fuel guage

[StevieB]

It strikes me as logical that a bad driver who hits another vehicle at 20 mph will inflict less damage than a bad driver who hits another vehicle at 120 mph. That's why it must be true that bad drivers cause accidents but speed kills.

Nope, that is bad driving that caused the fatality, it was speed that was a contributing factor.

I conceed that this could almost be an argument about semantics, and that both bad driving and speed need to be adressed to bring down accident statistics. It is the blanket message that 'speed kills' which irks me since as a motorcyclist I am faced with far worse dangers than speeding by motorists. If only the public were allowed to fine others £30 for using a mobile - I could retire within the year :twisted:

Steve.

 

[beech1948]

Beech wrote:

StevieB,

Sorry but you are wrong... in fact dead wrong...speed kills. Inappropriate use of speed kills faster is all.

>>>Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Beech :wink: I stand by my comment.<<<

Thats fine. I would agree that speed + stupidity kills probably more efficiently than speed alone. But a motorway crash caused by speeding and tailgating could have been avoided or minimised by slowing cars down just as much as preventing tailgating.

Saying its stupidity not speed that kills seems to my mind to be introducing an excuse and a poor one. One does not cancel the other out. We might prevent speeding but I could not imagine legislation to prevent terminal stupidity. What is really the root cause....stupid speedsters or speeding stupidly...isn't it kind of irrelevant....speeding is the root casue. Stupidity just gets you in trouble faster.

>>>The German Autobahn are some of the safest roads in Germany yet they have no speed limits. <<<

Untrue. The German AutoBann has the highest rate of fatal accidents in Europe....

>>>If your claim that speed alone kills<<<

I did not say that. Those are your words and not mine. I have come to believe that speed is the factor which contributes most to accidents and deaths on roads. It is not the only factor. One might consider frustration, anger, drugs, insensitivity, crassness, cruelty, poor education, a lack of feeling for humanity etc etc.


>>>why is it not in the top 5 reasons for fatality in Road Traffic Accidents from the governments own official figures? Sure, I am happy to agree that speed is certainly a contributing factor, just that its focus as the be all and end all of bad driving is incorrect. Even a chief constable agrees with this:<<<

Again, I have not said that speed is the only factor...it just seemed to be the focus of the thread.

>>>Does your claim 'the government allows me to buy it so must condone it' argument apply to other items? The government allows me to buy alcohol, it allows me to buy cigarettes, it allows me to buy all the ingredients to make explosives. Does it therfore condone lung cancer, alcoholism and blowing things up? <<<

Actually...... YES although explosives are a controlled substance and quite hard to get. But alcohol, cigarrettes etc are sold on a use me, abuse me at will basis but pay the tax and enjoy it. Governments condone the lung cancer caused by fags because they allow them to be sold. They knowingly are permitting the sale of something which will kill humans. Outrageous. For Government the issues around drink and fags are that they want the tax..they don't want to pay for the NHS costs to mop up the problems......its simple selfishness at the heart of this by "our" government.

>>>Apologies, this is not a rant or personal attack -<<<<


Not taken as such

>>> just something that I feel is badly reported and handled by the government. <<<


Agreed

>>>I ride a motorbike through London and M25 rush hour traffic daily, usually at speeds less than 30mph due to built up traffic. <<<

No comment. Thats your personal world.

>>>Bad driving and impatience causes far more accidents and fatalities than speed does. ........... phoning, texting, reading the paper, and even playing a computer game!) then these are far more serious offences than doing 75mph on the motorway :shock: <<<

Yes. Yes. But look here. Its possible to place a phone signal squelcher in a vehical to prevent calls being made. So why is it not mandatory. Why. I run my business by being mobile all the time. I do not have my mobile phone on in the car at all...thats what message services are for...but others use their phones in cars without a hands free kit all the time. Why am I being put at risk by these people when it could be prevented.

Its because government is scared to impose the solution because it will lose votes. Governments do not have integrity, honesty and goodwill to all.

 

[CHJ]

...snip..
The German Autobahn are some of the safest roads in Germany yet they have no speed limits. ...snip...

Not True re: speed limits.
The maximum national speed limit is 130 KPH.
However it is not enforced during normal driving conditions on the Autobahn. Have an accident however and you will find that the estimated speed of your travel is balanced against the road/traffic conditions at the time.
Further more ALL Autobahns have sections where lower speed limitations are applied due to road limitations or in foul weather conditions, often with cameras or monitored by unmarked cars. And enforcement levels can be quite high. France has an automatic 10 kph reduction of all speed limits in wet conditions.

After spending a month at a time travelling to and in Germany, at times well above 105 mph where tolerated, I often compare the speed limits and roads with the road conditions here on return. On the M4, M5, M6 (which I regularly use) I do not encounter a stretch of road that would not have a 120, 100 or even an 80 KPH restriction applied if it had been an autobahn. (we have far more bends and undulations to hide traffic ahead) So although whilst traveling at 70 mph on a northern section of the M6 at night travelling to scotland with not another car light in sight seems ridiculous my trips on the M5 in Worcestershire,Gloucestershire,Somerset,Devon etc. seem to be pushing my luck at anything much in excess of 70 in all but a few sections.

 

[trevtheturner]

But what a misnomer this term 'accidents' is - most, something like 99.9%, are not accidents at all when they are caused by human behaviour/failing in one form or another.

The interesting exchange of views here shows what a complex issue this is, in which speed or excess speed is just one factor - there are many other causation factors. One of the main factors in fatal 'accidents' is still consumption of alcohol.

Cheers,

Trev.

 

[Anonymous]

German roads are far better maintained than british roads and so potentially safer at elevated speeds above 70. I regularly see complaints in the monthy Audi owners magazine, from tetsers and owners about the suspension being designed for smooth, well maintained German autobahns rather than our potholed, poorly maintained and underfunded excuses.

 

[RogerS]

rather than our potholed, poorly maintained and underfunded excuses.

ditto rail. When Siemens (I think it was) won the contract to supply us with rolling stock for our rail operators, they had to make a special dedicated test track to match the appalling conditions of our own rail network. They a special truck over that recorded every bounce, bump, grind and other rail nasty. Their proper test track was just too smooth.

 

[CHJ]

German roads are far better maintained than british roads and so potentially safer at elevated speeds above 70. .

Not in my experience Tony, in the Nuremburg, Regensburg and Munich areas I regularly travel on several hundred kilometers that are degraded enough to make you take your foot off the pedal at 50mph due to discomfort created by bad surface.

Some of the autobahns have road signs posted warning of broken surfaces and applying speed limits for 20-30 kilometers that have been in position for at least 10 years to my knowledge.

I regularly see complaints in the monthy Audi owners magazine, from tetsers and owners about the suspension being designed for smooth, well maintained German autobahns rather than our potholed, poorly maintained and underfunded excuses.

One of the factors that critics here fail to take into account is the response time of the suspension damping. If you are travelling above 100mph and nearer the 158mph design limitation built into all the cars, (most German drivers seem to use the later figure as their norm) then the suspension does not have time to respond to the broken/rough surface and the tyres just settle at a mean height riding the crests of the undulations. This is one of the reasons that cause a steady stream of accidents every time light rain falls, the drivers fail to realise the limited road contact that they actually have. It is not unusual to see a car parked in an adjacent field after light rain, having failed to negotiate a bend, in heavy rain about 60% of them will slow down.

 

[Noel]

Tony has a very fair point. It's been long accepted that European designed cars that have had no developement, suspension/damping wise, on UK roads simply suffer from a poor quality ride. About the only company that I know of that has addressed the issue is Audi with the recently released A4 & A6 models. Although handling and roadholding has alway been good, now the ride is also good.
I'll not mention Irish roads...

Noel