|
A really entertaining thread, brought to life by a character and his alter ego. Pity some people can't recognise someone having a laugh!
But a serious topic. Most drivers/riders do think we are better than average and it's safe for us to exceed the speed limit because we know we can cope if we have an emergency and the law's wrong because we know better and it's only beaurocrats setting the speed limits and covering their arses by making them too low. But I don't think anyone would disagree that if everyone drove slower then there would be less accidents and injuries. It might not be as much fun but it would be safer. That's what the road safety authorities are trying to achieve and I think they are succeeding. Now I know the arguments about watching the speedo instead of the road and I agree with it. But how many of you would admit that now there are so many speed cameras around you are so much more aware of your speed without looking at the speedo all the time. The more time you spend being aware of the speed limits and driving within them sharpens your ability to judge your speed more accurately and ultimately slows you down without needing to concentrate on the speedo to the exclusion of all else. Years ago before speed cameras I reckon the average speed on motorways was around 90 mph. You drove with one eye on the mirror for a police car but otherwise you drove at whatever speed you thought was safe or you thought you could get away with. Nowadays I think most people on the motorways drive just above 70. If you drive at 80 you are a net overtaker. This has come about through fear of being caught and fined or banned, not through any new found altruistic or safety motives. But the result is the same. Traffic moves slower therefore safer roads for everyone. My main gripe is the inflexibility of it all. There is no allowance or discretion which used to exist when it all had to be done by a real copper. Another worry is that it has now become an indispensible income for the authorities which they won't be able to do without. So when everyone does get the message and start sticking to the limits what happens next? Will they reduce the limits even more so the whole process starts again, or will they find new ways of checking and fining us for "bad" driving? I stick to the limits now (most of the time!), not because I don't want to go faster or because I think I might be less safe, but because I don't want to get caught and I know that if I speed I will be. So in my case the road safety campaigners have got what they want and I am probably a safer rider and driver because of it. I think the vast majority of motorists and riders are conforming in a similiar manner and ultimately the roads are becoming safer at the expense of our freedom. Just trying to present a balanced view, devil's advocate and all that. |
I came across this article :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/nspeed29.xml |
Never believe the Telegraph Spin!
5% of a shed load of accidents = bloody tonnes of accidents!
What a rediculous spin to put on an article. Not arguing for or against road cameras, but that article has got more spin than a Muttiah Muralitharan delivery! |
Quote:
Hear Hear:clap:! Yes, the HUBB is a useful and Informative site for serious travellers. But surely the occasional thread full of light hearted banter and P***taking does no harm. Perhaps some people should stop taking themselves so seriously and lighten up:rolleyes3:! Anyway you don't have to read a thread that you don't like. Derek. |
|
|
Quote:
I was not likening you to a daschund, that would be a dis-service to daschunds! I was mearly suggesting that shagging one might be as low as you could get. it would also provide a kindred spirit for your ears, and as above, something to hang on to. you are confusing my degree with my bride, one was mail order, the other I actually had to so some work to get. yes you do need a degree to be a paramedic, although that is not what I am. I also quite enjoy working on injured bikers, it's a lot more interesting than saturday night piss heads or all those muppets that call an ambulance because they have flu, a pain in their leg for the last 6 weeks, sore teeth etc etc etc. just remember, if you don't wear leathers keep your arms in when you fall off because otherwise it's a bugger trying to find them again and then rinse all the muck out of them under the tap. |
.[/QUOTE]Harley rider wrote:
But I don't think anyone would disagree that if everyone drove slower then there would be less accidents and injuries. It might not be as much fun but it would be safer. That's what the road safety authorities are trying to achieve and I think they are succeeding. Years ago before speed cameras I reckon the average speed on motorways was around 90 mph. You drove with one eye on the mirror for a police car but otherwise you drove at whatever speed you thought was safe or you thought you could get away with. Nowadays I think most people on the motorways drive just above 70. If you drive at 80 you are a net overtaker. This has come about through fear of being caught and fined or banned, not through any new found altruistic or safety motives. But the result is the same. Traffic moves slower therefore safer roads for everyone. .[/QUOTE] except that the introduction of speed cameras has had no discernable effect on accident or death rates. during the period speed cameras have been introduced the number of traffic police on the roads has dropped significantly, as have the number of breath tests carried out, whilst the number of drink or drug related accidents has increased, and this is one of the few areas where there is a definate link with accidents. but to tackle this area would cost money, and the governement would rather raise easy revenue. The only figures I have seen that show a reduction in deaths and accidents due to speed are taken from two selected years. as a piece of statistical science I would suggest that drawing conclusions from a data sample of 2 is arse!! If you look at the picture over a number of years there is no discernable difference. there are more effective ways of tackling accident rates, but few that are as lucrative. as someone else said, 5% of a lot is still alot, but speed cameras will not, and have not, had a discernable effect on this figure. Indeed figures published by the DOT in the 1990s, as per my previous post, put the figure at 4% so it looks as though speed related accident have actually increased since the introduction of speed cameras!! Figures that I read last night also showed that in the majority of speed related accidents the vehicle was actually travelling within the speed limit, but their speed was inappropriate to the conditions. they were driving dangerously, but would not have triggered a speed camera. Also of the speed related accidents the vast majority included young and inexperienced drivers. you may think I have a vested interest in this, well I do, I am a habitual speeder, I drive to the conditions. in a 30mph limit past a school I may be 20 mph or less. on a clear A road maybe 70, on a motorway maybe 90, although a lot depends on the vehicle and conditions. so following the comments of others I should have trail of death and destruction behind me, but I don't. I had a speed related accident 3 weeks after passing my test (now 20 years and 5 other classes of test ago), but i was travelling at significantly less than speed limit. but that speed was inappropriate and I was inexperienced, and that was the major cause of the accident. |
If saving lives is what it is all about (and it isn't) then lets ban swimming or climbing for a bit until the requisite number of lives have been saved to satisfy ..whoever it is needs satisfying... and then we can all get on with it.
|
No, thats discriminatory, just ban life!
|
|
Quote:
'especially if you keep to a suitably low standard, a daschund maybe?' where does that say your a daschund?!!!!! so who do think does the driving?! the local taxi firm? it will be either a paramedic or a technician (on an emergency vehicle anyhow) I would like it to be officially recognised that I have never been to bed with a dog, although I have woken up with a few. the mail order bride is a success for as long as I can delay her passport application. yes, I enjoy my work, some altruistic rubbish about helping people, making a difference, that kind of stuff, wouldn't really expect you to understand. love and kisses to the daschund xx |
|
Quote:
A nursing degree is 4 years so you want to know about bike injuries, well here's a nugget (not really suitable for this thread but here we go) admittedly I read this a long time ago but the majority of jackets sold as motorcycle jackets are worse than useless, performing worse in an accident than a belstaff waxed cottonjacket. the reason? they're made of sheep leather, this makes them softer and nicer to wear. even some of the hide ones are made of the wrong bit of cow (the axilla - again soft) agood set of bike leathers should be stiff and uncomfortable. if the lining is nylon, wear something underneith or in a crash it can melt into your skin, a plastic surgery job. likewise the temperatures generated will melt plastic zips, sealing you in! although chunky metal ones tend to impact into the body. on some leathers the reinforcing padding isn't over base leather, there's a hole underneith! common failure point is stitching, stiches should be small and preferably doubled. (there is an ideal stitch per mm figure but I am afraid I can't remember it). Other materials used include goat leather. wolf used to use it, don't know if they still do. as durable as hide but softer, but also more stretchy so the stitching has to be forst class or it will fail. So, now you have a decent set of leathers. if you fall off it isn't just your skin that will be saved. the incidence of traumatic amputation (both of limbs and your tackle - more common than you might think) is vastly reduced (almost to zero). also in the case of fractures, the limb will tend to break in more places, but maintains it's alignment, so making for a better and more durable repair. I once treated 2 motorcyclists who had crashed in a race. One was thrown from his bike at 160mph when his engine seized. the one behind then hit him in his legs, at about the same speed. they then slid for almost half a mile. the first biker had a serious leg fracture, but didn't lose his leg. the other one walked out of the A&E dept, despite wearing his helmet and leathers almost right through. whipp lash is common because of the weight of the helmet, so a neck protector can be handy, while a back protector means you might walk again. you never walk away from a bike crash, but with the right kit you might just limp off! |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50. |