[VIAGRA-VIAGRA]

This may come as shock to you but speeding does not always result in a fatality.

No shock at all. Had you taken the time to read my post properly, you would have noticed that I didn't make any mention of fatal accidents whatsoever. I admit that this was mainly just me being mean and trying to bait someone, but being serious for a second, there are plenty of accidents that leave a person alive but with difficulties communicating for themselves. Accidents can still be extremely serious without anyone being killed.

"The latest government report on road accidents shows that less than 5% of accidents involve vehicles exceeeding the speed limit.
The report ridicules the long proclaimed lie than 'one third' of accidents are caused by 'speeding'. This is a fairly useless statistic in the context of talking about serious injury or fatality due to traffic accidents. Speeding may well account for less than 5% of total accidents, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a significant proportion of that "less than 5%" required more than a plaster on the knee to treat their injuries. I tried to find the article you referenced to see if they had any statistics about the proportion of more serious accidents related to speeding, but you didn't link the specific article that you took the quote from, and I couldn't bring myself to search the badly written, badly designed site.

[ElisasAUG]

Not being a driver myself, I'm sure I'll get rounded upon instantly but I have to say this in response to motorists defending going over the speed limit. Speed limits are not simply guidelines, they are law, weather you like that fact or not, and they have been put in place for a reason. The only people who ever complain about speed limits, or speed cameras, or the police/government/whoever making money out of them are the people who think they should be allowed to go faster than the law allows, and has allowed for countless years.

And to quote this:

"However, many journalists are being hoodwinked by the DfT who, in summarizing the report, have grouped 'exceeding a speed limit' with 'inappropriate speed for the conditions'. The latter depends upon road and weather conditions and has nothing to do with posted speed limits. It is necessary to read the report in detail to discover the truth."

as a way of trying to convince people we are being misled on speeding and its implications is just nuts. Both require a modicum of common sense, it just so happens that one also includes a law, but the result at the end of thinking of either or both is that you are driving safer, so where exactly is the problem? Or would you prefer that you be allowed to drive at higher speeds whenever you wish thereby reducing your own safety and that of those around you? My guess is you would.

The speed limits are there for many reasons, not all I'm sure I'm privvy to, but one of them is most certainly safety, and that is good enough for me.

[BGThomasis]

Let's hear a viable alternative if you're so against these plans...

Oh, I don't know....er......we could all travel around in tubes?

Get the scientists working on the tube technology!






Anyway, what's wrong with Kent?

[pipittujbk]

Spot on.

There's no way Awooga Guy will allow anything like this to be fitted to his car. There really will be public outcry over this issue.

That is all.

Well, firstly there are a lot of people who think it's a good idea, and with regards to having the box fitted to your car, we have had the Construction & Use Regulations in force for the last 70 years dictating what should and shouldn't be fitted to your car, but then in this country there was a public outcry against mandatory seat belts and drink drive laws - so there's no accounting for public stupidity.

[Mark_NyB]

- so there's no accounting for public stupidity.

Ain't that the sad truth....

[Kvkcgktl]

Hmmm, yes Tilt, nice of you to agree with what the man says you should, however if you think this is anything other than a new stealth tax, and an attempt to price more people off the road it's you who's ill-informed.

Whatever legislation is put in place - my car isn't going to be modified. What do you think about that? And don't try and lecture Awooga Guy on automotive legislation, he has studied automotive engineering to post-graduate level.

When the public start to realise what this is going to cost them, the backlash will begin - this "proposal" will never successfully make its way into British law.

For the record - my problem with this is not tracking or speeding (although zero tolerance enforcement would be more than annoying) the problem is road pricing. Road Tax and fuel duty costs quite enough, along with such expenses as parking permits etc, just for the privilege of parking outside your own house. Paying a constant road toll? F**k that.

Ahhh pedestrians, some of them are so damned pious. It reminds Awooga Guy of Bill Hicks taking about non-smokers...





That is all.

[Laqswrnm]

Hmmm, yes Tilt, nice of you to agree with what the man says you should, however if you think this is anything other than a new stealth tax, and an attempt to price more people off the road it's you who's ill-informed.

Whatever legislation is put in place - my car isn't going to be modified. What do you think about that? And don't try and lecture Awooga Guy on automotive legislation, he has studied automotive engineering to post-graduate level.

When the public start to realise what this is going to cost them, the backlash will begin - this "proposal" will never successfully make its way into British law.

Ahhh pedestrians, some of them are so damned pious. It reminds Awooga Guy of Bill Hicks taking about non-smokers...

What does automotive engineering has to do with legislation?.
I do however doubt that such a system will be implemented...directly. Instead you'll see and increased amount of congestion charging zones, toll-roads, etc and a wireless way of payment will be introduced....until such a point where you end up with exactly the same system you don't want.
Also, to return to my earlier question. Do mothers really need to drive their kids to school?.

[TouccuraLar]

Do mothers really need to drive their kids to school?.

Only someone without kids would say something like that! I think its motherly instinct to want to make sure your kids are safe to the school gate instead of making 7 yeard olds walk a mile on their own in the winter dark. Specific I know but I have no problem with mothers wanting to keep their kids safe by driving them to school. Its all very well when you live close by, but I grew up in a rural area where if you didn't have transport then you couldn't get to school.

[Effofqueeno]

Do I think we can handle additional charges for road use? No. The government should make public transport better. That way I'll stop clogging up London in 4x4 smoke and driving through side streets to avoid the congestion charge.

I already pay a chuffin' fortune in road tax and diesel for my choice of vehicle, but I guess you reap what you sow - I can't imagine squeezing into a Fiat Seicento to save fuel/tax etc.

[leijggeds]

What does automotive engineering has to do with legislation?...
Also, to return to my earlier question. Do mothers really need to drive their kids to school?.

My background, interest and depth of study in this area means I know more about the relevant legislation.

And as Gibbo rightly says, of course many parents will want to drop their own kids at school! Try and imagine the situation from someone else's perspective. If you had kids would you want to put their safety in someone else's hands?

A lot of the pedestrians here are forgetting, that the roads are too congested blah blah blah, but as a motorist I have some rights too.

Dammit I hate using the first person.

[padlabtard]

And don't try and lecture Awooga Guy on automotive legislation, he has studied automotive engineering to post-graduate level.
.

That's funny. I'm much better qualified than most here to lecture you on matters of UK automotive legislation. "Post Grad automotive engineering"?? I'm struggling to see the relevance.

[Uninkipsyncp]

Of course, the two are unconnected aren't they.

[sbrpkkl]

Of course, the two are unconnected aren't they.

Yup.

_________________
Tilt

[medshop]

Er, nope?

Oh dear.

[leijggeds]

If the money gained from a new tax went straight into public transport, it'd be the perfect solution, imho...

[pouslytut]

I already pay a chuffin' fortune in road tax and diesel for my choice of vehicle, but I guess you reap what you sow - I can't imagine squeezing into a Fiat Seicento to save fuel/tax etc.

What road tax do you pay? I know you have to pay VED for your car, but road tax?

[shkarpet$]

In order to reduce road congestion you need to completely change the current perspective that "personal mobility is a right". Maybe we as a society need to regress to the 1950s, when ordinary people didn't have cars. Of course that means we all have to live within walking distance of work, and buy our produce in the corner shop.
It frightens me to think that I already spend something like HALF my salary on car travel (e.g. 4 grand a year on fuel, 75% of which is tax!). I see no viable alternative unless there is a huge shift in expectations.
I guess the problem will be solved shortly when we run out of oil!

Anyhow, on the "speed kills" argument, I'd just like to add the views of a police traffic officer (published in the Times):

Speed DOESN’T kill. The following DO:

1) The careless right turn
2) Aggressive high-speed driving
3) The born again biker
4) Poor vehicle maintenance
5) Drink-driving
6) The very elderly driver

In other words doing 35mph in a 30 limit isn't actually the problem...

Also this from the wonderful "Sniff Petrol" website...


CARS TO BLAME FOR EVIL GENERALLY

There was shock this week as it emerged that cars are to blame for all the evil in the world. The shock verdict came from a top secret government report to be published later this month and entitled, "The Economy Could Be A Bit F**ked - Finding Ways To Make More Cash… And Fast".
"Cars really are the root of all the planet's woes," admitted government spokesman Lambglot Slightly. "For one thing, they cause global warming which is the biggest threat to face this country at the moment and certainly a bigger threat than, say, starting an inexplicable war and then being puzzled when fanatical Muslims keep plotting to blow up London. Of course, it's not just global warming. The car also causes cancer, paedophilia, rape, pestilence, scurvy and never being able to find the bloody kitchen scissors when you need them. Thankfully, this government has discovered that all these problems can be made to go away by taxation. Lots of lovely soft target taxation. Mmm".
Whilst central government continues to work on new plans to banish the evil of cars with the sword of tax, one local authority is already taking the initiative to prevent cars from causing more misery and mobility in the world. The council of Grunting, in Pain, has already approved plans for a new scheme in which residents' parking permit charges will be levied in direct proportion to the stylishness of your clothes and how well spoken your children are. "This is entirely fair scheme," said spokesman Partly Smnnr. "We believe it will encourage people to think twice before having a reasonable amount of money which we're then going to take off them on some spurious environmental basis that doesn't quite make sense".
However, the government itself was quick to promise that although cars are the root of all income, it will be looking at other measures to save the world. "We're not simply picking on cars of course," Lambglot Slightly admitted. "Domestic heating and airline travel are two areas that we are looking in to as well. I personally have decided that domestic heating is the best way to keep my six bedroom house warm, and to celebrate that discovery I'm now flying to France for a two week skiing holiday. Mmmm".
Meanwhile, Conservative leader Dave "Dave" Cameron was happy to join in the blathering; "I am speaking now," he said. "Listen to me speaking in a nice voice. I think it's clear that I agree with whatever this is about, and I have shown this agreement by not wearing a tie. I like trees. Yea kids. Clouds are nice" A spokesman later admitted that Mr Cameron was himself a major source of pointless CO2.

[jerzeygymwolf]

What road tax do you pay? I know you have to pay VED for your car, but road tax?

No VED for me as my car is older than 1st March 2001.

I pay £175 road tax (2.5L engine).

[Baromaro]

No VED for me as my car is older than 1st March 2001.

I pay £175 road tax (2.5L engine).

That is still Vehicle Excise Duty, although sometimes called Vehicle Tax. (And not exactly a fortune, eh?). There is no such thing as road tax.

[secondmortgagek]

Jakob,

I quite like you, so don't be a pedantic arse.