We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Its getting stupid now:
Comments
-
scotsman4th wrote: »EH? We all now have to travel at such a slow speed that we can stop for traffic coming the other way as well?
Say i'm doing 55 in a 60 zone. Car coming towards me gets a blowout 50 yards from me and swerves onto my side of the road? I should be able to stop before a collision happens?
Great, so you take the view of "that kid ran into the path of my car - it's not my fault I ran him over"?
You have to be able to identify hazards and respond accordingly - either by moving out of the way or, if there's no space, by stopping. A cyclist waiting to pull out is plainly a hazard and should be treated as such.
Few people would categorise a car travelling toward you in the same way.0 -
Idiophreak wrote: »Great, so you take the view of "that kid ran into the path of my car - it's not my fault I ran him over"?
You have to be able to identify hazards and respond accordingly - either by moving out of the way or, if there's no space, by stopping. A cyclist waiting to pull out is plainly a hazard and should be treated as such.
Few people would categorise a car travelling toward you in the same way.
Where'd the kids come from? And yes, if I am not speeding, not texting, not on my phone, not having a drink(or over the limit) not high on drugs, or lighting a cigarette, my car is roadworthy and insured and a child runs out, and I have the misfortune to hit them, then yes, it's not my fault.
I had the misfortune to have an accident with a cyclist once. I was turning right at a set of traffic lights with filter arrows. Lights went green, pulled away, turned right and a cyclist came through the side window. He'd jumped a red light (downhill at speed and came between 2 cars stopped at the lights). I had to pay for an ambulance for him (his vehicle isnt powered by an engine) and I was totally blameless (although perhaps not in your mind).
As has been said, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.0 -
scotsman4th wrote: »Where'd the kids come from? And yes, if I am not speeding, not texting, not on my phone, not having a drink(or over the limit) not high on drugs, or lighting a cigarette, my car is roadworthy and insured and a child runs out, and I have the misfortune to hit them, then yes, it's not my fault.
So, if you're doing all those things and you plough into a stationary car, I suppose that's not your fault either?
"Speeding" rarely has anything to do with whether you're going "too fast" or not.0 -
Idiophreak wrote: »So, if you're doing all those things and you plough into a stationary car, I suppose that's not your fault either?
"Speeding" rarely has anything to do with whether you're going "too fast" or not.
Where have the kids gone now? Ah I get it, you say something stupid, I reply, you say something totally unrelated.
I'll go slow an see if that helps. I said if i WASNT doing all those things it wouldnt be my fault.
If i WAS doing all those things and hit someone that had jumped in front of my car, it would be my fault.
As far as too fast goes, yes, speed doesnt kill. Inappropriate speed kills, that was what I said in my first post so if you scroll back up, you can select the THANKYOU option at the post since you obviously agree with me (perhaps even read the article, it's good reading).
0 -
scotsman4th wrote: »Where have the kids gone now? Ah I get it, you say something stupid, I reply, you say something totally unrelated.
I knew that you'd get frustrated with my changing examples, but couldn't think of a way to avoid it. (try to keep up) - different points need different examples. The child was an example relating to hazard perception/awareness. The stationary car was an example relating to the fact that you can *still* be doing something wrong, even if you're not speeding, on the phone etc.scotsman4th wrote: »I'll go slow an see if that helps. I said if i WASNT doing all those things it wouldnt be my fault.
Of course it would. You've just hit and killed a child in an avoidable accident.
If you're driving along and you see a child waiting to cross the road, there are two options.
1) Think "that child might jump out in front of me...what would I do if it did".
or
2) Think "well, if it jumps out in front of me, it deserves to die" and carry on at your normal speed chanting in your head "I'm under the speed limit. I'm not on the phone. Nothing can be my fault. I'm free of all responsibility for my actions".
You're in camp 2, which is fine, I guess...but I'm much happier in camp 1, personally.0 -
The childs back? And I can see the child? And i've killed the child?
Ok, so what speed limit is there on the road? What are the odds of the child dying with, say compared to me swerving across the road and hitting the peoplecarrier coming towards me with the orphans in it? Or perhaps swerving into a field (is it a built up area?) and hitting a cute little bunny rabbit.
When did we go camping? Who decided I was in camp 2 with all the good drivers?
The quote, "if it jumps out in front of me, it deserves to die" I cant recall typing that. Is camp 1 where assumptions are made?0 -
Idiophreak wrote: »2) Think "well, if it jumps out in front of me, it deserves to die" and carry on at your normal speed chanting in your head "I'm under the speed limit. I'm not on the phone. Nothing can be my fault. I'm free of all responsibility for my actions".
You're in camp 2, which is fine, I guess...but I'm much happier in camp 1, personally.
That is making the assumption that ALL accidents are the drivers fault!! Thats great for pedestrians etc a Guilt free life regardless of their actions??? Really???Always get a Qualified opinion - My qualifications are that I am OLD and GRUMPY:p:p0 -
scotsman4th wrote: »The childs back? And I can see the child? And i've killed the child?
Sucks to be you...If you're not willing to slow for hazards, kids'll get their heads bust.scotsman4th wrote: »Ok, so what speed limit is there on the road?
30mph, outside a school.scotsman4th wrote: »What are the odds of the child dying with, say compared to me swerving across the road and hitting the peoplecarrier coming towards me with the orphans in it?
Not 100% on this, but fairly sure the orphans stand a better chance of surviving a 60mph impact all strapped in than the child does a 30mph on foot.scotsman4th wrote: »Or perhaps swerving into a field (is it a built up area?) and hitting a cute little bunny rabbit.
Aren't you listening! It's a school!
scotsman4th wrote: »When did we go camping? Who decided I was in camp 2 with all the good drivers?
You left over the bank holiday weekend. There was a sign at the gate which said "drivers who wish to blindly speed toward hazards please turn right"...scotsman4th wrote: »The quote, "if it jumps out in front of me, it deserves to die" I cant recall typing that. Is camp 1 where assumptions are made?
Yes. Camp 2 assumes that as long as they're doing under the speed limit, it's a suitable speed, irrespective of any obvious hazards around them.
Camp 1 assumes that those in Camp 2 require protected NCD.
DCodd - obviously not all accidents are the driver's fault...just the ones that *are* the drivers fault. And if you're driving faster than is appropriate and hit something, that kinda counts as "the driver's fault"... Pedestrians obviously have some responsibility, but at the end of the day, they're not controlling a ton of metal at high speeds, so the emphasis is on drivers to do their best to keep their hulk of metal a safe distance from (albeit ignorant) pedestrians.0 -
The makers of top gear wanted to do more in depth technical stuff, but audience surveys found that the adventures/stunts were liked more.I'm afraid the d!ckheads are on Top Gear. What started as a consumer car programme is now all about how fast cars can go and about wacky stunts (usually involving making cars go as fast as possible).
No wonder people think it's OK to emulate them.
Top gear is meeting a demand. If you removed top gear people would still go out and drive for thrills.
I think it's an innate part of human nature.Happy chappy0 -
If you've ever ridden a bike for speed then you'd quickly realise that dedicated cycle paths are not fit for purpose.A favourite of mine, too, is the number of cyclists I see riding down the dual carriageway, getting in everyone's way, when there's a dedicated cycle path on the pavement.Happy chappy0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards