Speeding drivers at ‘children’s court’

Flyboy152

AlexisV wrote: »

I'd be massively surprised if the vast proportion of that 10% weren't on drink, drugs or driving a stolen vehicle.

I don't think you can be a pedestrian and drive a stolen vehicle at the same time.

AlexisV

Yeah, the typo was addressed a few posts ago.

DirectDebacle

You could if it was a pedestrian controlled vehicle. But then it would be unlikely you would exceed the speed limit and incur the wrath of the kangaroo court kids.:D

thelawnet

Hurri wrote: »

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

Strict speed limit compliance? How hard do you think it is? You can listen to the engine noise, you should know what gear you are in, and if you've been driving more than about five minutes you will understand the difference between 30mph and 40mph by looking at how fast you are moving past.

Anyone who tells me that they had 'no idea' they were speeding isn't fit to be on the road.

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 don't think they ever said that. The speed limit campaigns quite correctly point out that you are about 5 times more likely to kill between 30 and 40mph as at 30mph.

I don't think anyone takes that as an invitation to drive at 30mph while doing the Times crossword or something.

Do you think people compensate if they drive slower? How?

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.

It's much less likely to be deadly than if you exceed the speed limit.

Speed DOES kill, in that an impact at a very slow speed is harmless whereas one at a high speed is certainly deadly. The difference between the two is SPEED. Nothing more nothing less.

Also the other thing is that speeding is very antisocial in that it creates noise and it's pretty horrible to live in an area where there are cars driving by at excess speed. Even if they don't kill, it's still not very nice.

Limey

Surley a court of 11 year olds would be wide open to bribery with xbox games/sweets etc or intimidation by turning up dressed as the clown from IT.:rotfl:

Hurri

thelawnet wrote: »

Strict speed limit compliance? How hard do you think it is? You can listen to the engine noise, you should know what gear you are in, and if you've been driving more than about five minutes you will understand the difference between 30mph and 40mph by looking at how fast you are moving past.

Anyone who tells me that they had 'no idea' they were speeding isn't fit to be on the road.

I said strict speed limit compliance - not an approximation.
Reliance on noise does not satisfy this. Different road surfaces, and other environmental noises will all skew the noise generated. I'd still like an answer to my original question.

thelawnet wrote: »

I don't think they ever said that. The speed limit campaigns quite correctly point out that you are about 5 times more likely to kill between 30 and 40mph as at 30mph.

I don't think anyone takes that as an invitation to drive at 30mph while doing the Times crossword or something.

Do you think people compensate if they drive slower? How?

They never said that. But it can be incorrectly interpreted as such. I remember a teacher at school saying "speed limits are chosen for a reason, they're the safe speed to drive at." I wholehartedly disagree with that sentiment. You should drive to the conditions.

thelawnet wrote: »

It's much less likely to be deadly than if you exceed the speed limit.

So a 60mph collision with a pedestrian on a 60mph country lane will be less likely to kill a pedestrian than someone hitting a pedestrian at 21mph in a 20? How? Can you provide some statsitical evidence to back up these revolutionary claims?

thelawnet wrote: »

Speed DOES kill, in that an impact at a very slow speed is harmless whereas one at a high speed is certainly deadly. The difference between the two is SPEED. Nothing more nothing less.

You're combining speed with an impact, therefore agreeing with me that the higher speed was inappropriate for the situation. If speed kills, our motorways would be our most dangerous roads. But they're not, they're our safest - the conditions permit a higher speed of travel. Speed on it's own does not kill. Inappropriate speed can play a contributory factor in causing an impact.

thelawnet wrote: »

Also the other thing is that speeding is very antisocial in that it creates noise and it's pretty horrible to live in an area where there are cars driving by at excess speed. Even if they don't kill, it's still not very nice.

Agreed - no right minded person would ever deem inappropriate speed acceptable. However, with regards to excessive noise, are you confusing speed with excessive revs/acceleration?