Comments on: Is speed control a matter of safety or philosophy?

By: UKHamlet

UKHamlet — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:23:58 +0000

You're more likely to plough into a bus queue if you're speeding, so your point is misleading. Moreover, national statistics bear out the argument that speeding is indeed the primary cause of RTAs in which moderate to severe injuries occur. Admittedly, young people and truck drivers are disproportionately represented in this group, but by and large it is speed that causes accidents because we aren't equipped to react at the speeds at which modern cars can travel. Dismissing it by saying that “bad driving” is the cause is disingenuous at best and stupid at worst – speeding IS bad driving.

IQ tests…. Oh dear, oh dear. I was T-Boned by a high court judge who was driving too fast – he would have most people for breakfast in the IQ stakes. This is elitist nonsense, and while there is some merit in removing young men under the age of 30 from the roads, banning them because they can't add up is simply stupid and the advocacy of such is quite possibly a better reason for disqualification anyway. What are we saying here? I have an IQ of 157 – so does that mean I can drive at 100 mph or more in a built up area? Of course not, that's as ridiculous as the IQ test assertion.

Relative speed is not the major problem either – that's a red herring – absolute speed is. We need to control the speed of people who flout the law, because they are and will continue to be a danger on the road.

By: getaway

getaway — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:07:31 +0000

This is all very well when based on the very big assumption that speeding is the problem. Sadly it is not, and I'm fairly sure the national road death statistics alongside the implementation of speed cameras back this up. Bad driving is the problem and technology cannot solve that. GPS devices don’t apply to criminals or drunks. Ploughing into a bus queue even under the speed limit (as is often the case when some fool is confused between the throttle and the brake) is still going to cause carnage.

Think about a twisting A road.

Driver 1: an old dear is adhering to the speed limit at 60mph in her Honda Jazz, or Morris Minor perhaps; this could be a very scary and potentially dangerous ride.
Driver 2: is a sensible middle-aged man driving a Porsche 911 or Nissan GTR at 70mph, positively sedate for the capabilities of the car.
Driver 2 is exceeding the speed limit, driver 1 is not. However, Driver 2 can stop, corner and react so much quicker, and is without doubt in the safer position – only a fool would argue with this, a policeman for example.

The actual, governable speed is not the problem here. Speed it totally relative. Is the GPS device going to have rain/road/temperature sensors and adjust the maximum speed accordingly? Sometimes the specified speed limit is too fast, as I said; it is relative and requires intelligent judgement.

The only way to cut road deaths is a much tougher driving test that incorporates an element to establish the students IQ, and we’ll have the test every five years. The drivers killing people are generally bad drivers and/or they’re a bit thick.
There are huge numbers on our roads today that would simply not be capable of passing the current test, never mind something a bit more difficult.

This would also have the added benefit of reducing congestion and hence CO2 emissions. But wait, there is a flaw; unlike the war on speed there is no revenue in this for government, in fact they’ll lose out on new car tax, road tax, fuel tax, insurance tax, VAT…

By: sourdust

sourdust — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:04:22 +0000

Amen to every word. This kind of Jeremy Clarkson bollocks gives real libertarians a bad name.

Do I worry about over-regulation, about over-surveillance, about the sheer weight of law that now hangs over the head of anyone who can't afford the best lawyers? YES, because I am a libertarian.

Do I believe that people like Alexander Mark should be stopped from selfishly endangering the lives of others? YES, because I am not a twat.