The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam
Options
Comments
-
.And whilst that bit of maths and physics is interesting, it remains completely irrelevant because if a person, child or otherwise is going to run in front of a moving car WITHIN that car's braking distance, whatever the speed, then the person is going to get hit. Simple as
Indeed it is as simple as. Also very simple is that if you are struck at 30mph you have a 90% chance of living. If you are struck at 40mph you have a 90% chance of dying. I would imagine (though do not know for sure) that if you are struck at speeds higher than 40mph your chances of survival decrease whilst if you are struck at speeds slower than 30mph your chances of survival increase. If a person steps in front of a car doing 30mph and the driver immediately brakes the impact will be at a lower speed than if he was braking from 40mph.If the pedestrians don't have the required education to cross a road then it doesn't matter how fast you are going.
You are being simply ridiculous. The higher the speed traveled at the point of initial braking (if indeed any braking at all occurs) the greater the impact speed is likely to be. The higher the impact speed the greater the damage is likely to be.All comes down to driving judgement.
Unfortunately not all drivers are blessed with the same level of judgement – hence the need for speed limits to prevent pedestrians being mowed down by the dozy ones. But in any case your argument is going off track. There are more hazards in built up areas than just pedestrians and I thought your initial point was that drivers are being scammed by being given the opportunity to accept out-of-court disposals.
Whilst I accept that a disproportionate amount of speeding offences result in punishment compared to other motoring offences that is scarcely a valid argument. But in any case, the answer is simple: don’t break the speed limits then you won’t pay any money to anybody. There are about 48m driving licence holders in the UK. Let’s be extremely generous and say that only half of them regularly drive. Last year speeding offences amounted to a little over 2m. So 22m (over 90%) regular drivers managed to avoid being detected for speeding. So it can be done.0 -
TooManyPoints wrote: »If a person steps in front of a car doing 30mph and the driver immediately brakes the impact will be at a lower speed than if he was braking from 40mph.
This is a futile point. It's a generalisation and says nothing that isn't obvious. The problem in the scenario is NOT the speed of the driver, it is the fact that a person has stepped in front of a car. Maybe I'm being picky but for me, the prospect of a pedestrian being hit at all is unacceptable. This is why the whole "Speed Kills" campaign of the 90s was utterly stupid. It basically said that at high speed an impact is likely to kill someone whereas at lower speeds, well, they'll only get severely injured or maimed . . . . as if that were somehow acceptable !!
The idea is NOT to have pedestrians stepping out in front of cars at all is it not ? and the solution to that has absolutely nothing to do with drivers speeding marginally over the limit.TooManyPoints wrote: »I thought your initial point was that drivers are being scammed by being given the opportunity to accept out-of-court disposals.
No the original point is essentially that what should be a sincere campaign to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities has been usurped by fat cat private firms who see the entire thing as a very lucrative money spinning venture that can earn them money at the fantastic rate of £500 per hour or more ! The campaign is therefore no longer genuine, it's spirit has been lost. Greed and the pursuit of money has now trumped the desire to reduce accidents and fatalities. The whole thing is a farce. The money and effort should be being channelled into finding ways to people better drivers and to make pedestrians more safety aware.TooManyPoints wrote: »But in any case, the answer is simple: don!!!8217;t break the speed limits then you won!!!8217;t pay any money to anybody.
And again this argument, trotted out by quite a few people, fails to address the underlying issues. Me travelling within the speed limits is NOT going to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on the roads. The greatest advances in reducing those statistics have come from three primary areas:
1. Compulsory seat belt wearing
2. Better car safety aspects
3. More advanced/efficient tyres and braking systems0 -
The problem in the scenario is NOT the speed of the driver, it is the fact that a person has stepped in front of a car.
The problem is both of those things. Of course the pedestrian is at fault. But everybody (including drivers) does stupid things from time to time. The idea of Road Traffic Law (in this case principally speed limits) is to minimise the damage caused when mistakes are made. The driver’s speed at the time of the incident is crucial because the faster he is travelling the greater distance it takes him to come to a halt or at least reduce his speed so as injuries are kept to a minimum. It is certainly not a futile point. What you are suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps into the path of an oncoming car, the speed of that car will not influence the outcome and that is patently absurd.Maybe I'm being picky but for me, the prospect of a pedestrian being hit at all is unacceptable.
You’re not being picky. I think most right-minded people would say the same. But we both must accept that it does happen and to minimise injuries the speed of vehicles must be limited.The idea is NOT to have pedestrians stepping out in front of cars at all is it not ?
Indeed it is. But they will continue to do so (just as drivers will continue to exceed the speed limits). You cannot divorce the two and say: Stupid pedestrians will step out in front of me. Thats their fault so I’ll travel as fast as I like.
We will obviously not agree (a privilege we both enjoy) so there is not much point in harping on. But as I said, if a driver believes he is being scammed and is being invited to take part in what you see as an insincere project, he has options available to him even if he cannot avoid breaking the speed limit. The fact that the vast, vast majority of drivers who are offered a course take up the offer seems to indicate that you are in the minority.0 -
TooManyPoints wrote: »The problem is both of those things. Of course the pedestrian is at fault. But everybody (including drivers) does stupid things from time to time. The idea of Road Traffic Law (in this case principally speed limits) is to minimise the damage caused when mistakes are made. The driver’s speed at the time of the incident is crucial because the faster he is travelling the greater distance it takes him to come to a halt or at least reduce his speed so as injuries are kept to a minimum. It is certainly not a futile point. What you are suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps into the path of an oncoming car, the speed of that car will not influence the outcome and that is patently absurd.
And can you point to a single current road safety initiative, regional or national, that addresses that issue, because I can't?0 -
TooManyPoints wrote: »The idea of Road Traffic Law (in this case principally speed limits) is to minimise the damage caused when mistakes are made.
On that basis you could make everyone drive at 5mph. It doesn't really wash. The aim should be to minimise the accidents in the first place.TooManyPoints wrote: »The driver!!!8217;s speed at the time of the incident is crucial because the faster he is travelling the greater distance it takes him to come to a halt or at least reduce his speed so as injuries are kept to a minimum.
Naturally but that point remains true whether you drive at 30mph or 100mph. So the real question is who is determining that a car in a given location needs to be able to stop within a specified distance? Presumably the Road Traffic bods. But how do they arrive at that requirement? Is there a database somewhere that contains information on the distance pedestrians were from a car when they stepped out in front of it every time an accident occurred? And using such data they determine the most common distance and then determined what speed a car needs to be travelling at to be able to brake within that distance? Perhaps this stuff does exist . . . . or maybe they just slap a 30mph limit just about everywhere that is not a dual-carriageway because it's easier.
Ultimately, if you truly want a nation of drivers to behave in a specific way then you need to properly convince them, heart and mind why that behaviour is needed. I drive down a dual-carriageway most days which has 2 lanes each side and a big central reservation. It has huge wide grass verges each side and then pavements. Despite this it is labelled as a 40mph limit. Why? because there's some ancient bridleway that existed before they built the carriage-way and so there exists the remotest possibility that one day someone on a horse might try to cross it. I've lived in my city all my life, over 50 years. Not once have I witnessed a horse cross that road, nor a pedestrian for that matter. It's a ludicrous speed limit and frankly 99% of cars that traverse that stretch of road do 50mph-60mph. It is quite safe to do so. But if they chose to these parasitic private firms could set up one of their stupid vans and clock drivers all day long to generate more money for themselves. Such is the world we live in.TooManyPoints wrote: »What you are suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps into the path of an oncoming car, the speed of that car will not influence the outcome and that is patently absurd.
Nope I didn't suggest that at all. What I am suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps out at a point within the car's braking distance REGARDLESS OF ITS SPEED, then the pedestrian will get hit.TooManyPoints wrote: »You cannot divorce the two and say: Stupid pedestrians will step out in front of me. Thats their fault so I!!!8217;ll travel as fast as I like.
Actually what every driver NEEDS to do is properly assess an entire range of factors, speed being but one of those and fairly far down the pecking order and then drive accordingly.
Blindly following speed limits is actually stupid. Many country roads are marked as National Speed Limit when very patently it is hugely dangerous to do that speed. A good driver will recognise that and adjust speed accordingly. The road I was caught on was empty, early in the morning, zero pedestrians or other cars. Travelling in excess of 30mph was "safe as houses" as they say.
I haven't been the cause of an accident for over 30 years. I assess a wide range of conditions constantly, think ahead, anticipate, am aware of the cars and bikes around me. That is far more important than blindly obeying a speed limit.0 -
One further point worth mentioning in this debate. If a pedestrian stupidly steps out in front of a car without looking properly and gets hit, and that driver was determined to be doing say 35mph in a 30mph limit, then the driver is going to get penalised. The pedestrian who has been injured and who may well have ended up causing injuries to others will likely walk away scott free, albeit injured.
What we lack in this country is the crime of Jaywalking. Pedestrians are not penalised for stupid behaviour. Bring in jaywalking and the accident rates will start to plummet imo0 -
As others have explained to you, there are no such "parasitic private firms" who set up vans.But if they chose to these parasitic private firms could set up one of their stupid vans and clock drivers all day long to generate more money for themselves. Such is the world we live in.0 -
One further point worth mentioning in this debate. If a pedestrian stupidly steps out in front of a car without looking properly and gets hit, and that driver was determined to be doing say 35mph in a 30mph limit, then the driver is going to get penalised. The pedestrian who has been injured and who may well have ended up causing injuries to others will likely walk away scott free, albeit injured.
What we lack in this country is the crime of Jaywalking. Pedestrians are not penalised for stupid behaviour. Bring in jaywalking and the accident rates will start to plummet imo
What penalty do you suggest for jaywalking? Bear in mind that to be a deterrent it needs to be more severe than death or serious injury.
Also, could you give an example of a country with jaywalking laws which has safer roads than the UK?0 -
I see the speeding apologists are out in force on this thread, with the usual implication that they are a safe driver and the speed they chose was a safe one.
From a Met policeman who booked someone for doing a rather fast speed on a motorbike down Hyde Park at 4 in the morning: "I'm not booking you for speeding but because you didn't see me"...0 -
What penalty do you suggest for jaywalking? Bear in mind that to be a deterrent it needs to be more severe than death or serious injury.
Of course it doesn't, no other penalty is set on that basis.
You seem unaware or have forgotten that one part of the UK does have a Jaywalking Law the breaching of which can result in a fixed penalty or a more substantial fine at court.
https://www.lurganmail.co.uk/news/town-protester-put-others-at-risk-by-jaywalking-rules-district-judge-1-47619350
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards