there is a direct corelation between speed and safety. FACT.
if you don't understand that then you shouldn't be driving.

there are far more effective ways to challenge a law you dislike. if you want to take on the system by breaking laws you disagree with then go ahead, we both know how that'll end up.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sun 18 Oct 2009, 8:31, 1 reply)

There is?
Not according the government funded TRL323 report. Odd that they would disagree with you isn't it?

I assume by 'speed' and safety, you mean 'speeding' and safety. Otherwise, the sentence is nonsensical.

In fact, pedestrians cause 15% of road accidents. 7.7% are caused by motorists exceeding speed limits. Perhaps we should ban pedestrians.

If what you say is true, why is it then that our motorways, our fastest roads, are amoungst the safest roads in Europe (second only to Germany's)?

In the years between 1997 and 2006 the amount of speeding fines issued per year doubled to 1.7 million. Are people routinely driving faster than they did 12 years ago? I don't think so, not if a quick glance out of my window is anything to go by.

Show me another criminal offence that 1.7 million people in this country routinely commit year on year. If a law is being broken with that regularity then surely, the law must be wrong, or the method of enforcing it is wrong.

The real fact is that governments know that driving at slower speeds creates congestion - this is also covered in TRL323 - sadly I am unable to post a link to it, as it doesn't exist on-line. Despite being paid for by our money and being in the public domain, because the report didn't arrive at the conclusion that was expected (i.e. speed is bad and causes accidents), you have to pay for it. I have paid for it and I have a hard copy. I asked for permission to scan and post on my website - it was refused by reasons of crown copyright.
They know it causes congestion, and congestion increases fuel usage. Fuel usage increases the revenue from tax. Don't believe me? Perhaps you should ask why it is that in Holland (Amsterdam and other major cities), the traffic lights in a stretch of road will all change at the same time if you are travelling at exactly the speed limit and thus ensuring an uninterupted flow of traffic.


EDIT: Found a link to the summary at least.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap15.htm


It was investigated for use here - but was refused on the grounds (and they readily and exhasperatingly admit this) that people stopping and starting uses more fuel, and as such more dosh in the coffers. What does that tell you? It tells me that their agenda is not safety.

If you get caught out on a camera etc... then challenge it, for anything to change it will have to hurt their pockets. Why do you think up until last year you were entitled to a jury of your peers for ANY criminal offence? Now, if you want a jury for a motoring offence, you are stuffed.

I used the same tactics with the bank charge thing. My plan was to flood the county courts with claims to such a degree that the court system could no longer function efficiently. It was costing a huge sum of cash to get all the claims through the courts, only for the banks to cave at the last minute - effectively making them vexacious defendents. Of course, this had the desired effect and got the banks into the high court. The government had to do SOMETHING as the court system was becoming very inneficient, yet costing a fortune (FYI: there are over a million claims still outstanding where county court money claims have been logged at Northampton county court, so I would say that this approach DOES work very well). One judge threw out 18 such cases in one hit, simply because they were against the banks and he'd had enough of seeing them. That cost me 18k to put right and get him struck off. You can't just throw cases out of court because you don't want to deal with them (as well as a nominal hand-full of shares in LTSB, which as the time was not yet in the public domain). That's as bad, if not worse than making laws simply to extract money from people. Fighting injustices are what made this country what it used to be. I for one am not happy with what it's become. IF everyone fought everything that was wrong with the same vigour, I think we'd have a better country.

It's all very well saying there are better ways to challenge laws you don't agree with, but judging by the comments here alone, you can see that the brainwashing speed-is-bad machine is working very well, despite evidence that flies in the face of that opinion.

Buy and read TRL323. I think you may change your view. Whislt on the surface what you say seems like it ought to be true. In fact, speeding is a factor in an extremely tiny amount of accidents.

...as to knowing 'how that will end up' - I have yet to be 'punished' for these crimes. Each time, with a tiny amount of research, speeding (and parking) tickets are very easy to get out of. The more people that do it, the more the likelyhood is that someone with some sense will start to actually look at road safety properly rather than using the 'speeding' scapegoat, and the better off we'll all be. You comment seems to suggest that because it's difficult challenging bad laws, that we shouldn't even try. That is a terrible thing to be saying, and I only hope that you don't mean it. That attitude will continue to allow governments to routinely demolish our hard-earned rights because we can't be bothered to fight against them.

Until then, just avoiding the problem by driving slower and slower fixes nothing. If that's not profitable, then the limit will decrease until it's impossible not to break their limit.

Writing FACT in capital letters doesn't make something true. Research maybe, but just writing a word in capitals because you've been bought in by the brainwashing doesn't actually make something a fact.

Sorry for length, but this "Speed Kills" crap is my pet hate.
(dchurch bah, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 10:50, closed)