Melanie Rimmer wrote:
> steve robinson wrote:
>
> > It doesnt make you a safer driver , i have lost count of the amount
> > of drivers who rigidly stick to the speed limit but fail to use
> > indicators or mirrors or even bother to look around thier A posts
> > when emerging from a junction ,Try and crush me when i am filtering
> > (a legal activity) on my motorcycle or just plain dont see me and
> > turn accross the front of me .
>
> Yes, it does make you a safer driver, all other things being equal.
> The twerp who does the dangerous things you describe at 30mph will
> cause fewer crashes and less serious crashes than the twerp who does
> those same things at 45mph. Fewer crashes, because they have a much
> shorter stopping distance (e.g. twerp A and twerp B both see you, the
> motorcyclist, at the last second because they were too busy texting
> their girlfriend. The twerp travelling at 30 has a better chance of
> stopping in time than the twerp going at 45). And less serious
> crashes because if a twerp hits your motorbike at 30 you've a better
> chance of surviving than if he hits you at 45.
>
> What's more, I don't think all things are equal. I think the twerp
> who blithely breaks the speed limit is more likely to be the one
> texting his girlfriend. The ones who stick rigidly to the speed limit
> are more likely to be the ones who are aware of and respectful of the
> rules of the road. There will be twerps in both categories, granted;
> twerps who stick to the limits and twerps who break them. But the
> people who routinely break the speed limit are twerps by definition,
> and criminals to boot. They won't find any shoulder to cry on here
> when they get caught.
>
> >
> > Most of the roads with a 70 mph limit or national speed limit used
> > to have no speed limits at all , duel carriageways were built for
> > speeds in eccess of 70 mph
>
> They were also built for vastly lower traffic volumes than they now
> receive. That's why the limits were imposed.
Most duel carriageways outside rush hour are no where near thier safe
capacity limits , during rush hour the traffic volume itself acts as a
speed limiter
--
|
1493408. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493472. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493677. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493680. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493714. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493718. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493736. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493740. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493745. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493748. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493797. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493861. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493959. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493964. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493965. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493967. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493974. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493980. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493983. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493994. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
|
|
|