Why aren't cars speed limited?

docmatt

John-K wrote: »

Poor trolling at this point, I am afraid.

I wonder why people do this. There are plenty of people on here who genuinely want to help, and then you get people who just want to wind others up. Why?

After the first page the OP realised he’d fcuked up with his question and turned troll. Classic forum backtrack posting.
The only reason why he never goes over 70 is because he isn’t confident to do so and so rarely goes in the ‘fast lane’

Nick_C

To be fair, despite having been driving for 22 years, OP obviously lacks the experience that many of us have, as he says he has never had the need or authority to drive faster than 70.

AndyMc.....

Nick_C wrote: »

To be fair, despite having been driving for 22 years, OP obviously lacks the experience that many of us have, as he says he has never had the need or authority to drive faster than 70.

Which was evident when he reversed into a hole.

Car_54

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

No, the deciding factor would be was his driving below or far below the standard expected of a competent driver.

That is assuming that his driving was actually below standard, which would depend upon whether a careful and competent driver could have stopped.

If below standard, then speed would be a factor in distinguishing between CD and DD.

motorguy

Deastons wrote: »

...your honour.

Oh get over yourself.

You know you're losing an argument when you have to rely on banal examples like someone doing 79MPH not 70MPH on a motorway AND someone just happening to be walking down the motoway AND the person not seeing them AND the person driving not braking at all AND ploughing in to them at 79MPH AND the police being able to measure that (given there'd be no skid marks)

Ridiculous.

waamo

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Which was evident when he reversed into a hole.

Indeed. Imagine if that had been a nun carrying a box of kittens.

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

That is assuming that his driving was actually below standard, which would depend upon whether a careful and competent driver could have stopped.

If below standard, then speed would be a factor in distinguishing between CD and DD./QUOTE]

It wouldn’t CPS look at the driving prior to the crash and not just at speed immediately before.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Deastons wrote: »

But if I hit and killed someone and it could be proved I was doing 79mph, the charges against me would be very different.

There lorry driver who killed a cyclist who he didn't see for something like 30 seconds was specifically berated in court for speeding in his lorry - at 53mph.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/speeding-lorry-driver-who-killed-1251979

Car_54

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Car_54 wrote: »

That is assuming that his driving was actually below standard, which would depend upon whether a careful and competent driver could have stopped.

If below standard, then speed would be a factor in distinguishing between CD and DD./QUOTE]

It wouldn’t CPS look at the driving prior to the crash and not just at speed immediately before.

Read my post again. I didn't say they would "just" look at the speed, only that it would be a factor.

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Read my post again. I didn't say they would "just" look at the speed, only that it would be a factor.

It wouldn’t, it’s the run up to the incident that would determine careless or dangerous. You could be exceeding the speed limit and it still be careless.