Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    As a motorist I have every right.


    He's more than 100% over the speed limit, travelling twice as fast as any other road user. He's quite clearly not paying attention - he didn't notice the copper who nicked him, that's your proof - and so would not have noticed any other user who might have been on the road at the same time. To travel that fast he would have veered [slightly] into the middle of the road offering no other road user the ability to pass safely.

    In the US they'd call it reckless endangerment, here we call it driving without due care and attention. Think what you want - anyone sane is going to call it what it is: stupid, moronic and unsafe.
    If by 'sane' you mean 'irrational and uninformed like the majority of the common public', then you are right. But simply because a majority of people may think it does not make it right.

    Also, your trust and faith in the government and police is somewhat worrying.

    The police are sneaky. They purposefully sit in a hidden area, usually off the road, waiting for speeders to pass by. Comparing the visibility of police officers with an agenda which requires them to keep hidden to the visibility of pedestrians is ridiculous.

    And I don't care what it's called in the US or what it's called anywhere else. So long as there is no evidence of any immorality or lack of safety, then it is absolutely without basis to make moral/safety judgments on the matter.

    If you can't see that, something is wrong with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Degausser)
    :ditto: 62 in a 30 is stupidly dangerous.
    If you drive at 60 mph (or even more) instead of 30mph, you'll only be on the road for half the time. So you will spend less time on the road so chance of hitting somebody is much lower.














    ;)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss_Scarlett)
    It's annoying but unfairness doesn't really come into it. The speed limit is 30, not twice that. Ok we are all guilty of doing 35 here and there maybe 40 if you aren't concentrating, but 60 is just tomfoolery. You can't expect to get away with it being twice over the limit...the law of the land says it is what it is, and there isn't anything you nor I can do about it.
    You haven't been catching my drift.

    I wasn't saying the OP should get away with it, or that he wasn't being unlawful. I wasn't saying the law of the land should be changed for that particular road.

    Afterall, I have the same information about the road, and the conditions as everybody else in the thread does - absolutely nothing. So it would be wrong of me to assume that the OP was being safe and driving morally, just as it is wrong for anybody else to assume that the OP was doing otherwise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You deserve to have your license taken away.

    Tough luck buddy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    If by 'sane' you mean 'irrational and uninformed like the majority of the common public', then you are right. But simply because a majority of people may think it does not make it right.

    Also, your trust and faith in the government and police is somewhat worrying.

    The police are sneaky. They purposefully sit in a hidden area, usually off the road, waiting for speeders to pass by. Comparing the visibility of police officers with an agenda which requires them to keep hidden to the visibility of pedestrians is ridiculous.

    And I don't care what it's called in the US or what it's called anywhere else. So long as there is no evidence of any immorality or lack of safety, then it is absolutely without basis to make moral/safety judgments on the matter.

    If you can't see that, something is wrong with you.
    In some cases that is true, trying to catch people doing 34 in a 30...hardly candidates for boy racers.

    But twice the limit? There's nothing sneaky about that, you're asking to get snapped. I would follow that up with "if you cant see that, something is wrong with you" but i consider it to be a bit rude tbh.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)

    And actually, yes, adhering to speed restrictions costs us quite a lot of time. If you have a 10 mile drive to work and back every morning on a perfectly good road that should be a 60 road is only a 40 road.
    But I'm making a judgement here, that you are hardly qualified to decide what speed that road should be, until you have looked at the number of accidents and cause of accidents on that road. Or taken in to consideration, many other factors which I'm sure go in to making these decisions.

    (Original post by Phugoid)

    then you will lose days and days, maybe weeks or months of your life over the course of a career to it driving on it longer than is necessary to be safe.
    I feel that if you are not entirely happy with the laws of the road and travel by car, that you should maybe try the bus to work, and see how many months that will take over on your life.

    (Original post by Phugoid)

    And I don't really have a problem with most speed limits. What I do have a problem with is people assuming that because the government have labelled a road to be an x mph limit, that driving anything over x is immoral and unsafe. And that is what I have been responding to in this thread.

    Well the thing is, majority of the time there is no accident going over the speed limit by so much and, therefore we consider it safe. But occassionally, there is. When the weather is against you, 40 mph instead of 60mph can make the difference, in relation to the roads in question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    I'm not going to explain myself a 3rd/4th/5th/whatever the hell number we're at now.

    And actually, yes, adhering to speed restrictions costs us quite a lot of time. If you have a 10 mile drive to work and back every morning on a perfectly good road that should be a 60 road is only a 40 road, then you will lose days and days, maybe weeks or months of your life over the course of a career to it driving on it longer than is necessary to be safe.

    And I don't really have a problem with most speed limits. What I do have a problem with is people assuming that because the government have labelled a road to be an x mph limit, that driving anything over x is immoral and unsafe. And that is what I have been responding to in this thread.
    I get what you're saying, but I'd be inclined to disagree in this particular case. This guy was not only just breaking the limit to save himself a bit of time, he was over double the limit. I know different people pay different amounts of attention to the limits, but by anyone's standards 62 in a 30 zone is excessive, and would in most cases be dangerous (although, as you say, not in 100% cases). This is also the second time this guy has been done within a month, and he's posting on an internet forum asking for ways to avoid punishment, so it's pretty obvious that he hasn't learnt his lesson, and that suggests to me that his judgment about what is safe and what isn't is not all that great.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    You haven't been catching my drift.

    I wasn't saying the OP should get away with it, or that he wasn't being unlawful. I wasn't saying the law of the land should be changed for that particular road.

    Afterall, I have the same information about the road, and the conditions as everybody else in the thread does - absolutely nothing. So it would be wrong of me to assume that the OP was being safe and driving morally, just as it is wrong for anybody else to assume that the OP was doing otherwise.
    If safe includes a limit of 30, because of a nearby school, nearby resedential area...or for whatever reason its a 30. Then driving safely is by being around that speed limit....not 60. I understand what you are saying but its a bit ad absurdium, because of the speed the OP was doing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dmae)
    If you drive at 60 mph (or even more) instead of 30mph, you'll only be on the road for half the time. So you will spend less time on the road so chance of hitting somebody is much lower.
    I don't know if you were being funny or not. But what you said was statistically and probabilistically true.

    Here are the stone cold facts:

    If people drive faster, on average they spend less time on the road, therefore the chance of hitting somebody is lower.

    [b]However, if you do hit somebody, despite the low statistics, your speed will increase the probability that the accident will be fatal, or cause severe injury. [b]

    Obviously, other factors play a part. For example, reduced time to react increases your chance of hitting somebody (or rather, reduces your chance of preventing yourself from hitting somebody). But the isolated effect of driving faster is to lower the probability of hitting somebody.

    That's statistically and probabilistically speaking, not practically speaking.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)

    I am sickened by the level or irrationality in this thread. People who get righteous without evidence disgust me.
    Well there is no evidence to suggest that he was on a road where 60mph is acceptable. However the idea that the speed limit for that road was 30mph, definitely adds favour to my argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    loadsa roads round myne which are 30s which you could easily get to and maintain 60, for quite a while, and its not even really dangerous unless its wet. like houses set back, massive pavements and realy quite. someplaces speed limits are ridiculous.

    all u gota do is agree with them, not argue, and seem like uve learnt ur lesson. like dont say well the road was quite and the limit should be higher say 'yes im very sorry, i didnt realise i was going so fast and thought the limit was higher, i would never do it on purpose' bla bla. except responsibility, you wont get away with it but punishment will be a lot less
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    Why don't you face up to your crime rather than try and get out of it? People like you shouldn't even be allowed on the roads.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss_Scarlett)
    If safe includes a limit of 30, because of a nearby school, nearby resedential area...or for whatever reason its a 30. Then driving safely is by being around that speed limit....not 60. I understand what you are saying but its a bit ad absurdium, because of the speed the OP was doing.
    But you can't assume that there was a school or something nearby.

    Your logic is this:

    The speed limit is 30 because the government made it 30.
    The government must have had a good safety-orientated reason for making it 30.
    Therefore, anybody doing 60 is being unsafe.

    Your fallacy lies in the assumption that the government had a good reason for it.

    It's a bad assumption to make, especially given the governments previous record on road-law, and the proposals the government is currently making.

    For example, the government are lowering the national speed limit on rural roads to 50 from 60, because rural roads are where the largest number of accidents happen. However, the statistics and the probabilities show that the accidents that happen on rural roads are NOT related to speed, but ARE related to carelessness, absent-mindedness, over-taking round corners or on the brow of a hill, and just plain old bad driving. Reducing the speed limit will be ineffective, because all the other aspects will persist, and it is those aspects which cause the accidents, NOT the speed.

    There are plenty of examples of when the Government have had no good scientific reason for making a certain road-law. So to assume that this particular case isn't one of them, and that the OP was therefore on the wrong side of morality, is unfounded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    And of course, with no evidence to suggest otherwise you're not being hypocritical at all :rolleyes:




    You know, the more this thread goes on the more I think this guy and the OP are the same person. As trolling tactics go, I guess it works.
    Hahahaha.

    I would only be a hypocrite if I defended the OP without the facts, and accused you of accusing the OP without the facts.

    But as I have mentioned maybe 10 times now on this thread (do you not read? Or do you just not understand? Or are you just too egotistical to back down when faced with rationality?), I am not advocating the OP's actions because I do not have the facts on which to base any such advocation. You, however, are accusing without facts or other basis.

    I hope this explains to you how hypocrisy does not work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dumbdumb)
    the road was clear its not fair its the 2nd time this month ive been done
    Have you tried driving less quickly? You know...at a more legal speed?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    If people drive faster, on average they spend less time on the road, therefore the chance of hitting somebody is lower.
    .
    LMAO

    The amount of time saved hardly makes up for a fatality. How can you say that less time spent on the road lowers the chance of hitting somebody. :rolleyes:

    Losing 2 minutes of potential 'accident time', does not compare to careful and lawful driving.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbo3045)
    Well there is no evidence to suggest that he was on a road where 60mph is acceptable. However the idea that the speed limit for that road was 30mph, definitely adds favour to my argument.
    There is no evidence to suggest that. That's why I'm not advocating his actions, I'm reserving judgment until the facts come through.

    And as I have already explained, the notion that there must be a reason for it being a 30mph is a flawed notion. I have explained why maybe 3/4 times already. It doesn't add favour to your argument at all, because at the end of the day, you are making a judgment without any circumstantial facts whatsoever.

    Whereas I am not.

    I not arguing with you because I am taking the opposite stance from you (you think he was being unsafe, but I am not taking the stance that he was being safe). I am arguing with you because you are not being neutral, like I am, despite being faced with 0 evidence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dumbdumb)
    ive been caught doing 62mph in a 30mph zone im facing a court and driving ban, anyway i can get out of this i cant face not driving
    Punctuation is your friend.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbo3045)
    LMAO

    The amount of time saved hardly makes up for a fatality. How can you say that less time spent on the road lowers the chance of hitting somebody. :rolleyes:

    Losing 2 minutes of potential 'accident time', does not compare to careful and lawful driving.
    Because I have knowledge of statistics and probability.

    The same way, if you are a pedestrian, the less time you spend on the road, the less likely you are to be hit.

    So if you were walk from A to B, you would face more chance of being hit by a car on the way there than if you ran to B from A. That's simple probability, and the same applies to cars.

    I didn't say that the less time spent on the road makes up for the fatality that happens. All I said was that, scientifically speaking, the probability of hitting a pedestrian is decreased if you spend less time on the road. Absolutely 100% fact which I can prove to you with concrete mathematics. The chance of a fatality when you DO hit someone increases, but the chance of hitting somebody in the first place decreases (at least, due to that isolated factor, it does, but with other factors included, the net effect may be an increase).
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    But you can't assume that there was a school or something nearby.

    Your logic is this:

    The speed limit is 30 because the government made it 30.
    The government must have had a good safety-orientated reason for making it 30.
    Therefore, anybody doing 60 is being unsafe.

    Your fallacy lies in the assumption that the government had a good reason for it.
    So where does it end... if these potential roads were upgraded to a 60mph limit, it would only encourage people like the OP to further exceed this limit.

    Another fact is that most people exceed the limit. The higher the speed limit, the higher people will go to exceed them.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.