^Qwerty^

I don't know if you have a Scooby or not, but I don't remember it been the most environmentally friendly car there is by a long shot. So if you have a Scooby, do YOU care about the environment, as it makes no difference what speed you drive it at?

imlach

I don't know if you have a Scooby or not, but I don't remember it been the most environmentally friendly car there is by a long shot. So if you have a Scooby, do YOU care about the environment, as it makes no difference what speed you drive it at?

No, I no longer own one. I've become more green recently.....I wouldn't like to be classed as a hippy, as I am not, but have become much more aware of the environmental factors in our world.

scoobynutta555

Ragging my p1, does that say i recklessly drive? Hmmm no, full no claims and never had a fault accident, only accident i have had is a **** 17 years old running into me when i was stationary who only passed their test 6 days before. And they were only doing 25 mph so i suppose using your warped logic they were in the clear.

You are the one that needs to grow up. The points you have raised are quite naive and have been successfully rebutted,you seriously need to rethink your position as you look quite silly.

[scoobynutta555 might as well edit to look as if I comply]

imlach

ou are the one that needs to grow up. The points you have raised are quite naive and have been successfully rebutted,you seriously need to rethink your position as you look quite silly.

Err...no they haven't all been rebutted. I would argue against the fact I look "quite silly". Entirely your opinion, and not necessarily shared by all.

Naive? Err...no. Breaking the law is an offence. REREAD the 3rd post! What is naive about it?

As for not having an accident, congrats. Does that make you "safe"?

[Edited by imlach - 11/30/2003 10:30:03 PM]

^Qwerty^

Fair play to you !!!

Not sure I could give up anything for the sake of the environment. Mind you, all these catalyst's on cars..... all they did was move the environmental damage to somewhere else (and push car performance back a fair few years)

imlach

I may add, I got rid of the Scooby, NOT for green reasons However, if I had one now, I'd probably just use it less....get the train/cycle to work now - fed up of all the road congestion/hassle/etc. Have to say, don't miss driving to work. Takes about same time on train/bike anyway, so I am lucky.

scoobynutta555

If i choose to break the law I do so with a reasoned approach.

Youre typical theiving joyrider who kills countless every year directly and indirecly (high speed police chases, in fact police have been killing motorists in ever increasing numbers over the years) will pay no heed to speed cameras and laws.

Everybody breaks laws everyday, go do some research and youll find out just how many laws are still on the statutes, and that you along with mostly everybody else break in the UK every single week.

Just because something is 'law' it doesnt mean its not open to interpration to myself and other people. Go watch the film demolition man to see a society that never breaks the law. Purile example i know following a BBC report, but nevertheless its an example of a society that blindly follows and complies with the law.

This speed camera scandal, and it is a scandal, will be this governments Poll tax if they dont wake up. The Tories have already cottoned onto this and have tagged camera reform onto their flimsy rhetoric.

imlach

Youre typical theiving joyrider who kills countless every year directly and indirecly (high speed police chases, in fact police have been killing motorists in ever increasing numbers over the years) will pay no heed to speed cameras and laws.

I suspect if you replace "typical theiving joyrider" with "typical speeding ignomanus", the figures will be exactly the same We all tut & shake our heads at Police Camera Action when we see a joyrider, but I suspect for every joyrider, there are the same number of "normal everyday people" who are causing the deaths of innocent motorists/pedestrians/cyclists. However, we don't view the "speeding law-abiding citizen" in the same skewed light do we? Why not? It is because it is deemed "a soft crime" - or acceptable to break. Yet, we see drink driving as a big no-no. Why? Distinguish them please.

I've read in the local press last week of at least 2 cases where people kiiled others on the road due to being reckless and speeding. Both cases caused 3rd party deaths, and were "normal people" - NOT joyriders.

DRUNKNORGY

Reviewing this post after a days abscence is sooo, fekkin funny . Imlachs argument has just crumbled over the day under the posts - just as the Governments arguments just don't hold water under close scrutiny. Your not a spin doctor for Balony Tony are Ya .

It just goes to show that the older drivers just drive slower because the confidence isn't there, and if your not confident, then your not in control, and shouldn't be in control of such a dangerous vehicle (automatics are the worst for coffin dodgers as many can't tell the difference between forward and reverse).

Your right in your earlier posts about using another form of transport, but surely it would be safer to use a competent drivers skills to get you from A to B than wobbling around on the pavements and in the gutters on a Pushy !

imlach

I don't think my points have crumbled at all. I think, if anything, it shows a reluctance to admit to the fact that driving is a dangerous pastime. Why are you all so PRO-speeding anyway? I thought you all considered yourselves to be careful, considerate, and safe drivers? "The biggest nut in the car is the one behind the wheel" as they always say.

As for cycling, I'm not one to cycle on pavements, nor in gutters. I spend all my time trying to avoid the nutcases speeding past me......but that's another story. Especially the drivers with small manhood who can't face being beaten away from the lights by, of all things, a pedal cycle

[Edited by imlach - 11/30/2003 11:35:55 PM]

imlach

Scoobynutta - I noticed you admitted to a fine on another thread :

My renewal went up by £60, caught 100.4 mph on A1m, no ban, 6 points and £100 fine.

Hmm....over 100mph? So WHY exactly did you feel you were justified in that speed on the A1M? No doubt you were not "ragging" it at the time? I also suspect your instantaneous max speed was higher given police take an average reading....

How did it make you feel doing that speed?

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

scoobynutta555

Scoobynutta - I noticed you admitted to a fine on another thread :

My renewal went up by £60, caught 100.4 mph on A1m, no ban, 6 points and £100 fine.

Ragging it? I also said that i dont recklessley drive. The 2 can go hand in hand. The particular road in question was a motorway, and it was a 70 limit, on a clear dry day with hardly any traffic. As reflected by the magistrates by my low fine and non ban, and i represented myself.

At the same time, im not up here doing donuts outside a school at chucking out time. If you choose to quote me then do so with accuracy. That speed in those conditions were well witin my capabilites, as i have said alos that i have had no fault accidents and no claims. Seems to me that you ignore totally the valid part of the arguement and tune into something not very relavant and try to base your 'case' on this.

And you cannot compare a person that knows their limits in a legal car with legal documents that travels a few mph an hour with circumstances that are well within their limits, to a joyriding **** whos probably high, caning it at 100 mph in 30 areas, to compare and lump both together, is again, niave and stupid.

imlach

Scoobynutter - err, I did quote you accurately! See :

clicky

I cut & pasted your WHOLE posting.
So why is 100+mph "safe" on a dry public road?

imlach

100mph is 30mph above the limit.
That is the difference between 0mph and 30mph in relative terms. I think most would not find that "an insignificant difference".

Who's looking....err..."silly" now

imlach

Please also enlighten us ALL as to why 100+mph is not reckless when the limit on a motorway is 70mph?

imlach

And you cannot compare a person that knows their limits in a legal car with legal documents that travels a few mph an hour with circumstances that are well within their limits, to a joyriding **** whos probably high, caning it at 100 mph in 30 areas, to compare and lump both together, is again, niave and stupid.

Umm...but how do the police & goverment know that you know your limits? How do I know? To call the comparison "naive & stupid" is clearly wrong.

..and a "few mph" is not 30+ mph.

I concur that perhaps you are the "joyriding ****" in the eyes of many.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

imlach

I assume you've also had driver training for driving at 100+mph?
If not, what makes you "qualified" to do it? What makes you "safe"?

Oh dear, oh dear. <shakes head in disbelief>

scoobynutta555

I cant be ar5ed reading your FOUR replies because I have a life, and even though i speed now and again its better than being a speedo watching 'holier than tho' idiot.

Your arguement is found to be sorely wanting. If you cant understand the circumstances or put into context what I am saying than it is pointless spending time on you as you are obviously a lost cause.

Go burn your driving licence and instead cart yourself about in a wheelbarrow.

Its very boring replying to somebody as obtuse as yourself, who ignores the basics of a point of view, so Im not going to bother anymore, enjoy your purile little world and continue to see the big picture.

No doubt this will end in bold type followed by a [edited post] at the bottom.

scoobynutta555

sorry, 5 replies. Get a life.

ajm

[Post to fix Recordset Error]

imlach

Scoobynutta - nice to see you resorting to personal abuse. Usually a sign of someone who can't defend their actions.

I asume, therefore, that you are quite proud of your 100+mph, and given it is "justified", you'll be totting up another 6 points soon?

Leslie

Mart,

I used the term "selfish" advisedly. Three figure speeds on today's public roads is exactly that.

Scoobynutta,

You did not read my post very carefully because you did not take on board all that I said, which answers your criticisms anyway.
You have spent some time now trying to justify your disregard of the law. You cannot do that however much you try. You do not have the right to do just as you like. There is nothing special about you which says you can. The old "holier than thou" attempt at an insult just does not work and is not applicable anyway.

Les

MATTeL

Because they can be! There are no Age Discrimination laws in this country yet and it not likely until 2006.

Also reactions do slow down over time... a simple and tragic biological fact.

I saw a programme were the police were doing the simple read that number plate over there tests and most of the old folk failed or struggled. They then got in cars, the police looked on saying they had no powers to stop them.

scoobynutta555

I have also had my share of speeding fines as a younger driver, that was in the days when there was only 1/4 of the traffic density we have now.

So you're justifying previous illegal actions retrospectively by saying there was less traffic about in general?

How does that compare to speeding on a road that had no traffic on it these days, with much more modern technology and safety systems in modern cars? And before its thrown back at me im not complacent. Exactly what period are you on about when you found it okay to speed when there was a quarter of traffic about? Perhaps you ought to look at this graph and try and come up with some kind of answer. And I do notice the get out clause that follow that position, " still no excuses anyway".


Please tell me what golden era of traffic death you are talking about.

Off now to service my decatted bane of 'green' thinking car.

imlach

The graph shows number of FATAL accidents per km.

I would expect %-age of fatal accidents to decrease given cars are much safer these days.

What it DOES NOT show is number of accidents per km. Has that stayed constant or gone down or up?

Paul_M

Here is the overall casualty rate, what that means exactly I'm not sure but I'd guess it's people who are admitted to hospital as a result of an RTA.



The fact that the fatality rate has barely fallen since ~1995 when we had no speed cameras despite cars getting safer in the last 10 years is pretty clear evidence that the claimed saving of lives by speed cameras is not happening. Either that or the speed cameras are saving lives but there have been an increase in fatalities caused by other means - in that case why is no action being taken to reduce those factors?

This kind of response is exactly the reason that road safety is not being tackled in the way it should. There is a very real difference between driving at a certain speed and being reckless. So in your opinion a traffic cop going to an emergency on an empty motorway would be driving recklessly if they were doing 100MPH? Just because they're allowed to do so legally doesn't change the laws of physics so it's either both are reckless or both are not assuming all else is equal.

That opinion IMO is nonsense - I don't argue that speeding shouldn't be illegal etc but there is a difference between speeding and dangerous driving which is being blurred by the anti-speeding lobby which is reducing the perceived seriousness of dangerous driving (an offence which carries up to 2 years in the slammer). There needs to be much more emphasis on cutting out dangerous and careless driving, but the impression I get these days is that it's OK to drive like a **** as long as you're under the speed limit .

pugoetru

I dont agree that speed kills it is stupid driving that kills

OllyK

My biggest concern with Speed Cameras is that they in themself are a hazard to driving. People are so worried about getting caught by them and loosing their license that they spend more time looking at the speedo than at the road and become even more of a danger, even if they are travelling at the limit or below.

The problem with so many of these reports is that they only measure a small number of variables and don't take everything in to account. Read the safespeed web site about Regression to the mean. Consideration needs to be given to the volumes of traffic passing through a location once a speed camera has been put in place. Many people will try and avoid roads with speed cameras, I know I changed my route when the A14 started sprouting them all over the place. Not because I wanted to break the law, but knowing that while concentrating on the road and trying to think for many of the poor drivers on the A14 it could be possible for my speed to vary slightly and possibly end up with me being caught on camera. If there is less traffic, there is a good chance that the number of accidents will fall. The fact that the number of fatalities on the roads has not reduced in the last 10 years or so suggests that the accidents are just moving elsewhere and that the speed cameras are doing little or nothing to solve the problem.

Personally I rather be with a driver watching the road and travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions rather than a driver sitting spot on the limit and spending most of their time looking down at thier dials.