the toll of deer involved annually in vehicle collisions in the UK is estimated to lie between 42,000 to 74,000
such deer related RTAs result in over 450 human injuries and several human fatalities every year.

If you don’t have IR vision …..

I would like to see much greater traffic law enforcement and make it self funding

I guess that’s the main reason they should be increased.

So at 90MPH on the motorway a vehicle crosses the barrier into your path. The likelihood of the event is not related to your driving skill, it is random. Would you rather be doing 90 or 70?

In a head-on collision at a combined speed of 140mph+, I very much doubt it’d make much difference.

Zero? Jesus, you don’t half talk bollocks sometimes

Ok, not zero, agreed. Over the last several years, I’ve had five collisions. In three I was stationary when someone drove into me, in the other two I wasn’t even in the car. Perhaps I should start driving in reverse.

But if you’re looking ahead, thinking ahead, leaving sufficient braking distance, driving to the conditions speed-wise, are aware of your surroundings and correctly anticipating what’s going on around you, you’re unlikely to have an accident, certainly an own-fault one.

Dude I am a bit new here, are you the resident troll?
It is almost like you are wilfully misinterpreting everything I say.
I never said that it was a head on at combined speeds,
What if it is far enough away that at 70 you have time to brake and they have come to a stop, but at 90 you arrive faster and they haven’t come to a stop and you haven’t stopped either.
Would you rather be doing 70 or 90.
All your logic is based on 70 or 90 into a brick wall equals death, therefore 200mph is equally safe.
In fact RL is a bit more nuanced.
However it is indisputable that at lower speeds you have more opportunity to avoid collisions, and if you are involved in one then slower speed will reduce severity.

I am a bit new here

I very much suspect that you aren’t, but that’s another story.

However it is indisputable that at lower speeds you have more opportunity to avoid collisions and if you are involved in one slower speed will reduce severity.

True. The point I’m trying to make, somewhat unsuccessfully it seems, is that it’s far from the only factor. The best way of avoiding collisions, by a country mile, is to look where you’re bloody going and think ahead. You were the one positing a “very skilled” driver as an example; a very skilled driver who is driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions will mitigate the vast majority of reasons why accidents happen, by definition.

I very much suspect that you aren’t, but that’s another story.

Really? Why? Spit it out.

Risk can be assessed in many ways but incidence x severity is one common one. Increased speed increases your risk slightly I would say – but increases severity greatly. So overall increased speed increases risk greatly.

5plusn8

See that moderator after cougars name? He has access to all the inside info and whiles he enjoys a good debate he is no troll. He would have to ban himself if he was and would disappear in a puff of logic

Sadexpunk, most of those laws are relevant….. In London. I am unlikely to break those as I don’t ever go to London.

Thanks for the pointer. I had seen that earlier and commented on it. However he is still being a bit trollish. If I cold think of the perfect deliberate misunderstanding responses to any of the arguments I have put forward, then his would be it.

It’s not speed that’s the problem, poor judgement, spacial awareness and general idiocy is the issue.

If law enforcement spent more time enforcing good driving practices it would have far greater effect than punishing those than are more skilled behind the wheel

I agree completely, but to police it properly would mean the police buying an extra 20,000 high power cars and employ an extra 25,000 traffic officers, along with admin staff and other costs… to do this effectively, country wide it would basically mean a big tax hike to pay for it.

Or people can just drive sensibly knowing that their journey might be a bit slower so they plan ahead allow for a ten min delay..

Or people can just drive sensibly knowing that their journey might be a bit slower..

slower =/= sensible.

Thanks for the pointer. I had seen that earlier and commented on it. However he is still being a bit trollish. If I cold think of the perfect deliberate misunderstanding responses to any of the arguments I have put forward, then his would be it.

Accept the apology with grace and move on otherwise people will start forming opinions about you. 😉

matty – make it self funding off the fines?

I think dash cams trackers will actually be the main thing that alters peoples driving. Discounts for insurance for those with them fitted and there will be much greater moves in this direction in future I believe.

tjagain – Member
matty – make it self funding off the fines?

We could, but the fines would be so high it would be detrimental to the economy, as the fines would probably bankrupt people. I don’t know the cost of 1 5series bmw, fully kitted out with police stuff, and 2 trained officers in it, I imagine it’s very expensive.

Yeah the trackers will show where you were and how fast you were going. That will help bigly.

Do you need pursuit cars to increase enforcement? Surely cops with lasers and high visibility and someone to flag the speeders down further up the road. I always reckon pursuits are just as dangerous as speeding in the first place.

They still need to be paid for, assuming a laser cam opertor is on 20k a year, then there’s the admin, the regular recallibration of the device…

Dashcams might well be the way forward, its a bit orwelian, but with the amount of idiot’s on the road who can’t read the conditions..

I think dash cams trackers will actually be the main thing that alters peoples driving. Discounts for insurance for those with them fitted and there will be much greater moves in this direction in future I believe.

Didn’t there used to be a system where you demonstrated thet you could drive accident free for a year and you got a reduction in premiums? Some sort of discount for not claiming, can’t remember what it was called though. 😛
I think all drivers should be able to drive either insurance free or third party only.
Having wittnessed how precious some people are about their cars, then I feel that if they had to pay for their own repairs, rather than using my premiums, would make them think twice about driving like muppets.

Yeah not cheap.
I’d be happy with a limiter, not invasive like a tracker, but just something radio activated as you enter a 50/40/30/20 zone. Like the F1 pits? Could we do that?

I don’t mean trackwers comulsorily fitted by the governemnt but that folk take voluntarily to reduce insurance premiums. Its already available

I’d also like to see compulsory retesting and I would be quite happy if motoring was much more expensive. at the moment non drivers subsidise drivers

fines so high they would be detrimental to the economy? really? the money does not disappear it just goes someplace else – into the wages of the police so gets spent by them or into government coffers so gives us more to spend on services. It just goes in a different direction but does not come out of the economy

Remember the tory govt in the 90’s brought in a fuel tax scheme which increased every year to try to get people to drive less, the opposite has happened. We all love driving and are prepared to pay for it. I can’t see the “nudge” stuff happening.

If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?

Thing is, you shouldn’t need a limiter, people should just stop driving like self entitled ¥€*%\~%®

Yeah thats true.
We have a mega entitled driving culture. Imagine if cars were just invented yesterday. To be legal every road would have to be separated from pedestrians by huge protective barriers, cars would have limiters, auto shut off if they came too close etc etc.
In fact it would never happen.
It amazes me stood at the side of the road watching a mum holding her kids hand whilst a huge bus comes past, the rotating wheel inches from them.. Typical industrial health and safety people would be having kittens.

If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?

Who would administer the business rebates?

captainsasquatch – Member
If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?

Who would administer the business rebates?

Exactly..what do you think the tax payers appetite would be if council tax was hiked up to cover the cost…

I can’t see any of our suggestions happening no matter what, people need gradual change.

It’s a social issue that can only be overcome by legislation, with massive tax hikes.

Or people can start driving more sensibly, which is free, and has been demonstrated to not make journeys that much shorter.

Driver education would help – understanding how horrific accidents can be.
Don’t they do this on speed awareness courses, do you get to forced to look at horrible pictures?

Really? Why? Spit it out.

Because you’re showing many hallmarks of a returning banned. Which I’m not going to detail as people will stop doing it, making my job harder.

Toys19 is our current theory, but it’s early days yet. What do other readers think?

Driver education would help

Absolutely. Education – or rather, the lack of it – is a huge issue. I’m with TJ on the idea of retests.

Don’t they do this on speed awareness courses, do you get to forced to look at horrible pictures?

Yes. No.

social issue

Quite.
If it was about drink driving would there be 5 pages of internet P*ssheads arguing that, actually, they’re OK to drive after 4 pints and the problems are caused by people who drink too little?

No, of course not, but speeding is socially acceptable. When it gets the same stigma as drink or drug or unlicensed driving then we’ll be able to, excuse the pun, make progress. But for now everybody does, virtually everybody gets away with it and nobody really cares that other people are doing it.

Has Smurfmat unflounced?

Has Smurfmat unflounced?

I don’t know. Has anyone said “Bimmer”?

Nice.
I don’t think this is true because you can use your cookies to see what peoples FB ID’s were etc etc, surely you can find out exactly who I am in seconds. If I was a previous banned you would know.
Anyway it’s your forum. If annoying a mod in your first week puts you under suspicion that is bad form.

Sure, that’s exactly how it works.

There you go then, so this is a silly game because you know who I am.

Sadexpunk, most of those laws are relevant….. In London. I am unlikely to break those as I don’t ever go to London.

yeah, i was just being a bit of a tit for the sake of devils advocate 🙂

Captain / Matty? Why business rebates? It would mean thatthings where the cost of the fuel to move them was a significant portion of the cost would be a bit more expensive – so what? If things reflect the true cost of the miles to get them there then maybe slightly more eco friendly business policies might emerge? It would be a gradual change over time. Its not money going from the economy – its just in a differnt place. Fuel costs are not a large part of most businesses costs are they? Why should I as a non driver subsidise you as a driver?

Maybe we go back to one efficient delivery company not 20 of them all driving half empty vans round the same areas? Maybe local shops become more viable? maybe we don’t have scottish produced butter going south to distribution depots then coming back north again?

differnt debate tho so lets not get sidetracked

Captain / Matty? Why business rebates? It would mean thatthings where the cost of the fuel to move them was a significant portion of the cost would be a bit more expensive – so what? If things reflect the true cost of the miles to get them there then maybe slightly more eco friendly business policies might emerge? It would be a gradual change over time. Its not money going from the economy – its just in a differnt place. Fuel costs are not a large part of most businesses costs are they? Why should I as a non driver subsidise you as a driver?

I’d be doing a bit more research on this bit before touting it as a stratergy.