip them over. You can flip a car while braking hard and swerving, particularly if suspension is worn or car has high centre of gravity. Pedestrian witnesses are also unreliable as judges of speed as every car appears to be going much faster than they actually are. I notice vehicles seem to be batting along but while following the same ones in my car they seem to be going at a sensible pace.
teabelly
|
|
|
Phil: I'm not sure we do disagree. Here is the first part of the paragraph which I quoted:
"speed does kill"
And in response I said:
"The cause of death was dangerous driving, not speed per se."
Speed is an abstract noun, and abstract nouns do not kill. So to me "Speed kills" does not make sense. For example Apollo astronauts travelled in excess of 20,000 mph and yet they suffered no ill effects from the experience. Also motorways are known to be safer than non-motorways despite having higher average speeds. So speed per se does not kill. What does kill is dangerous driving, which might and often does involve speeding. In the case cited, we could say "The cause of death was losing control while driving at excessive speed in a residential area". In other words, the fact that the driver was going 'fast' was a significant causative factor in a horrific incident.
We should focus on improving driving standards, and yes that can mean forcing some people to drive more slowly.
Incidentally if any relatives or friends of the deceased are reading this, and they are offended, then I apologise. I suspect that it is somewhat insensitive of us to discuss a recent incident in a public forum.
|
Leif,
I agree that I agree with you!
Regards
--
Phil
|
|
|
Baskerville: I don't think anyone would seriously suggest no speed limits. Cameras do have their place in road safety, but so does good policing by real coppers. By the way, a camera does not catch someone driving an unregistered and uninsured car. Each year there are more and more of these, and they cause a disproportionate amount of 'accidents'. You should see some of the dangerous driving round these parts. I'm told by an ex-copper that the police are overloaded with attending incidents and filling in paperwork, much of it useless, so it is hardly surprising road safety takes a back seat.
|
Baskerville: I don't think anyone would seriously suggest no speed limits.
Maybe not, but once you move the emphasis from enforcing fixed speed limits to "appropriate speed" the whole thing becomes immeasurably more complicated. People doing very stupid and dangerous things will get off on technicalities. People will be convicted because a fed up copper felt a bit grumpy that morning. Nobody is suggesting that the posted speed is always the appropriate speed, but a blanket speed limit for everyone is simply easier all round. I don't know about you but I'd rather my money was spent chasing real criminals than idiots in fast cars.
B
|
Nobody is suggesting that theposted speed is always the appropriate speed, but a blanket speed limit for everyone is simply easier all round. >> B
I think you've hit the nail on the head here..........it's 'easier' to bung a low inappropriate limit in, which tempts people to ignore it, than get it right and put a proper one in........
what's wrong with variables
e.g. 20mph past the school when the kids are about..........30 mph at other times
80mph on the motorway, but 60mph when it's throwing it down with rain
70 mph on an A road in good weather 50mph when it isn't
which is exaclty what many drivers do now anyway, except capture criminalises them
|
e.g. 20mph past the school when the kids are about..........30 mph at other times 80mph on the motorway, but 60mph when it's throwing it down with rain 70 mph on an A road in good weather 50mph when it isn't
The problem is who decides when it's "throwing down with rain" or "good weather"? When the road is wet after a downpour? When it's a bit drizzly? When rain is forecast? What about when the road has been partially flooded? Drivers vary enormously in their assessments of the conditions and their ability to deal with them. Does the school thing work only at certain times, or when there are kids about? At school chucking out time only, or when there is an after school football tournament as well? At the start and end of recorder practice? When kids are simply hanging about? And how old should they be to qualify as "kids"? Under 16? Under 18? Only when they are in school uniform? How can you tell from inside your car at 30mph?
You just need to have watched Jamie Oliver last week arguing that his fast lap was done in snow to see this is far too emotive to work efficiently on all roads (motorways are different because the variable signage is already there). And we already have "without due care" and "dangerous driving" anyway.
All this would do would be to encourage more people to argue the toss and put more of my taxes in the hands of lawyers. Don't want that.
|
.All this would do would be to encourage more people to argue the toss and put more of my taxes in the hands of lawyers. Don't want that.
and neither do i want to be crawling along at 20mph past a college when the kids are on holiday or driving over Tower Bridge at 20mph at 0500 when i'm the only sad git there
the French have variable limits, surely with all our technology a formula could be reached.
|
|
Try driving through a French village at 40mph and you'll see how variable they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
