At 30mph, there is a 90% chance that anyone you are unfortunate enough to hit will survive. At 40mph, that drops to 10%.
You are twice as likely to kill someone at 35 as you are at 30.
These "statistics" have rightly been corrected on this thread, but what was wrong with them and all later such "statistics" is that they were and are manufactured by protaganists of a cause to "prove" a point.
Whenever anyone supports a case with an assertion starting with "Studies show........" it is time to get very sceptical indeed and ask for the detail of exactly how the so-called "studies" were carried out. What you then invariably find is a very small number of observed events and a train of unsupported assumptions leading inexorably to a foregone conclusion.
And so it was and still is with statistics such as those purporting to show that 30mph is a speed at which most people survive, and anything more increases the chance of death exponentially. The unfortunate fact is that the likelihood of fatal injury varies directly with the speed of the impact (up to a certain speed, say, 50mph or so). So any speed is slightly less dangerous than a slightly greater speed. There's nothing more to it than that.
So you fix your speed limit by reference to an acceptable probability of fatal injury. The 30mph limit is rooted in history and has no particularly scientific provenance.
Been hit by a car as a pedestrian... once as a kid as I ran out been parked cars... car speed less than 5 mph...survived...hit as a pedestrian by drunk driver.. whilst walking on the pavement...again car was going slowly....
As a cyclist hit twice by cars... both times whilst stopped at a red light...
AS a driver hit once by a van...I think the driver was blind....as he failed to see my car stopped at a red light.
Of ocurse speeding is safe.. its going slowly that dangerous.
Can we all get off the some what self righteous 'speed' issue... the real issue is bad driving.. and other forms of it are far more dangerous/ damaging and widespread than an excess of posted speed restriction.
As for fewer police officers means a Xmas for criminals... look at who is pushing this issue...and see what they have to lose in the redundancies...
Can we all get off the some what self righteous 'speed' issue... the real issue is bad driving.. and other forms of it are far more dangerous/ damaging and widespread than an excess of posted speed restriction.
As for fewer police officers means a Xmas for criminals... look at who is pushing this issue...and see what they have to lose in the redundancies...
Amen to that mfaff. I'm sorry for hijacking the thread into a discussion on speeding from the start to vent-off on a personal grievance, perhaps this is an appropriate point to return to the original intention?
I agree that when I heard the arguments being put forward by the Chief Constables, it did smack of self-interest rather poorly disguised as alarmist rhetoric. They (and their masters in government and justice) should look at this as an opportunity for a bit of root and branch reform, in a good way. Moving away from the themes of big government, give up on subjugating the common man in the name of 'progress', and concentrate on protecting society. Putting my previous rant aside, I see this as an opportunity not a threat.
I agree that when I heard the arguments being put forward by the Chief Constables, it did smack of self-interest rather poorly disguised as alarmist rhetoric. They (and their masters in government and justice) should look at this as an opportunity for a bit of root and branch reform, in a good way. Moving away from the themes of big government, give up on subjugating the common man in the name of 'progress', and concentrate on protecting society. Putting my previous rant aside, I see this as an opportunity not a threat.
Quite right. Its the ideal opportunity to cull those not up to the mark. Its normally very difficult to get rid of people, with lots of red tape to go through. They should seize the chance whilst they have it and maybe end up providing a better service.
Every time the political empire-builders are faced with reduced budgets, they start hysterically screaming about "40,000 police" or "100,000 nurses" to go; when in fact, all they've been given are budget reductions, and perhaps they should cut out some back-office time wasters instead.
The real crime seems to me that a lot of these people are saying "Well, x% cut will be crippling, but we could manage y% reduction without reducing services". If that's the case, why the hell have you been wasting y% until now?
I'm with Tony McGuirk on this one. Interesting article in the Sunday Times saying that the elements of the public sector know they have jobs for life & consequently, they are experts in maitaining the status quo, not rocking the boat & as a result, the culture is so stultifying that when enthusiastic new brooms do come in, they leave out of frustration, nothing changes.
I worked briefly for the council & that was certainly my experience, practically no one in the office I worked in would have lasted in any decent private enterprise.
Did a lot of work for and around various Police Forces and will allow there seems to be a lot of duplication, headquarters training facilities call centers ect,and a certain amount of separate wee empires, perhaps a national police force is the answer and I suspect it will eventually come to that, as long as the main Headquartersi s not not in that feckin London,we would want it in a city that is still in England, ie York or somewhere similar.
Why will people insist on this nonsense that speed limits are significant? Two cars travelling in a 30 limit area, one at 40 mph, t'other at 20. Which is safer? The first one is driven by a non-distracted, quick reaction, well trained driver in a modern well maintained, low profile tyred, disc-braked ABS vehicle. T'other is a veteran Austin Seven on cross plies with cable brakes, being guided by a harassed mother with excited kids yelling and screaming ... and so on and so on. Teaching EVERYBODY to drive with the appreciation that they are controlling a potential killing machine would be more logical. But when did logic EVER enter the speed limit argument? Oh and where did this idea come from that speed cameras were painted FLUORESCENT yellow? Dirty, insignificant yellow, perhaps and only that because they were FORCED to. Still, at least if they're harassing motorists it keeps them away from shooting innocent people
It seems that many do - from 0900 to 1100, for example.
I suppose that the police force could have saved a few pennies by not preparing for that major earthquake we are about to experience, and leaving elderly Christians and purveyors of golliwogs alone. Ah well.
I'm glad this has branched out a bit from the inevitable lurch into 'speeding' related arguaments.
I really wasn't thinking about speeding in particular, more the difference between 'proper' criminals and minor crimes/ transgressions.
Where we live, we never see police and my only contact with the law has been the odd minor motoring issue, speed/ parking etc.
However, my attitude has changed over the years as has the polices'.
I feel that while once we were on the same side, now we're not.
I was sad today to hear about the Barrister who was shot by cops a while ago. An idiot for sure, but why would the cops not let his wife talk to him by mobile? Paramedics prevented from helping out in the Lakes shootings by the police. Anyone else remember that nut that shot his wife and MIL at a Barbie a few years ago? They bled to death while the cops kept the area secure for too long.
They are too intent on covering themselves. Above ALL else.
I walk to work every day. It involves a 500m stretch of country road, 30mph speed limit, with poor lighting in the winter. Several times a week I have to leap into the hedge to avoid stupid speeding drivers. These are not hooded yobs but mums with kids in the back, suited gents on their mobile phones, OAPs and lunatic lorry drivers. In my opinion, these people are no different from the knife carrying, knuckle dragging community they themselves villify.
That said, regarding Policing in general, I find the UK Police Force (sorry, service) an embarrassment. Fat, lazy, stupid slobs in the main. Usually headed up by females with cropped hair and masculine features.
No shortage of the b*stards either when there are TV cameras around. They can find 40 coppers to line a street for a shoplifter being taken to court, or a celebrity at a hearing for 'hurt feelings' but no-one is available when your street is full of drunken yobs.
'Intelligence led policing'....... Trades descriptions Act anyone?
My Brother in Law by chance caught a guy breaking into his shop at 6am yesterday. He'd kicked the shop door in, the toilet door and broke a window to gain access. My BIL, detained him until the Police arrived. When they did, he gave them a shard of glass with the guys blood on it.
The Police said they could not get forensic evidence from it and inspite of BIL pointing out he was a witness, the Police said there was nothing they could do. So upshot was a caution for criminal damage - so they held this Polish guy responsible at least. Makes you proud to be British.
BIL said he mulled over the idea of giving the guy a good kicking before the cops arrived, but decided against it. Says he's now bitterly regretting that.
From the Press and Journal today: An Aberdeen businessman has been banned from driving after he was caught doing 120mph in his Porsche 911 while rushing to his daughter’s hospital bedside.
The 57-year-old oil industry boss was pulled over by police at Blackburn (Aberdeenshire), as he sped to Aberdeen after medics told him there were complications following a serious operation.
And today the company director, who employs more than 1,000 people, admitted he was going too fast – but his only thought was for his teenage daughter.
