|
Causing death by dangerous driving, 50 in a 30 limit, habitual speeding... 3 years? No, 8 months suspended. Um.
|
|
|
|
Can anyone hear the 'Sheilas Wheels' advert jingle going through their head right now.....?
|
Indeed.... I imagine Eddie Izzard is bright enough to take off his heels when he drives.
IMHO (drop the H, you're fooling nobody) one of the reasons insurance claims for females are lower is because they drive less miles. And yes, I know there's exceptions, there always are. Average, median, moyen.... whatever you use, then they drive less than men. I've said in another thread: you rarely hear from a female "We're driving to the South of France? In one go? Oh, let me drive please!!".
: )
I will add as a caveat (and possibly life insurance) that it is just as true that young men on average drive more recklessly and do have more accidents... but over the age of 25 I think it evens out, and my "argument" above holds more water.
|
|
|
|
i think she is using the high heels as an excuse for seriously bad driving she should go to jail
She should. But because she's a woman she won't.
|
|
The crash was in May 2005 - that's a heck of a long time taken to get into, and through, the court process.
|
If there is one particular reason that she is not going to jail, it is becasue the jails are full. The lord chancellor has issued directives to judges to avoid custodial sentences if at all possible.
There was some shocking coverage on the local (East Anglia) news last night of a group of 8 yobs, caught on CCTV, thrashing the living daylights out of two polish blokes, both of whom were badly hurt. You know the sort of thing, they were lying on the floor trying to protect their heads while these thugs were giving them a right good kicking.
They all got suspended sentensces, and were shown on the local news coming out of court and high fiving one another, each wearing broad grins. Teh local MP (Tory) appeared with the normal expressions of outrage, but refused to attack the judge, because he pointed out that the judges hands are tied until we build more prisons.
|
Why should she go to jail? It was an accident wasn't it?
(Unlike the incident involving 8 young gents and the two poles that The Lawman mentions in his post.)
I feel sorry for the poor woman. OK - she did something stupid and careless but then who hasn't?
She probably feels terrible. As for our 8 young friends . . . .
|
"She probably feels terrible"
From Telegraph
"so full of remorse that she had attempted suicide several times."
Also
"A crash investigator said that no mechanical faults on the car were found and that Hunter's high heels "may have inhibited the defendant's ability to drive".
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007...l
--
Phil
|
|
|
I agree with tyro actually.
Most of us have done things in cars that might under different circumstances have collected a pedestrian.
Quite unlike Lawman's lynch mob. Just as well Poles are tough or they might have been charged with murder, and got three months.
Mind you, jails would be much nicer places if they were filled up with bewildered ladies who had made a mistake, leaving no room for their intended clientele...
|
|
|
Why should she go to jail? It was an accident wasn't it?
No, of course it wasn't. She admitting causing death by dangerous driving, having killed a 21-year-old woman by doing just that.
I feel sorry for the poor woman. OK - she did something stupid and careless but then who hasn't?
It wasn't stupid and careless, it was stupid and dangerous. I feel sorrier for the 21-year-old whose life this woman wastes, and the lives that waste has affected. Don't you?
She probably feels terrible.
I'm sure she does. I have some sympathy for her in this, but the fact is that had she not driven dangerously, the crash would not have happened.
I hope she never drives again. She can't until she's 49, anyway.
|
|
|
|
"There was some shocking coverage on the local (East Anglia) news last night"
I saw this too. How a judge could view this and give a suspended sentence I just don't understand. 5 years each would not have been inappropriate. What planet does our judiciary live on. I don't accept the guidelines argument; how on earth could anyone have criticised the judge if he had given a custodial sentence after seeing the evidence.
|
The point I got from the story was that OK, so wearing the high heels may have been a tragic accident and a warning to others but she was doing 50 in a 30 in a car that was unfamilar with and had only been driving for 15mins.
I can't think of any roads around me with a 30mph limit that I could do safely do 50mph at any time of the day.
|
I can't think of any roads around me with a 30mph limit that I could do safely do 50mph at any time of the day.
I can hardly think of any that you can't do 50 safely in even in dense traffic. And I live in the middle of London.
Horses for courses. Poop-poop!
|
Sorry Tyro and others I cant agree. It wasnt an 'accident' it was a culmination of actions which resulted in a fatality.
1. A car is not a fashion accessory like a handbag its can be a lethal weapon.
2. She was travelling at 50mph in a 30mph limit.
3. She was test driving a strange car..
4 She has 2 convictions for speeding (not that they are hard to come by but shows an attitude)
5. She took avoiding action around a parked car then lost control. Not anticipated manouvre. Builds a picture.
5. She was not wearing appropriate footwear.
6. I bet she she's sorry. Not half as sorry as the relatives. And then she did not have the emotional stamina to face up to her I'll do as I please actions.
She should be doing a stretch.
--
Fullchat
|
|
I agree with the above post.
|
|
|
I have to agree about the shoes Fullchat. And the driving in general seems pretty carp.
Nothing unusual then? Always managed OK up to now, carp hits fan, surely not too much of a stretch?
|
|
One of my cars is a seriously modded Skyline GTR. It will hit 60mph in less than 5 seconds. If I point it in the wrong direction and press the throttle pedal I could easily kill at least one person, and probably a good many more. Driving that car in a city street is like wandering around holding an AK-47. Driving around in something like a Picanto is probably the equivalent of walking around with an 8mm handgun. Cars can kill pretty easily and usually 'luck', good or bad, is not a factor - there are very few collisions that are truly 'accidents'. The woman clearly had an arrogant disregard for the speed limit (unfamiliar car - take it easy?) and lacked basic skills. Maybe shoes were a factor, I don't know, but maybe think about this sort of thing before you get behind a wheel - or forget the car and take public transport.
|
I don't like the tone being taken about the speed limit.
I say nothing about the case at issue. But any grown-up knows that 50 in a 30 is nothing.
Any grown-up I say. Of course if you screw up it's your lookout. But spare us this speed limit carp.
|
But any grown-up knows that 50 in a 30 is nothing. Any grown-up I say. Of course if you screw up it's your lookout. But spare us this speed limit carp.
>>
Is this a wind up????
This very morning at 0515 on the A3 (with a 40mph limit) at Tibbets Corner underpass I was possibly exceeding the speed limit with nothing apparently on the road when I was overtaken and rocked by a passing GTR which I would estimate was at a speed well above three figures.
Fortunately for me it had lights on so I a had a very short time to assimulate the situation.
I suspect that it was not an isolated event and the idiot even had a cherished number plate with GTR in it.
Oh well I assume the driver was "grown up" so that is OK then.
Alternatively I might just follow it up.
|
any grown-up knows that 50 in a 30 is nothing.
I am very, very, *very* glad that people who "think" like this are in a tiny minority.
|
I am very very *very* glad that people who "think" like this are in a tiny minority.
I apologise if you're not the fan of speed limits you appear...but a driving by numbers adovcate lambasting someone for not thinking while driving is just delicious.
|
|
Please clarify your reply, it seems meaningless.
|
Please clarify your reply it seems meaningless.
Speed limits are for morons with the self/situation awareness of an aubergine.
|
|
Well I'm flippin' glad I'm not the aubergine that said that.
|
>> any grown-up knows that 50 in a 30 is nothing. I am very very *very* glad that people who "think" like this are in a tiny minority.
I agree with you Fotherington, I'm not someone who always sticks to the speed limits but for someone to make a comment like 50 in a 30 is nothing is showing a complete disregard for anyone elses safety. I hope I'm not driving my car, riding my bike or walking when your on the road.
|
I don't like the tone being taken about the speed limit. I say nothing about the case at issue. But any grown-up knows that 50 in a 30 is nothing.
eh what? you're talking about the middle of London, and 50mph on any road. A pedestrian or cyclist could easily emerge into the path of your vehicle with little warning and would die at that speed.
|
I don't like the tone being taken about the speed limit.
Not sure if this is a wind-up or not..? You seem to be making increasingly outlandish statements about speed.
I say nothing about the case at issue. But any grown-up knows that 50 in a 30 is nothing.
Quite the opposite. Its the teenage boy-racers who think that "50 in a 30" is nothing. Anyone with a bit of maturity and driving experience will know that speed limits save lives and in busy urban and suburban streets a 30mph limit is appropriate. Cars may stop and steer better then they used to, but the human brain and nervous system hasn't improved at the same rate. Speed = time, and most drivers cannot handle the 'data rate' when driving in a busy environment at higher speeds, the average driver simply cannot make the right decisions and react quickly enough. If the 30mph limit were to be raised to 50mph there would be carnage in towns and cities across the country.
Any grown-up I say. Of course if you screw up it's your lookout.
It not actually. Its the 'lookout' for the poor soul that you mow down. In this particular court case the driver had emerged unscathed and the unfortunate young victim lost their life.
|
speed limits save lives and in busy urban and suburban streets a 30mph limit is appropriate. Cars
People driving appropriately and not crashing saves lives! Sometimes the limit is appropriate, other times it isn't.
Obviously when it's busy you might not even want to do the limit, but at 2am on a dry summer morning the case would be very different.
|
I have to agree about the shoes Fullchat. And the driving in general seems pretty carp.
Me too. Actions have consequences hence it was not an accident, unless you call dropping brick of a roof until one lands on someones head an accident.
|
Fotheringham Thomas
1> >>> >> Why should she go to jail? It was an accident wasn't it?
>>No, of course it wasn't. She admitting causing death by dangerous driving, having killed a 21-year-old woman by doing just that.
Either it was accidental or it was deliberate. Are you saying it was deliberate?
>>>>> I feel sorry for the poor woman. OK - she did something stupid and careless but then who hasn't?
>> It wasn't stupid and careless, it was stupid and dangerous. I feel sorrier for the 21-year-old whose life this woman wastes, and the lives that waste has affected. Don't you?
It was stupid and careless. 'Careless' and 'Dangerous' are not mutually exclusive categories. Indeed, while driving a vehicle, most carelessness is potentially dangerous. Have you never done anything which was potentially dangerous? And yes, I do feel more sorry for the loved ones of the young lady who was killed than I do for the driver - but that's not relevant to my point.
I agree with you in hoping that she never drives again. I would have been quite happy if she had received a lifetime ban. I would have been quite happy if she had received a six figure fine. But what good would sending her to jail do? (Apart from anything else, I understand that it probably costs the taxpayer £50,000 to keep someone in jail for 6 months).
Fullchat:
I do not see how driving a car at 50 in a 30 mph zone merits a jail sentence.
Nor do I believe that having 3 speeding convictions should result in a jail sentence.
Nor do I believe that seeing a car as a fashion accessory should merit a jail sentence (though maybe I could be persuaded :-) )
Nor do I see how making an unanticipated manouvre merits a jail sentence.
Nor do I see how driving in high heels merits a jail sentence.
And nor do I see how the appropriate penalty for doing all these things at the same time should be a jail sentence.
What happened was not deliberate. A lifetime ban or a massive fine or both would appear to me to be appropriate, but prison seems totally inappropriate to me in these circumstances.
|
She was doing 50 - was this because she wanted to or because her footwear caused her foot to get caught on the accelerator and she couldn't slow down?
I'm afraid none of us know the answer.
|
Either it was accidental or it was deliberate. Are you saying it was deliberate?
That's a false dichotomy, Tyro. I don't suppose this driver set out to kill anyone; nor do the police, or they'd have charged her with murder. So it clearly wasn't 'deliberate' in that sense. But most accidents are avoidable with a bit of thought and/or self-restraint, and that's what I think FT was getting at.
The word 'accident' is frequently mis-used or mis-understood. Clarkson (him again!) did this in an article he wrote after the Hammond crash - he was trying to answer those who called the jet-car stunt 'irresponsible' and worse, and protested 'it was an accident', with the implication that accidents are things that just happen, over which those they happen to have no control.
But that's just wrong. There are very few accidents that are entirely unavoidable, even where there is no human cause. We accept the small ones - hitting your thumb with the hammer, dropping a glass - but the truth is that we could probably avoid almost all of them if we took a little more time and trouble. The much-reviled Health and Safety people may have gone over the top recently but they generally do a pretty good job of saving us from ourselves.
But the bigger the potential consequences, the more care we have to take. That's the point here - there may be people out there, and even in the Back Room, who can simply throw the glasses at the cupboard and line them up perfectly every time. Some 'grown ups' may even be able to drive along a busy street at 50mph and maintain perfect awareness of everything around them, so that we can deal safely with anything unexpected. But most of us can't do these things, and the Law knows this and expects us to know it too, so that where the potential consequence is injury or even death to others, we recognize the risk and don't take it. When we kill another human being by doing something we knew we shouldn't have been doing - as in this case - then the recklessness is deliberate, even is the outcome isn't.
|
The expression "high heels" is used to give an emotive slant to the accident, but in fact they were two and a quarter inches, not a lot deeper than my gumboots.
They may possibly have been a contributory factor, but the real culprit seems to have been excessive inappropriate speed and an arrogant attitude to other road users.
|
Either it was accidental or it was deliberate. Are you saying it was deliberate? That's a false dichotomy Tyro. I don't suppose this driver set out to kill anyone; nor do the police or they'd have charged her with murder. So it clearly wasn't 'deliberate' in that sense. But most accidents are avoidable with a bit of thought and/or self-restraint and that's what I think FT was getting at. The word 'accident' is frequently mis-used or mis-understood. Clarkson (him again!) did this in an article he wrote . . . .
What??? Me and Clarkson both wrong??? Surely not :-)
OK. I may have misused the word. What I meant was that driver did not intend to kill or harm anyone.
|
Cat. Pigeons. Wonderful.
50 in a 30 is nothing. Most people have done it without risk to anyone. Exceeding speed limits as any fule kno is not dangerous in itself in any way at all. It's a question of where, when and how it's done.
To say '50 in a 30 is nothing' is not to imply in any way that people can or should drive everywhere in 30 limits at 50. That, I am afraid, is the sort of thinking we get from speed limit victims who think limits are absolute and life-savers by their existence alone.
I made the observation because I thought people were making too much of the speed reported in the OP. Frankly I can't imagine how the lady lost control of an Alfa spyder at urban speeds, but she managed it. Perhaps her foot slipped and she went faster than she had intended. But I do think it ludicrous of people to call her 'arrogant' for exceeding the 30 limit.
There have been one or two honourable folk in this thread. Raspberry to the rest.
|
Cat. Pigeons. Wonderful. 50 in a 30 is nothing. Most people have done it without risk to anyone. Exceeding speed limits as any fule kno is not dangerous in itself in any way at all. It's a question of where when and how it's done. To say '50 in a 30 is nothing' is not to imply in any way that people can or should drive everywhere in 30 limits at 50. That I am afraid is the sort of thinking we get from speed limit victims who think limits are absolute and life-savers by their existence alone.
The problem is that many, if not most, drivers cannot make a good enough judgement of what is an appropriate speed for the circumstances; furthermore many drivers over-estimate their own driving abilities and those of their car. The 30mph is therefore a 'lowest common denominator' limit and I firmly believe that it does save lives. Without such a limit I am convinced that road casualties would soar.
I used to do a fair bit of observing for the IAM and one of the things I noticed was how poor the observation and anticipation skills of the average driver are - even amongst the new recruits that we took on who took their driving 'seriously'. The most common problem is the driver who looks at the road only 10 yards in front of his/her car, or latches onto the bumper of the car ahead and does not observe or anticipate beyond that.
|
No one sane can disagree with much of that Aprilia, although I think that (like most of us here including me) you exaggerate the carpiness of people's driving. If it was really that bad there'd be a lot more crashes.
The good old built-up area 30 limit has been with us a long time, and as you pointed out earlier a higher urban limit would be taken literally by idiots, perhaps causing death and destruction. So I wouldn't want it to be removed or raised, although perhaps here and there a 40 or 50 might cheer people up without doing any harm.
I would quite like there to be a proper driving test though, in which the absence of foresight to which you refer could be assessed. The current arrangement - pootling around by numbers and not really minding getting in the way - doesn't prepare people for the metropolitan reality, far from it. It takes some people years to understand that the test was just the base line, a bit of a charade to prove you are in control of yourself and the car. They carry on driving like that and wonder why people scowl at them.
There are a lot of widespread driving faults to be observed. Very late or non-existent signalling is one of them. What use do these idiots think it is to signal as you begin to turn the wheel?
In my experience serious life-threatening recklessness is comparatively rare.
|
The problem is that speed limits are being lowered, often drastically, all over England, or at least in Luton, Slough and Devon and I assume elsewhere. I have recently seen 20mph limits for straight roads through a semi-built up area, with wide pavements, wide lanes and no hazards that I was aware of. I am starting to find some of these speed limits some hard to take seriously. Now, where is that man with a red flag. I need to go for a drive.
Incidentally, I have started to notice that here in Luton people simply walk across T junctions without looking. They sometimes do this at a junction when the lights (when present) are green, and traffic is moving, and then give a dirty look when the car does not stop. I really do find this hard to understand. Is this a death wish, or are pedestrians being taught that cars are dangerous weapons and any accident is the fault of the car driver? Why not educate people to look when crossing a road, and also not to get intoxicated and out of control, instead of imposing more and more restrictions on driving.
I am not sure a tougher driving test would work. It is after all not much more than a piece of theatre and not representative of how we drive later on. In any case it can take years to gain experience and develop good awareness.
IMO safe driving is partly about good car control - use of gears, holding the steering wheel, etc - but more importantly about having the correct state of mind. If most of us drove the same way as we behaved when walking on the street, there would be few crashes.
|
I have recently seen 20mph limits
These AFAIK are not enforceable.
Incidentally I have started to notice that here in Luton people simply walk across T junctions without looking.
I was visiting there for some months a while ago. Luton is extremely cosmopoiltan, and people of all abilities, social and otherwise, live there. If you complain about the pedestrians, then - well - the drivers ought to make you explode!
|
AFAIK 20mph limits are enforceable since they are marked by road signs, and ignoring a road sign is an automatic 3 points + £60.
Yes, the driving here in Luton is 'interesting'. I was wondering whether or not to comment, but I will, and I will doubtless get abuse. A lot of the drivers here learnt to drive in Pakistan, and to a lesser extent India and Bangladesh, and the driving standards there are very low, with an anything goes attitude. Hence much of the driving here by some of the Asians is rather imaginative (to use an Indian colleagues term). An Indian colleague told me that he did not take a test in India. He took lessons until the instructor said he was okay. I have had a few near head on collisions in Luton with cars going the wrong way down a one way street, and expecting me to back up. I have also seen some astonishing manouevres that left me gob smacked.
Obviously any Anglo-Asians who learnt to drive here will adhere to UK driving standards, and will be as good, or bad as any Brit. I add that to assuage any politically correct knee jerkists who try to pin the racist badge on me because I talk about these issues. And as for the Poles, well I know nothing about driving in Poland, so I will not comment.
|
|
Poland has some interesting aspects for drivers - collossal pot-holes and in the cities a major monday morning hold up is invariably caused by tram drivers intentionally running into cars crossing/sitting on the tracks, this way the tram driver automatically gets a days rest (long wekend) and the car driver is automatically in the wrong for being on the tramlines.
|
That is the difference between careless driving and dangerous driving. One you do something that endangered people, but in all likelyhood you didnt mean to, the other is a deliberate act endagering people in the full knowledge of the risk you are taking.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
And now back to motoring discussion please.
DD.
::edit:: non motoring stuff since removed. DD.
|
|
Whoops. I meant £50,000 to keep someone in jail for 12 months. Sorry.
|
She sounds to have been an abysmal driver. We've all (probably) travelled with them. And vowed 'never again'. Both sexes.
Doing 50 in a 30 limit is possibly a result of being completely oblivious to speed limits. Possibly not even understanding them. There was a poster a few months ago who had been snapped doing over 40 in a 30 limit - on the A4 through Hammersmith, who really, honestly believed that 30 was not the limit (whether he thought it was 40 or 50 I cannot remember), and so he felt it was unfair to be done.
I travelled in a car with a friend who was whizzing up the A1 dual carriageway at 80. On seeing a speed camera he reduced to 60 because he thought that was the limit.
This woman is stupid. She is dangerous on the roads. She killed somebody. But she does not deserve to go to jail. Community service; lifetime ban yes. Jail no.
I would support jailing her for the deterrent effect... except I do not believe that it would deter anybody from being stupid. Bad and stupid drivers are bad and stupid drivers. Only a lifetime ban will sort them out.
Some people just do not deserve driving licences. If you cannot do it in thirty lessons and three tries, then 'never'.
|
Lets baseline this.
Presumably when she passed her test she did not speed, she did not swerve around parked vehicles nor would she have worn unsuitable footwear for driving. She therefore knows and has demonstrated the minimum standards that are expected of a competent driver.
After the test we are supposed to develop our skills to be more competent and more relaxed with our driving skills.
I am making a presumption but I think most of us accept that we do break the speed limit on occasions but this is based on a number of extranious factors which through the decision making process we consider it safe to do so, eg light traffic, good roads etc. We tailor our speed to meet the conditions. If we get caught we feel hard done to because of x, y or z. Nevertheless we still make that decision. We know what are the expected standards.
The speed of 50mph is an absolute minimum mathematically calculated speed that can be proven but chance are she was probably touching late 50's to 60 mph.
Now, she was not steering with her high heels so why did she have to swerve around a parked car? And having swerved she then lost control of the vehicle. It takes a violent manouvre in normal conditions to loose control of a car. Clearly she was not matching her concentration or ability to speed.
Having demonstrated knowledge of the basic skills, to therefore disregard at least 3 of them shows an element of deliberate recklessness or 'couldnt care less' attitude. This is not an accident or a momentary lapse in concentration. This is not 'bad or stupid, its a deliberate manner of driving. She must therefore face the consequences - which she has but has not had an appropriate sentence.
Time and time again we see people who have killed other people on the road escape with lenient sentences. Yes she KILLED someone that was the consequence of her deliberate poor standard of driving. Life is our most treasured posession.
Cost is should not be an issue. What is the message that it sends? 'Its alright to drive like a pink fluffy dice and take a life, the punishment will not be too severe. Hit somebody outside a pub in a drunken brawl and kill them, or stick a knife in someone, and you will do a stretch because the behaviour and consequences are deemed unacceptable to society. I am afraid I see litle difference between the two sets of behaviour.
--
Fullchat
|
Hit somebody outside a pub in a drunken brawl and kill them or stick a knife in someone and you will do a stretch because the behaviour and consequences are deemed unacceptable to society. I am afraid I see litle difference between the two sets of behaviour.
There is one very basic difference.
Those who hit people or stick knives in them intend to harm their victim. This driver did not.
|
Those who hit people or stick knives in them intend to harm their victim. This driver did not.
I think the punitive reasoning runs, the person should have known that there was a risk to passers-by given their driving and the circumstances, and is therefore morally responsible in the same way as a deliberate aggressor.
Most of us understand that that isn't really a description of the way these things work. And the law understands it too, making a distinction between unintentional injury and intentional.
|
I seem to remember that drivers do get quite severe prison sentences for causing death if witnesses, sometimes their own passengers, say that the driving had been consistently dangerous over their own protests, or that they had been seen racing or otherwise driving very dangerously by several credible witnesses.
But this particular case is of a very different sort. Different enough to make a difference anyway.
|
Those who hit people or stick knives in them intend to harm their victim. This driver did not.
But she new that there was a chance that someone would be hurt because of the way that she was driving, didn't she. That is why she admitted in court to causing death by dangerous driving, having killed a 21-year-old woman by doing just that. It wasn't just carelessness, it was dangerous.
|
"i think she is using the high heels as an excuse for seriously bad driving, she should go to jail "
Wearing high heels when driving IS seriously bad driving !
|
taking it away from this unfortunate, but guilty lady
it has always been the case that if you wanted to bump someone off, the best way to do, it would be to run them over and then say it was an accident........the worst case scenario would be considerably less jail time than any other way of doing it.....and you might end up with no prison sentence at all.
says a lot for the sentencing guidelines for car crimes
|
Wearing high heels when driving IS seriously bad driving !
Never causes me any problems...
|
"Speed limits are for morons with the self/situation awareness of an aubergine."
If that isn't an attempt at humour then perhaps we all are due an apology.
Discipline isn't something that schoolteachers used to impose with a cane. It's something which you learn from life, and can be many times a life saver, both yours and others. And discipline make one respect speed limits.
|
And discipline make one respect speed limits.
Discipline makes me respect whatever situation I am driving in, regardless of an arbitary figure...
|
Discipline makes me respect whatever situation I am driving in regardless of an arbitary figure...
Speed limits are not arbitrary, they are simply decided by someone else. Two year-olds don't see the difference, but adults should. The speed limit is part of "whatever situation" you are driving in and ignoring it because you think you know better is poor discipline.
|
Speed limits are not arbitrary they are simply decided by someone else.
Erm...right. Have you read that sentence? ;o)
Two year-olds don't see the difference but adults should.
Pretty sure that a) Toddlers can't drive and b) a toddler would walk off a cliff if I told them too
The speed limit is part of "whatever situation" you are driving in and ignoring it because you think you know better is poor discipline.
I think everyone should ignore them, not just me, and instead use the grey matter between their ears to pick a safe speed.
Yeah, right.......
|
>> Speed limits are not arbitrary they are simply decided by someone else. Erm...right. Have you read that sentence? ;o)
Are speed limits decided by an arbiter who makes it up as he or she goes along or are they statutory? I think you want them to be arbitrary, so that you can decide what they should be.
|
Are speed limits decided by an arbiter who makes it up as he or she goes along
That would appear to be the case, with some them.
|
Discipline isn't something that schoolteachers used to impose with a cane. It's something which you learn from life and can be many times a life saver both yours and others. And discipline make one respect speed limits.>>
what happens though, if you have at least a modicum of knowledge on the subject matter (speeding), have a lot of respect for the rule of law, are honest and consider integrity important...but realise that those imposing some of the speed limits have a flawed view of the problem sometimes and/or maybe a hidden agenda
this means that some limits are hopelessy wrong and bring themselves into disrepute....and some people then ignore them....surprise, surprise
there needs to be a decent rational standard set, so the system is credible
furthermore, too many people slavishly rely on the limit as their God....and do not/can not drive to the conditions.........which is a subject that is far more important IMO
|
"I say nothing about the case at issue. But any grown-up knows that 50 in a 30 is nothing. Any grown-up I say. Of course if you screw up it's your lookout.?
?Discipline makes me respect whatever situation I am driving in, regardless of an arbitary figure... ?
Your attitude is a dangerous one. Take an example. One of my acquaintances, was young, at the peak of his physical capabilities, and an experienced driver. Every morning about 6:00 am he drove through a local hamlet which has a de-restricted approach, 100yds of 30 mph limit and then de-restricted again. He knew the stretch of road very well, having travelled it for years, and at that time of day his was generally the only car on the road. It was his practice to do as you do, drive according to the conditions rather than the law. One morning the local paper girl trotted out without looking, and he killed her, just like the lady in question killed the girl on the bicycle. In the circumstances it would have been impossible to avoid the girl, but if he had been keeping to the limit she might well have survived. As probably in the other case too. It was a very hard lesson to learn. Hopefully that will never happen to you.
|
I sincerely hope not.
So he was going at 60mph? Bit fast even for 6am, though I'd have to see the road to have a guess at what speed I'd do through it myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
