SimpleSi (10th September 2011)
...er, I don't 'scold' elsiegee dear - I'm not edugeek's mother!
A bit less jumping to conclusions by some on here would be good though
According to a friend of mine who is a traffic cop, going up to 75 to overtake (if the person you are overtaking suddenly sped up for example) is fine and usually quite obvious to the police.
He also says that whilst travelling in a straight line at very high speed is indeed reasonably safe, you are travelling so fast that you do not really have time to 'check the carriageway in front of you' before you reach a hazard, and so he doesn't advocate it at all.
He sees a lot of accidents and does not feel that there is any particular breed of car that is any safer than any other - there are many many cars with good safety records and features, and many that do not have much in the way of these things
Anyway, whether you agree with it or not, the law is the law, and we cannot choose which laws to obey.
Last edited by witch; 9th September 2011 at 10:26 PM.
WHO have conducted significant evidence based research across the world and have made some very country-specific recommendations. This is then taken up by those completing research in the UK, who will also take into account the specific driving styles and attitudes of our drivers.
Speed is significantly linked to the probability of a crash / collision
If you want to read more on this then have a look at the research from Prof. John Whitlegg, who has done some work around the M6. You can find similar research done and published for ACPO, HSE, AA, IAM and many more.The probability of a crash involving an injury is proportional to the square of the speed. The probability of a serious crash is proportional to the cube of the speed. The probability of a fatal crash is proportional to the fourth power of the speed.
Run flat tyres do not protect against mechanical failure of brakes / wheels, do not protect against oil spots, do not protect against flying debris. They will not save you should you have a sneezing fit and loose control. They will not save you in the event of you having a heart attack. They will not save you if something falls onto the road unexpectantly.
your friend is correct if a hazard was around a corner you would stand no chance of seeing it, but as someone that use M1.M40,M6 on a regular basis and averages at night around 115mph and even quicker on the M6 toll when its empty I can confirm that that there are not many sudden bends or twists. The M40 when the weather is bad is a pain, I slow right down to 55-60mph as the M40 is not as well lit as the M1.
How your friend can claim that quality premium german saloon is not safer and have better brakes than a old metro driven by a single mum from a council estate without insurance is beyond me.
I drove old french cars for 13 years, as soon I went german I could feel the brakes were better, my wheels never skid as even if i try to hammer it a yellow triangle flashes on my dash and reduces the power to the wheels to ensure safety.
Last edited by Jose; 9th September 2011 at 10:55 PM.
Last edited by Jose; 9th September 2011 at 11:06 PM. Reason: spelling
If you READ my post properly you would see that I did NOT say that my friend claimed that a german car wasnt better than an old metro - merely that there are many good cars and many bad cars - and that good ones arent just german ones. You appear to believe that only german cars are any good - a little blinkered, I think.
Why the comment about a single mother from a council estate with no insurance? What has that got to do with anything? Why say it? Just prejudice. There are many old, unsafe cars driven by all sorts of people but as your argument revolves around the safety of the car I cannot see why the person driving it has any relevance at all?
You are still advocating breaking the law - would you be happy if everyone decided which laws they are going to obey?
Surely doing 60 in a 50 but in a perfectly safe manor is less dangerous than doing 30 in a 40 but paying no attention to the road. It just seems to me that the police should be focusing more on people who have no lane discipline, don't use indicators, mount curbs when parking, etc. I know why they do it as 31>30 therefore you broke the law, where as other aspects of motoring are subjective and thus harder to prove. It just seems wrong to me that you can be penalised for paying more attention to the road than to your speedo.
The law on speed is so black and white. Most residential streets are 30mph but doing 30 down them is highly dangerous, yet perfectly legal (unless a copper can prove what you were doing was dangerous). Doing 80 on an empty motorway is perfectly safe yet illegal... and we all know which one is most likely to get you 3 points.
Last edited by j17sparky; 9th September 2011 at 11:35 PM.
Unfortunately my parents car has a garage door opener on their car that causes inteference with most police laser guns, luckily if a laser tries to take a reading then it warns them to enable them to slow down and turn off the garage door opener to enable the laser to get a new reading. I only advise having one of these if you actually have a garage door that use that frequency otherwise its fairly pointless and a waste of money and could prevent a policeman getting a acurate reading of your speed.
In order to improve your knowledge of known blackspots for serious accidents my mum has a gatso dectecter, this informs her when she is entering a high risk area so she can slow her speed as she goes through the high speed area reducing the chance of a accident.
Also when muppets like brake say speed is involved in x percent of crashes they are wrong its 100% as if no car is moving they cant have an accident
You don't say whether your your trustworthy friend was caught by an automatic system or a real person...if he demonstrated the sort of attitude towards the police that you do then I am not surprised he got done...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)