Ducati Sporting Club UK > General > Idle Chat > Police clamping down on speeding evaders

[Ray]

Maybe we are getting into semantics here,

How many times when someone is pulled over for speeding do you hear "you might have had an accident"/collision or whatever it might be labelled.

Yes the individual was speeding, irrefutable fact (hopefully) but they haven't had a an accident/collision or whatever, that was merely pointing out something that might have happened that is un-related to speed. Thank you for pointing out something that might happen in the future but hasn't yet become fact.

Perhaps someone can tell me the threshold at which an accident/collision is inevitable or even perhaps some sort of graduated scale.

70 MPH a 0 chance of a collision/accident

90 MPH a 50/50 chance of a collision/accident.

Sure you can't rule out becoming the victim of someone else's accident/collison or whatever but then you are reduced to the lowest "safe" speed 0, zero, nada, nil, to have a zero chance of a collision/RTA or whatever.


Sure other people on the road are a variable but thats where risk management, anticiptation, road craft call it waht you will comes into it.

Use the lowest common denominator and assume that no one can drive/ride "properly" and then again the only safe speed is 0, zero,.............


Raising driving/riding standards is the key, NOT rigidly enforcing a Limit which is what the powers that be are upset about.

Unfortunately improving standards costs money but rigidly enforcing limits brings money in.

"Speed Kills" is just Spin, it doesn't collisions/accidents do and the fast you you the more serious the consequences of such an event becomes,

How about "Speeding can have serious consequences", not quite as snappy is it??

Ray.

[twpd]

There is an amazing amount of hypocrisy and lack of proportion attached to the subject of speeding:

1. Police officers/public figures/celebrities on a regular basis getting away with speeding.
2. People in here banging on about it like andyb - presumably he never speeds on his 999 or in his car?
3. c. 4000 deaths per year (correct me on the figure if you wish - the actual number is not that important here within +/- 10k) attracts a massive focus yet we tolerate 100,000+ deaths a year and the attributable costs that go with smoking and passive smoking.
4. Umpteen thousand deaths per year due to pollution from many causes etc.
5. The lack of focus on bad drivers, dangerous vehicles and other traffic infringements (running red lights around here seems to have exploded with the frustrations of being stuck in traffic)

There's a whole host of inconsitencies in every day life (including those above) which, make a mockery of the near fanatical obsession that the authorities have with speeding vehicles.

If knocking on the door of the bereaved bothers AndyB so much (and what human wouldn't be bothered by it?) then he shouldn't do the job nor should he be supporting fallacious arguments in favour of the "speeding kills" lobby. If we were to follow that argument to their (as in the lobby's) logical conclusion then we would only ever walk anywhere.

[twpd]

Originally Posted by Ray

Raising driving/riding standards is the key, NOT rigidly enforcing a Limit which is what the powers that be are upset about.

Unfortunately improving standards costs money but rigidly enforcing limits brings money in.

"Speed Kills" is just Spin, it doesn't collisions/accidents do and the fast you you the more serious the consequences of such an event becomes,

How about "Speeding can have serious consequences", not quite as snappy is it??

Ray.

You are SO right.