motorways and roof bars

[joe-90]

There are plenty of bad cops - and he was one of them. You can't deny that reaction times are decreased, stopping distances are lengthened and impact at speed is far more serious than a bit of a bump. Speed kills - and that's a fact.

If you were a good driver - then you wouldn't need to speed - you'd leave home earlier.

 

[joe-90]

Just don't take some parents kid when the inevitable happens. I guess you don't have children?

Pray tell just why it is inevitable? Are you saying that speeding will result in a fatality as sure as night follows day? Get real.

If I looned about at 100+ regardless of conditions, traffic density etc, then there would be more of a an inevitability to it. And that would be stupid and dangerous and beyond defence. As it is, as said before, I don't speed all the time, nor as you seem to assume is it only ever at 100+; I'm just as capable of being below the limit as I am above it. If I drive at 80, 72 or 71 even, then I'm speeding, but does that mean that I'll kill someone or myself? Err, nope.

Ref your q: two of my own and three step kids, as it happens. And they're all really good drivers , despite my input into their training as well, shucks. Oh and a grandson too, though he's only 3 1/2, so isn't driving just yet .

How does sticking religiously to 70 save you if a tyre blows on a vehicle in the slow lane right next to you, btw? The very act of going out on the road is not without risk, but you seem to think that all will be fine in Joe World if you stick religiously to the limit.

Speed is a multiplying factor in all accidents. I thought you were some kind of engineer? (some engineer )

 

[megawatt]

70mph is the maximum speed - not the minimum.

Quite true but you can be prosecuted for driving too slow and causing a nuisance to other drivers ... Generally reserved for JCB's and Tractors who drive at 10mph on 60mph roads and become one vehicle traffic jams but could equally be applied to Joe clones

This is enshrined within the driving test as

a failure to make suitable progress

and is an instant fail.

I have personal experience of this one as it is the reason I failed my first test ... Much to the amusement and total disbelief of everyone who knows me and knows how I drive nowadays

MW

 

[joe-90]

I don't think driving at the speed limit can be construed as 'not making suitable progress' do you?

 

[Shytalkz]

Speed is a multiplying factor in all accidents. I thought you were some kind of engineer? (some engineer )

Don't deliberately skew it (or keep quoting that f**king mantra): you know exactly what I meant. How does my sometimes speeding make me a bad engineer, exactly?!

Do you drive along knowing all the braking/stopping distances for every single second that you drive? Scrub that, you probably are just sad enough to do so...

 

[Shytalkz]

I don't think driving at the speed limit can be construed as 'not making suitable progress' do you?

No but it could be classed as dangerous driving, if the conditions at the time didn't warrant you driving at the limit

 

[megawatt]

Depends if you are the only one doing it.

If out of 300 vehicles there are none in front of you and 299 behind you I'd say you are the reason for a traffic jam irrespective of the speed you are driving.

 

[joe-90]

Depends if you are the only one doing it.

If out of 300 vehicles there are none in front of you and 299 behind you I'd say you are the reason for a traffic jam irrespective of the speed you are driving.

So we all speed up and go through a speed camera! What then Mega? Oh yes - Mega slows down. hahahah

 

[Shytalkz]

There are plenty of bad cops - and he was one of them. You can't deny that reaction times are decreased, stopping distances are lengthened and impact at speed is far more serious than a bit of a bump. Speed kills - and that's a fact.

If you were a good driver - then you wouldn't need to speed - you'd leave home earlier.

Ok, he's bad, how so? Do plod not exceed the speed limit in attending incidents? In your eyes, they must be bad too, as, apparently, there is absolutely no justification in going even a whisker over the - entirely arbitrary - limits laid down by statute.

But, yet again: inappropriate use of speed kills, not speed on its own merit.

 

[joe-90]

Every accident has inappropriate speed - otherwise they could have avoided each other. Why do you slow down for cameras?

 

[Shytalkz]

Depends if you are the only one doing it.

If out of 300 vehicles there are none in front of you and 299 behind you I'd say you are the reason for a traffic jam irrespective of the speed you are driving.

You're stretching the point there Meg, I was on about 60/70 limit and doing it in thick fog, for example - not being a Joe and doing 25 in the middle lane because he's heard that snow was falling 200 miles away on the mountains in Scotland.

 

[megawatt]

Every accident has inappropriate speed - otherwise they could have avoided each other. Why do you slow down for cameras?

You're just being stupid for the sake of it now Joe.

Two people going in opposite directions on (say) the A30 at 40mph ... One of them has a blow out and swerves into the path of the other ... Head on collision ... Everyone killed.

Nobody driving in any way illegally or carelessly and certainly no inappropriate speed involved?

Just accept that you drive like my 88 year old Grandad and move on.

MW

 

[Shytalkz]

Every accident has inappropriate speed - otherwise they could have avoided each other.

Scenario 1: car doing 15 in a 20 limit, driver has heart attack - probably after having had the misfortune to have had to follow you for several miles - swerves to side, takes out three kids, two dead, one vsi. Inappropriate? No, he was following the rules. Ah, but you say, had he been doing 20, he might have hit a wall just past those kids and killed or injured no one.

Scenario 2: car bimbling along at 65 on dual carriageway, lorry on opposite carriageway doing 65 has blow-out, crosses central reservation, hits other car, kills driver. Both within speed limit, neither inappropriate, they were following the rules. Ah, but you say, this time, had they both been doing 70, they could have missed one another entirely and the one with a blow out could crash harmlessly into the verge, missing all the other traffic.

How far do you want to go with this? Inappropriate ownership of a vehicle? After all, if he/they didn't have one, he/they wouldn't be using it, at any speed. Are the Gobmint liable for letting us do driving lessons and passing a test to a standard set down by them, allowing us to even drive?

Why do you slow down for cameras?

Well, clearly not so that I avoid an impact with the bloody thing . And certainly not because I necessarily have any respect for whatever limit it's set at. Defensive driving/riding it's called ie defending my currently blemish-free licence .

 

[Shytalkz]

Just accept that you drive like my 88 year old Grandad and get a move on.

 

[joe-90]

You'd better believe it. Then again - reading boring posts is even more sad isn't it?