Surely speeding and bad driving overlap somewhat?

ZZzZzZzzz

So does denial.

No it doesn't.

Speeding IS bad driving.

Anyone else's troll alarm ringing? For the OP, not alexxx (yawn).

So is she fit?

Post pics OP and send to the Judge-he'll get to the bottom of it…

I don't think it is a Troll – surely the Trollee posts subsequent messages, whereas the OP on this occasion has disappeared altogether after making the post.

Which is, I think, very rude of him.

😛

I had 9 points (3 speeding offences) when in my early twenties – for 3 years I just slowed down and looked out more.

Since, (Touch Wood) only had 1 speeding ticket – radar detectors and cruise control – plus never speed in built-up areas.

Not slowed me down elsewhere though.

It's not a troll

Surely speeding and bad driving overlap somewhat?

By definition, yes, but that doesn't imply cause. Some speeders are bad drivers, some bad drivers are speeders.

Some of the worst drivers I've ever seen have been people scared to drive over 20mph. Conversely, Lewis Hamilton.

You might as well argue that there's an overlap between, oh I don't know, bad drivers and people who like cheese.

Well the fact remains (as mentioned many many times) that going slower reduces the chance of accident (since people have more time to react) and the consequences are worse. Which is why we have speed limits.

If you're going to drive badly, it's better to drive badly and more slowly. Since the not-concentrating camera hasn't been invented yet, we have to use speed cameras.

Surely you'd agree that whilst speeding doesn't always mean bad driving, getting caught speeding multiple times probably does?

We need a common sense camera as it is apparent how uncommon such a sense is.

The fact also remains that if you go through a 30mph area at 60mph, you'll spend half as long there exposed to children jumping in front of you.

Statistics can mean anything you want them to. Hiding behind them if foolish.

And speed doesn't kill. Andy Green drove a car at 766mph; didn't get a scratch on him.

that going slower reduces the chance of accident

{citation needed}

If you're going to drive badly, it's better to drive badly and more slowly

If you're going to drive badly, it's better to get training or take the bus. Why exactly is 'bad driving' acceptable?

Since the not-concentrating camera hasn't been invented yet, we have to use speed cameras.

It's been around for years; it's called "policemen".

Surely you'd agree that whilst speeding doesn't always mean bad driving, getting caught speeding multiple times probably does?

I would, but I think I said that earlier (or at least, that's kinda what I was getting at.)

I don't hold with the idea that's it's ok to drive really badly whilst simultaneously holding a phone conversation, smoking, chastising the kids etc so long as you do it really slowly.

and the consequences are worse.

Sorry, missed this bit. Yes, of course, high-speed accidents tend to be worse than low-speed ones.

Which is why we have speed limits.

Actually, no it isn't. Speed limits were introduced to stop Jaguar using the M1 as a test track.

The fact also remains that if you go through a 30mph area at 60mph, you'll spend half as long there exposed to children jumping in front of you.

But the ones the driver is exposed to will be less likely to be able to see and react to the vehicle's presence nor the driver able to react to any danger from said child jumping into the road.

31% of all motor accidents in the 19-25 yr old range involved alcohol

Ban sober youngsters from driving & – at a stroke – reduce accidents by 69%

And speed doesn't kill. Andy Green drove a car at 766mph; didn't get a scratch on him.

Guess it depends if your definition of driving is sitting in a jet propelled car in the middle of the desert.

For most people its something completely different, and this is where speed becomes the killer.

The assertion was speed (alone) kills. If that was true then 766mph would have killed him, his parents, his dog and the milkman.

It didn't, so there must be a little bit more to it than just 'how fast'.

I've managed way over 130 in a 30 limit on many occasions – didn't do me any harm

Does brain damage not count?

in fact, I've probably managed 150

Speed categorically is not a killer.

The inability of a driver to select an appropriate speed for their ability, conditions and environment can be.

I sometimes speed, but not in built up areas where kids can run out. That is just asking for trouble!

Not sure why people are moaning about speed on here. Isn't that what our sport is about???

Not advocating speeding, but surely it depends on by how much? If you're doing 80mph in a built up area you are a selfish c*** as you can't predict what's happening. If you're doing 65mph down a country road that allows 60mph then you are going a little quick. Not saying it's right, but it's not the same. As long as you can see and are in control. Think the same goes for flying down a trail!

I am sure if you took enough Speed it would kill you.

Not sure why people are moaning about speed on here. Isn't that what our sport is about???

Im not sure what "our" sport is. I assume yours is "driving like a bit of a bellend."

It's been around for years; it's called "policemen".

A policeman can't tell if someone looking at the road is in fact daydreaming and mentally miles away.

And no-one thinks sheer speed alone kills – so there's no point constructing an argument to disprove that. We're not that bloody stupid.

I maintain that going slower reduces the chance of an accident, because everyone has more time to react. If I glance that the stereo for a second, I've travelled less distance; if I fade to the other side of the road, an oncoming driver has more time to avoid me and more time to stop – etc etc etc.

You really think that if we all zipped aroudn town at 50mph we'd be just as safe?

I reckon I definitely hit 150 around here but I'm not sure now if it was a 30 limit – I can't remember what the sign said, it was a few years ago

Im not sure what "our" sport is. I assume yours is "driving like a bit of a bellend."

Have you ever seen my driving? So that means anyone who has driven over the speed limit anywhere is a bell end? So you can put your hand on your heart as say you've never speeded? Not even by accident? Bull!

I have a big fat zero on my driving licence and never have so I must be a pretty skilful bell end! Though I prefer to think of myself as a bell wizard 🙂

pk-ripper – Member
Speed categorically is not a killer.

The inability of a driver to select an appropriate speed for their ability, conditions and environment can be.

To make that decision requires you to have more information than is usually available to us. Hence the idea behind a speed limit, it's also there to help keep egos under control.

You also forget that other people will be expecting you to be driving at the speed limit and if you're driving along faster than the speed limit then they may be acting in a different way.

From a theoretical perspective, if we did all zip around at 50mph we would probably be safer as the speed differential wouldn't be there.

To make that decision requires you to have more information responsibility than is usually available to us

Fixed it.

Good point about others anticipating though. As you pull out of work here, it's a 40 limit. So you see a gap and think 'oh I've got time' so you think you can go. Except that most people think that 40 is an infringement of their personal liberties so are doing a good 55mph. So you have far less space than you think.

I reckon I definitely hit 150 around here but I'm not sure now if it was a 30 limit – I can't remember what the sign said, it was a few years ago

I would give up if I were you, no-one is rising to your bait.

Where is her driving awareness? That worries me. I'm not the slowest or the fastest driver but I have awareness of warning signs, changes in speed limits etc etc.

I'm not sitting on a high-horse it just amazes me that someone can get to 9points and NOT worry like crazy/slow down and be more aware. Shes probably better without a car IMO especially if she drives near where I commute.

A policeman can't tell if someone looking at the road is in fact daydreaming and mentally miles away.

No, but they can (and are in fact specifically trained to) tell whether you're Driving Without Due Care.

And no-one thinks sheer speed alone kills

Good to clear that up.

I maintain that going slower reduces the chance of an accident

I disagee. Slow drivers driving slowly are often not the most competent, not the most aware and / or not the most experienced. Fast drivers driving slowly are bored rigid and their attention wanders. Both of these situations are more hazardous.

The safest way is to find an appropriate middle ground. Statistics bear this out.

You really think that if we all zipped aroudn town at 50mph we'd be just as safe?

I'm not arguing for inappropriate speed (which is what that usually is), I'm arguing against the brainwashed "speed kills, end of" argument.

Good point about others anticipating though. As you pull out of work here, it's a 40 limit. So you see a gap and think 'oh I've got time' so you think you can go. Except that most people think that 40 is an infringement of their personal liberties so are doing a good 55mph. So you have far less space than you think.

That's the one area where the whole motorbike SMIDSY thing breaks down. Quite a few junctions near me where the visible distance is fine if the traffic is at the speed limit – but bikes at a significant margin above the limit are potentially on you quicker than the pull out maneuver

you have far less space than you think.

So the problem there isn't solely the speeding drivers, it's also an inability to judge speed on the part of the driver pulling out (assuming they can actually see them in time, eg not on a blind bend).