Now Clarkson is wriggling off the hook...

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

By your argument - Drink driving can be dangerous, but it doesn't have to be. This is proven by drunk drivers who don't crash.

Careful omission of the word "millions" there Cun.
Of course, if everyone drove whilst drunk and didn't crash, then I would probably have a rethink about how dangerous it is.
Unfortunately for your logic, that is not the case, and whilst a drunk driver may indeed not crash, the smallest amount of alcohol has been shown to severely impede many functions that are required to drive safely.
The same cannot be said for driving above the speed limit.

Cunobelin wrote:

So we cannot accept the figure in either case - if the figures are invalid for this section they must have been invalid for all....

You need to be a little less bivalent in your thinking; not everything in life is black and white.

Cunobelin wrote:

Two different subjects

Not at all. When I drive I choose a speed that I consider to be safe. I also choose to drive within the legal limits as I am a law abiding citizen. I do not choose to drive within the speed limit because it is dangerous to exceed it.
As you have mentioned yourself, it is a lot to do with attitude, but having the incorrect attitude that one can drive safely above the speed limit is only as bad as believing one is safe because they are below it.

Cunobelin wrote:

but are still not recognising that speeding is a significant risk to road safety

No, I still do not recognise that.
Address the more major causes of accidents and I believe the number of KSIs attributed to speeding would drop, even if the frequency of speeding remained the same.
If no-one drove above the speed limit however, I fear the stats would remain quite constant.

Cunobelin wrote:

And no insults - you can do it - well done!

It is a choice.

Cunobelin

Speeding is the cause of 7% (approximately ) of all road deaths, yet you believe this is an insignificant risk!

This is an unacceptable burden on society by any reasonable standards, and an insult to anyone who has friends or elatives who have been afected by this antisocial, illegal and unsafe activity.

There is simply no justification for speeding, and any defense of speeding is tantamount to supporting the death and maiming of the victims.

The answer to road safety is zero tolerance of any activity that causes death whether this be speeding, drink driving, inattention, tiredness or a myriad of other causes. Allowing one activity and then claiming the rest are an instant panacea is a little unsound. Surely if were to remove all other causes then the speeding deaths would still remain or do they magically disappear?


If one were to accept the preposterous argument that at 7% of the casualty total speeding is "insignificant - just what percentage of deaths would it have to reach to become significant?

However most amusing is the :
[/quote]If no-one drove above the speed limit however, I fear the stats would remain quite constant. [/quote]

Please enlighten us why removing the cause of 7% of accidents would not see a decrease in the stats it would be enlightening to say the least.

Especially as It would imply that the dirvers who no longer pose a risk by speeding have simply caused the accident in another manner.... thus suggesting that they are inherently dangerous in the first place!

I await with bated breath......


Edited....
Just out of interest..........

If we stopped all drunk driving, poor attention, etc, would these also fail to reduce the stats or is it just speeding that (in your opinion) is not going to have an effect?

John Stevenson

I don't want to get accused of squashing such a robust debate, but please lets skip the personal abuse.

If you can't conduct an argument without resorting to personal attacks, maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard and go for a ride.

sylvanus

I'd agree John and seeing how bonkers this thread has become makes me wonder what would prompt someone to continue arguing such a loony line in such abusive terms. It surely can't be fun or healthy!?

Is it possible the car industry actually pays shills to post, supporting their commercial interests?

Tourist Tony

Hence my question about his username....

sylvanus

Isn't it possible for us to ban someone for being long-winded, unamusing and really quite irritating? It would be a sort of forum "wit and style" anti-hero. Perhaps we could have a vote to nominate certain people? Having suggested the idea, I claim first right to nomination of someone contributing to this thread!

Prize could be one years subscription to S*f*s*e*d

Tourist Tony

Anonymous

sylvanus wrote:

I'd agree John and seeing how bonkers this thread has become makes me wonder what would prompt someone to continue arguing such a loony line in such abusive terms. It surely can't be fun or healthy!?

Is it possible the car industry actually pays shills to post, supporting their commercial interests?

You're being a bit harsh on ol'cuno there.
He's not that bad,just a little bonkers.

Anonymous

sylvanus wrote:

Isn't it possible for us to ban someone for being long-winded, unamusing and really quite irritating? It would be a sort of forum "wit and style" anti-hero. Perhaps we could have a vote to nominate certain people? Having suggested the idea, I claim first right to nomination of someone contributing to this thread!

Prize could be one years subscription to S*f*s*e*d

Yep agree, Cuno wins hands down.Ban him at once!!!!!

Anonymous

Tourist Tony wrote:

Hence my question about his username....

I know,it's such a giveaway innit ,MattBlackBigBoysBMX.

Wot if he woz called MattBlackBigBoysBMW?

Mind you,he doesn't think that not speeding causes 93% of road deaths like cuno does.

Cunobelin

My quotes are 7% of deaths, - I am simply appalled that anyone can think this is an "acceptable" rate.

Read carefully - the idea is that we should be recognising speeding as a source of danger not trying to excuse it, justify it or accept it.

Cunobelin

Anyway back to the original insurance aspect of this......

Norwich Union are to withdraw the "cover" to drive other vehicles. It is therefore not possible to drive a car like this without specific insurance - there will be no cover. THis is due to what Norwich Union refers to as "widespread abuse" of the system.

Therefore there will be a need to ensure that the driver is known and insured?



http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/article.html?in_article_id=404166&in_page_id=35

Anonymous

Cunobelin wrote:

My quotes are 7% of deaths, - I am simply appalled that anyone can think this is an "acceptable" rate.

Read carefully - the idea is that we should be recognising speeding as a source of danger not trying to excuse it, justify it or accept it.

Unbelievable that you should tell anyone to read carefully when you clearly don' t .

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

Anyway back to the original insurance aspect of this......

Norwich Union are to withdraw the "cover" to drive other vehicles. It is therefore not possible to drive a car like this without specific insurance - there will be no cover. THis is due to what Norwich Union refers to as "widespread abuse" of the system.

Therefore there will be a need to ensure that the driver is known and insured?

What are you trying to say?
Just because NU decided to pull DOC cover (some time ago, the article was 2yrs old!), why does anything else change?
They aren't the only insurer.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

sylvanus wrote:

I'd agree John and seeing how bonkers this thread has become makes me wonder what would prompt someone to continue arguing such a loony line in such abusive terms. It surely can't be fun or healthy!?

Is it possible the car industry actually pays shills to post, supporting their commercial interests?

The verbal abuse was in response to the underhand dirty tactics in use.
You play nicely and so will I.

If you wish to join in the discussion, then go ahead, if not then there is no point in you posting here.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Tourist Tony wrote:

Hence my question about his username....

Didn't confirm where "over there" was though, did you?

Assuming you are talking about Safespeed, I have never posted there, and only looked after rothbook kept bringing it up.
Likewise for pepipoo.

Apologies for not conforming to your prejudice.

Cunobelin

There is real evidence that significant numbers of people are killed each year by speeding, about 7% from the figures someone quoted earlier.

I do not believe that this is insignificant or acceptable,and as part of an overall road safety strategy should be censured along with all the other abberant behaabiours such as drink driving, aggrssive driving etc.

There are others who are "in denial" and will try and suggest that speeding is "insignificant" and should somehow be either "justified" "excusable" or not censured along with other offences, and does not need to be clamped down upon despite the toll of death and injuries.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

Please enlighten us why removing the cause of 7% of accidents would not see a decrease in the stats it would be enlightening to say the least.

Especially as It would imply that the drivers who no longer pose a risk by speeding have simply caused the accident in another manner.... thus suggesting that they are inherently dangerous in the first place!

Correct, though you are mistaken if you think this bolsters your argument.
Out of the millions of people who speed, a tiny, tiny minority are dangerous drivers. That is why they crash. As I have tried to explain to you before, just because a dangerous driver might speed, it doesn't mean that someone who speeds is a dangerous driver.

Cunobelin wrote:

If we stopped all drunk driving, poor attention, etc, would these also fail to reduce the stats or is it just speeding that (in your opinion) is not going to have an effect?

Drink driving and poor observation/inattention are always dangerous. Speeding is not.

Cunobelin wrote:

any defense of speeding is tantamount to supporting the death and maiming of the victims.

Even though I have never defended speeding, can we have less of the melodramatics please?
About five times more people die every year from falling in the home than speeding and I don't see you campaigning against stairs and hard floors, do I try and infer anything about you from that?
No, let's keep it sensible.

Cunobelin

7% of deaths are caused by speeding, this can be avoided by removing the cause - speeding.

It is irrelevant how many drivers do it, the act itself increases the risk to other rroad users unnecessarily and the number of deaths that arise is equally unneccessary

The evidence is that those caught speeding are twice as likely to have an accident (Stradling et al).

The stairs / ladder analogy is again an exaggeration.

The equivalent would be campaigning against road use.

A truer analogy would be me suggesting something along the lines that appropriate footwear ensuring a good grip, and a claim "millions of people wear inappropriate footwear, so footwear is irrelevant - because it is"

Helmets would be a good idea on stairs and ladders though.

cougie

Blimey - its still going. And I cant be bothered looking back....

Soooo - did you see they got a b*llocking in the Top Gear studio for Clarkson and May smoking pipes ? Anti Smokers up in arms against it. I really cant see how they could be thought of as glamourising it ?

Now maybe girls in swimsuits. Then we'd be talking.

Cunobelin

Edited........... before the dramatic and faked comic "reveal"?

Or, on second thoughts let's not go there!

cougie

<shudder>

peanut

jeez wheres a mod when you need one?! :roll:

Cunobelin

You're right - wrong forum - edited.

markyboy2005

A Wise Man once said don't argue with fools, people from a distance can't tell who is who"

Dr Dre 2001 bb

passout

I speed all the time and try to set GATSOs off on purpose (on a Trek) because I know I won't get caught. It's fun and I don't care what others think to be perfectly honest. So from a moral point of view I'm no better than a speeding driver or Clarkson. We live in a Risk Adverse Nanny State as it is, the last thing we need are more hyprocrit do gooders trying to curtail speed and fun.

cougie

You devil !

Only thing being that in the case of any collision with a vehicle - you'll come off far worse. Just hope you dont hit any pedestrians at speed - then you'll both come off badly.