S
On 28 Sep, 16:58, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 28 Sep, 13:09, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On 26 Sep, 18:45, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
> >>>>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
> >>>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
> >>>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
> >>>> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
> >>> No,
> >> None of those?
>
> >>> what do you think a reasonable stopping distance is.
> >> One that eliminates all reasonable likelihood of a collision.
>
> >> I don't think you can say that a specific absolute stopping distance is
> >> too great. It depends on the present circumstances - just as daft as
> >> absolute speed limits really.
>
> >> 30 mph is often way too fast in many 30 mph zones, yet when did you last
> >> hear of a conviction based on using inappropriate speed which was within
> >> the posted 30 mph limit??? Contrast that with the number of convictions
> >> for using a possibly safe speed which happened to be above the posted limit.
>
> >> I'd rather we concentrated on the dangerous, not the safe, use of speed
> >> - wouldn't you?
>
> > And you think 172 mph is a speed from which you can make that
> > assessment as you approach a hazard?
>
> What assessment?
>
> All I'm saying is that speed limits can condone inappropriate speed.
> Prosecutions should be based on the danger of a given situation, not on
> how much above an arbitrary speed limit a driver happens to be going.
>
> 25 mph in a 30 mph limit can be more dangerous, in certain
> circumstances, than say, 80 mph on a clear motorway.
>
> The charge, and the penalty, should take account of the circumstances,
> and reasonably expected likely consequences - not on a go/no-go test as
> to whether a limit has been exceeded, and by how much.
>
> --
> Matt B
So you don't consider 172mph dangerous to everyone on, or joining a
motorway? It's not just a matter of the danger he causes to himself
but that he causes to others who will not be able to judge his
approach speed and would not be expecting an observed vehicle to be
traveling at 270 ft per second.
Sniper8052
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 28 Sep, 13:09, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On 26 Sep, 18:45, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
> >>>>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
> >>>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
> >>>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
> >>>> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
> >>> No,
> >> None of those?
>
> >>> what do you think a reasonable stopping distance is.
> >> One that eliminates all reasonable likelihood of a collision.
>
> >> I don't think you can say that a specific absolute stopping distance is
> >> too great. It depends on the present circumstances - just as daft as
> >> absolute speed limits really.
>
> >> 30 mph is often way too fast in many 30 mph zones, yet when did you last
> >> hear of a conviction based on using inappropriate speed which was within
> >> the posted 30 mph limit??? Contrast that with the number of convictions
> >> for using a possibly safe speed which happened to be above the posted limit.
>
> >> I'd rather we concentrated on the dangerous, not the safe, use of speed
> >> - wouldn't you?
>
> > And you think 172 mph is a speed from which you can make that
> > assessment as you approach a hazard?
>
> What assessment?
>
> All I'm saying is that speed limits can condone inappropriate speed.
> Prosecutions should be based on the danger of a given situation, not on
> how much above an arbitrary speed limit a driver happens to be going.
>
> 25 mph in a 30 mph limit can be more dangerous, in certain
> circumstances, than say, 80 mph on a clear motorway.
>
> The charge, and the penalty, should take account of the circumstances,
> and reasonably expected likely consequences - not on a go/no-go test as
> to whether a limit has been exceeded, and by how much.
>
> --
> Matt B
So you don't consider 172mph dangerous to everyone on, or joining a
motorway? It's not just a matter of the danger he causes to himself
but that he causes to others who will not be able to judge his
approach speed and would not be expecting an observed vehicle to be
traveling at 270 ft per second.
Sniper8052
