Speeding drivers at ‘children’s court’

Hurri

thelawnet wrote: »

I merely said that I have no sympathy for people who get caught speeding. If you don't want to get caught, pay more attention or don't speed. What's the problem? They are not chopping people's hands off for doing 35mph at 3am are they? In the very unlikely event that you got caught doing the same, so what? You got caught you pay a small fine, hopefully you will pay more attention in the future and be a better driver. These people who rack up speeding fines are BAD drivers.

What percentage of driver observation do you think should be taken away from the road and placed on strict speed limit compliance?

What do you think about the false message implied by some campaigns that are sent out that imply "if you're over the speed limit you're dangerous, therefore if you're within the limit you're automatically safe"?

Driving within the speed limit, at 30mph, can be deadly. Speed in isolation doesn't kill - inappropriate speed can kill. You can still be well within the speed limit but have inappropriate speed.

mikey72

sarahg1969 wrote: »

So, driving on a road with a 30 limit, past a primary school at opening or closing time at 30mph would be OK, because you're not speeding? But driving past that same spot at 3am at 35mph makes you a menace to society?

The law doesn't make moral judgements.
It'll just make you a criminal.
Same way it'll make a criminal out of anyone that burgles you, even though you can afford to lose a few things, same way the law makes a criminal out of the same bloke if he burgled a pensioner who can't afford to lose it.

mikey72

Hurri wrote: »

What do you think about the false message implied by some campaigns that are sent out that imply "if you're over the speed limit you're dangerous, therefore if you're within the limit you're automatically safe"?

I'm only seen the ones that say the faster the car is going when it hits you, the more it will hurt.
And the others the say the faster you're going, the longer it will take to stop.
If you think it makes you safe, I think you may have misunderstood.

pendulum

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

35mph in a 30mph zone is a menace to society at any time. Consider:

At 30mph when hit by a car 20% of pedestrians will be killed
At 35mph though when hit 50% of pedestrians will be killed

By that overly simple and flawed logic, all police, ambulance and fire engine drivers are also a menace to society.

What people like you don't understand is that good observational skills and an ability to choose a safe speed for the conditions is what makes a good driver. Not sticking religiously to a number on a stick.

mikey72

pendulum wrote: »

By that overly simple and flawed logic, all police, ambulance and fire engine drivers are also a menace to society.

What people like you don't understand is that good observational skills and an ability to choose a safe speed for the conditions is what makes a good driver. Not sticking religiously to a number on a stick.

Fortunately for us all, the police won't understand you either, when you tell them you can also drive like an emergency vehicle.

pendulum

By your sarcastic comment mikey, I take it you disagree with me that good observational skills and an ability to choose a safe speed for the conditions are what makes a good driver?

I thought you knew better. And lose the "fortunately for us all" rubbish which implies I'm a risk to people on the roads. You haven't seen me drive, and I take my driving and safety seriously.

mikey72

Sometimes that worries me most of all.
Most 17 year olds will admit to being the best drivers in the world.
They still get done for speeding too.

Mids_Costcutter

pendulum wrote: »

By that overly simple and flawed logic, all police, ambulance and fire engine drivers are also a menace to society.

What people like you don't understand is that good observational skills and an ability to choose a safe speed for the conditions is what makes a good driver. Not sticking religiously to a number on a stick.

Drivers for the emergency services will have received extra training to drive at high speeds, and when on an emergency call will have siren and flashing lights on. So less of a menace but they still kill and injure pedestrians and other road users on the roads every year.

I'd agree that good observational skills and being able to choose a safe speed for conditions are qualities that can make a good driver. However I was pointing out the difference for a pedestrian between being hit at 35mph and being hit at 35mph as for many motorists this seems to be a trivial issue. Unfortunately though we can't rely on many motorists to choose a safe speed themselves and that's why we have speed limits. Of course as the Highway Code highlights "the speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions". It also adds that "you should always reduce your speed when driving at night as it is harder to see other road users" - relevant for the 3am example earlier in this thread.

As this a money-saving forum isn't it also worth pointing out that driving at lower speeds (in general) saves money?

AlexisV

thelawnet wrote: »

I thought you were blaming the pedestrians for being drunk. I thought that was the idea of this thread, blame people for being hit by cars.

Now I see that your logic is slightly more sophisticated than that:

It's ok to drive at 60 mph in a 30mph zone, and anyone hit by a speeding vehicle is either to blame for not getting out of the way. If the pedestrian wasn't to blame, then the driver is an illegal immigrant/drunk/on drugs/not insured. These factors are much more important than speed, therefore it's still ok to do 60mph in a 30mph.

Oh and drink driving is something other people do. The 'hard-pressed motorist' (he who is completely safe driving at double the speed limit) merely drives home after a couple of well-earned beers/glasses of wine, and is completely blameless in all circumstances.

You're having an argument inside your own head. I didn't think, say or imply anything of what you've just written.

Flyboy152

HO87 wrote: »

When comparing the above list with the most obvious source of Nazi policies - the National Socialist Party's Program:
1. Yes, there's a reference to racism - only Germans could be citizen, for example but there is no reference to eugenics. So I suppose that counts as half a point.
2. No, no mention of human experimentation
3. No, nor any mention of global warfare
4. Yes - the right to determine administrative and legal matters is vested in the citizen.

So, when pendulum suggests that using a young citizen's jury to interview errant motorists has Nazi overtones, it would appear that he's actually correct.

My only interest, for the record, is historical. I hold no Nazi torch.

In which case the entire judicial system of almost every country in the world is based on Nazism. I can't see that somehow.