Oh..... where do i start? I want to respond to SO many posts here, that i have forgotten half of them. Firstly, let me tell you. I have been a police officer since 1992. I am now attached to the Road Policing Unit (Traffic department), and my dutied include giving tickets for speeding etc. i also attend MANY accidents each day. NO ONE leaves the house with the intention of having accidents, but let me tell you, they DO happen more frequently than you will believe. I have been to atleast 6 single vehicle accidents, where the driver has hit a deer. In fact a work colleague of mine hit one on the way home after a night shift (last November). This last year, my police force has had almost 30 fatal crashes, that i have had the misfortune of dealing with 3 of them, but attended 8 of them. The 3 i dealt with (infact still dealing with one of them), are.. firstly a motorcycle that was speeding. he overtook a car, then couldnt make the bend. His helmet came off, and his head was smashed open, to the point that a piece of his brain had come out (about the size of an egg), and his helmet was covered in brain matter and skull. He was doing 75mph in a 60mph limit (none residential). The second was a car who hit a school kid, killing him instantly. he was doing 44 in a 40 (in a village). The third was a motorcycle who hit an elderly pedestrian and dog (cutting the dog in 2 pieces). He was doing 74 in a 60. The pedestrian was crossing the road as they werent expecting a vehicle to be traveliing this fast towards them (none residential). The other 5 fatal crashes i have been to include... 1 motorbike, where a young inexperienced rider lost control speeding round a bend, and ended up underneath a car (none residential). 1 motorbike, that went too fast on a straight road, but could react in time to an oncoming car that was going within the speed limit. The bike had a head on with the car (none residential, drink driver). 1 car that was speeding on a straight empty road in the middle of the night, and the driver avoided something (we believe a large bird, as there was an owl dead near to the crash), and the car flipped onto its roof (none residential). 1 car that left the road, crossing the carriageway hitting oncoming traffic (none residential). 1 car crossed a busy dual carraigeway into oncoming traffic, killing the 2 people in the other car (none residential, drink driver). So, lets break this down. Out of the 8 fatals... 4 were motorcycles, all speeding in none residential areas, 1 was inexperienced. 4 were cars, 3 of which were in none residential areas (the other was a small village). 2 were speeding 2 werent speeding. Out of all these 2 were drink drivers (one motorcyclist, and one car). So 20% were drunk, 80% were speeding. We also know that if many of these speeders werent speeding, a crash would not have happened, and the people would most likely be alive today. I have also been to too many accidents that i care to mention where we KNOW that speed was a major factor. To say speed doesnt kill is very stupid and imature, I KNOW FIRST HAND THAT IT CAN AND DOES KILL. Ok, not the speed itself, but the result of the speed does. You may be on an open road in the fast lane, but that car in front in the slower lane who is about to overtake an even slower car, isnt expecting you to be coming up behind them so fast. You may be driving along on an empty road in the dead of night, but your reaction times are greatly reduced when that deer steps out in front of you. To say 'you arent hurting anyone but yourself' is also a very selfish attitude. Think about how much it will hurt your family. Think about the emergency services that risk their own lives trying to get to you quickly to save yours. Think about all the resources that go into cutting you from your car, taking you to hospital, patching you together. Think about the people who have to devote their lives to looking after you until your well again, or if your a vegatable, for the rest of your life. Think about how your kids feel when they are told their dad isnt coming home ever again. Think about how your wife feels when told, she will lose her home because there wont be as much money coming into the home now. If anyone dies on the UK roads, we innitialy treat it as murder scene, until we can prove otherwise. This costs tax payers upto a million pounds each road death. So, your not hurting anyone, but yourself? Modern cars are getting better all the time, unfortunately, drivers reactions and attitudes towards driving them arent. I could go on, but i wont, unless you want me to?
Just for the record, I would like to add to my previous post; Speeding in any form of resedential area, or anywhere that people are expected to be close to the road, is a massive no no, and people should be ashamed doing 60mph in a 30mph zone (as I know one person did). Speeding (by anything more than a "little" over the speed limit) with even one other passeneger that does't mind you speeding is wrong (Having said that, my best friend just took me out in his new [to him] EK9, and he sure as hell didn't stick to the speed limit on the bypasses or motorway, and I couldn't have cared less) and immoral. Speeding on a straight bypass/motorway, with no passengers, at 2 in the morning, with no one around (or at least no one in front of you) and no dangers to the sides with safe weather conditions (and obviously with a car deemed MOT passable), I see nothing wrong with. You crash? Who cares, you might die, but you only ever put yourself at risk, and everyone does that just getting out of bed in the morning. Hell, you do so even staying IN bed. In fact, it is something I have always felt strongly about; if either it is only you at risk, or everyone is a consenting adult, leave them to it. Wanna smoke weed in your bedroom? Go for it. Want to speed on an empty highway with no one and nothing in sight? Sure. Want to cane a litre bottle of water because your life sucks? Have at it.
Hahah you gave me a great idea i never thought of... when i pass my test im gonna wake up early morning just to speed on the motorway
Phew.. there are some loooonnnngggg posts in this thread. My position on speeding is pretty simple. Do I think that I should be able to go 100mph from time to time? Yes. Do I trust anyone else with the responsibility to know when it's safe to go that speed? **** No! So I sacrifice some freedom by having a little time added on to a journey every once in a while. For that sacrifice I gain an increase in my own safety while using the roads. I suspect all those here who like to speed are young or new drivers. When you've been driving for a long while the novelty wears off and you just want to get from A-B with as little expensive and fuss as possible. In other words you grow up. If you have been driving for many years and still feel the need.. the need ..for speed, then you really need to question why you have to get somewhere so fast in the first place. Maybe you need to get laid/masturbate more often. Perhaps do a couple of track days to get your speeding jollies... whatever, just do it some place else. That way we can all laugh together as the speed cameras nazis go out of business.
PCthug, there's one glaring problem with your view, and it is this exact problem that is used to twist statistics in favour of raising speeding ticket costs and such, I mentioned it in my last post. That problem is that almost everyone driving down a highway is breaking the speed limit. If you're keeping with the flow of traffic on the highway and you crash for whatever reason, you will be "speeding" technically, even though everybody else was. You seem to think that going above the speed limit by even 1 mph makes you a horrible person and that you will instantly crash no matter what. Your example of doing 44 in a 40 zone is just ridiculous because the exact same thing would've happened if the driver was doing 40. Hell, here that wouldn't even be considered speeding since it's within the 10 km/h margin of error for badly calibrated speedos and radar guns.
I don't think that was his point though. It seems that his point was that you have a higher chance of dying if you speed since 75% of the fatal crashes he mentioned were people who sped. Seems as though that poster can't do basic math though as he says it's 80%, but 6/8 isn't 80%. Anyways, half were motorcycles so that's actually hard to say if speeding even mattered. It's a lot worse for motorcycle riders.... but they already have a very high risk of death in a crash.
I hear the autobahn has soooo much traffic these days anyways.... and while they don't have speed limits, they enforce en masse strict tailgating law.
LOL Many speed limits are created for certain reasons: Revenue -- Really Based on "average" capacity -- Meaning that when roads are no where near capacity, faster speeds are safer Based on nanny legislators, not engineers -- Most rural US freeways have an artifically low limit of 65-75 mph (texas and utah have 80-85). On many of these stretches, 100+ mph would be safe. Hell Montana and Nevada both had unlimited freeways for a very long time, neither were abandoned for safety reasons (Nevadas was killed by the feds in the national 55 thing decades ago, Montana was killed because someone doing liek 150mph was able to exploita loophole). Germany's autobahns have similar fatality rates to US freeways. In some states in the US, the speed limits are suggestions in certain areas anyhow. (Very strong, hard to rebute recommedations, but recommendations none the less) And I used to prosecute traffic stuff. Speed in residential districts? Bad Speed ona rural highway? Meh. 1. That is not caused by breaking the limit. That is caused by too fast for conditions due to the bend. The speed limit on roads is not the safe speed around a corner. He likely would have wiped at 60mph too. 2. Yes the 4mph over is what killed him and not inattention. 3. An extra 15? Someone was cutting things too close. I've stood next to cars doing 140 mph (with a radar gun). The close speed should be pretty obvious. And the difference in close time between 60 mph and 75mph is not that signifcant. Plus if he hit him at speed to kill with a motorcycle, either the motorcycle didn't see the guy soon enough (likely impacting if he was doing 60) or the guy stepped off giving the motorcycle no time to react (meaning an accident anyhow). Oh yes and I have US DOT data: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/18/us-dot-report-confirms-speed-not-major-cause-of-accidents/ Note that almost 50% of fatal accidents in the US involve alcohol. (Like 46% or something retarded like that)
you are right, you must be an idiot to speed in a residential district but you must be even a bigger idiot or have a really crap car and no skills not to floor it on a rural highway with almost 0 traffic, im not saing i would floor it when there are many cars but when i see empty area i would floor it as long as there are no cars around you would only kill yourself so the morally correct hoes do not have anything to protest
Biggest reason not to speed is FE. That's the whole reason they did the national 55 MPH thing to begin with.
And it isn't even accurate anymore, given modern gearing and aero. I get better economy at 60-65 than 55.
No i dont think people are horrible by going over the speed limit by 1mph. Our guidelines are 10%+2, so 35 in a 30, 77 in a 70 etc. However, i wont give someone a ticket unless they are going 45-50 in a 30 (depending on location), 70 in a 50, or 90 in a 70. It wasnt an example, it was an accident i attended. I did NOT say that speed was the cause of the accident, but stated that the car WAS speeding. Yes, it still would have happened at 40 too. It was an accident, and pedestrian error. But still, the car WAS speeding. That was my point. The majority of (fatal) crashes i attend are due to speed. Yes, sorry my maths wasnt too good at that time of night, especially after beer, lol. 1. The motorcyclist was speeding. The corner (right hand bend) was a VERY shallow corner, that he could easily made at 80mph (i could probably make it at a faster speed, but i am experienced). He overtook the car prior to the corner, severely reducing his visibilty and tightening the corner up. This is what killed him. I did not say that speed killed him, but said it was a factor. 2. The car was travelling at 4mph over the limit. The driver was going to quick for the conditions, 30mph would have been more acceptable (at that time), and the child would have survived. 3. All due respect, but you know nothing about the accident, but let me explain... Elderly people as well as children have a poor perception of speed. The elderly lady was hit on a 2 mile stretch of VERY straight dual carraigeway road, in broad daylight. The motorcycle saw her in the middle of the 2 carriageways from about 1/2 a mile away, yet didnt slow down. In the UK it is always the pedestrain that has right of way. You say that 75 in a 60 is not that significant? its 25% more, that IS significant. nm+, if your a traffic officer, then you should know. The calculation of speed is measured at the point when the impact occures or the vehicle skids. It does not allow for thinking/reaction speed, and braking speed, or speed lost through the impact itself. It is a science that can estimate as near as spot on, the minimum speed of a vehicle involved in a crash.
you are joking??? i can see your logic but have you seen how bad the vast majority of drivers are at 70-80? lol I tihnk the limit should be raised to 80mph but the main problem with safety is uninsured, driving without a license, no valid MOT ie the vehicle is not fit for the road and drunk/drugged up drivers. I think you will find that speeding is not the biggest cause of crashes on britains roads, quite a small percentage, the biggest is loss of control, but not because of speeding. Dont have a source apart from i have heard it on "police camera action" and "road wars" etc. I tihnk the biggest killer, i know speeding doesnt help, is awareness for other drivers, pedestrians and the general road. I know its obvious but something not to be over looked.
Your taking many assumptions which don't hold ground. The control of a car has a non linear response, the steering wheel of a front wheel drive car has a transfer function of the second order which is oscillatory stable. While a rear wheel drive is the same but unstable. The same applies to the suspensions and brake force distribution (although nowadays they put micro controllers to give feedback). The above basically means that the higher the input the longer the output takes to stabilize, therefore rough turning results in overshoot (instability) which can cause accidents, then there is the braking side (if one decides to brake) which by newtons conservation of momentum cannot remotely be instantaneous which basically means that force on the breaks has to be applied evenly meaning a longer stopping distance. So the faster you go the more uncontrollable the vehicle is, how do you think F1 drivers can drive so fast? Because their super human? No, because some control freak put millions worth of electronics and algorithms to make sure the car doesn't go ape**** so that the driver doesn't die. So when authorities put up speed limits they generally do so behind sound scientific knowledge which you don't have, Sure the limits don't cover all sort of conditions, their usually a compromise.
1. Well then, he was a moron. 2. That is too fast for conditions, which I like to distinguish from "speeding" (going above the limit). Even if he'd been doing the posted limit, he'd be ****ed. 3. That isn't so much a speed issue as a moron issue. You always slow down when peds are around. I suspect if he'd acted the same at 60mph, he'd been dead. This doesn't sound like an issue of speed simply because he had a long time to stop. Not a cop, prosecutor who did mostly traffic matters. Maybe in England, in large part because for some reason it takes you guys 2 hours to clear an accident we'd have cleared in 15 minutes. But in less densely populated areas, 100+ mph speed limit on controlled access freeways would be more than fine. Seriously, I challenge anyone to drive Salt Lake City to Wendover, Ut and not think you should be able to do at leats 100mph there in clear conditions. It looks like this for 80 miles. Exactly like that. Nothing living, no people, minimal traffic. Most speed limits are set up by legislators with no feedback from engineers, at least in the US. When they do consult the engineers it is for flow reasons (a lower limit road can hold more traffic), not safety. One city i worked in did do engineering and it resulting in people bitching that the speed limits were too high (they weren't, no increase in accidents) because there is far more "perception" of safety than actual safety when other people set these limits.
