Millsy Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 (edited) He was right though? Les I mean... Edited December 17, 2005 by Millsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gresh Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 He was right though? The sentiment was right, although I see no reason for the post to be pulled. I had (and have) every faith that the [LRO] forum users would equal the thoughts on the thread. I agree, although we are all guilty of it, that speed is not to be congratulated. And most sensible users of any forum would also agree. Given that Haggis expected a ban, he was lucky to get the result he got. Regards Gresh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Henson Posted December 17, 2005 Author Share Posted December 17, 2005 I agree with that. I actually thought that doing over 100 on the motorway was pretty-much a guaranteed ban anyway until I read his post. Les. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gresh Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Not at all Gresh, I post on LRO nearly every day, as a mod perhaps you should know that? And you're my hero too - no, really Les. You're a series III man then, can't say I ever go on that part of the forum old technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Henson Posted December 17, 2005 Author Share Posted December 17, 2005 (edited) Yep, series are what I like. I only go on two LR forums - this one and yours. I suppose it must make me look like a trouble-maker, but it's not like that really. I'm surprised you seem to have a problem with me posting a link to this thread though, after all it could just as easily be the other way round. Les. Edited December 17, 2005 by Les Henson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 (edited) Les, I was not talking about your post it was about Westerns post. Maybe I have strong feeling on this subject because it's me that has to clear bits of body's of the road and then go and tell the families that their husband/wife/son/daughter etc is dead because a third party was driving way beyond their capabilities. Blimey, my reply isn't & wasn't intended as a joke, speeding isn't something to joke about, & Yes I know how the physics work, if my reply caused offence then I'm sorry, but I don't see how it could of. I to deal with vehicle incidents but on rally stages where things can & do go wrong & the outcome can be just as sad Edited December 17, 2005 by western Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkieB Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I'm not defending speeding in general, even for 'trained drivers', I'm saying it matters more to give the courts authority — including the ability to occasionally err in their effective discretion, at least people have officially given them that power, they're not stealing the area of authority itself — rather than cheating the courts; there are worse offences than speeding; perjury for instance. when every police officer in the country is punished for every time they've committed perjury, either in court/ on section 9 statements/ I'd include eg verbals in the notebook too, then we'll show more concern when their precious cases get treated badly by the courts. Objectivity = professionalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbocharger Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 The energy that needs to be dissipated when a vehicle is brought to a sudden stop is directly proportional to the speed that the vehicle was travelling at. If you want to get technical on the reasons why people die in collisions I am your man. ... except that the energy is proportional to the square of the speed. Leave him alone, we're all singing from the same hymn sheet here. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gresh Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Yep, series are what I like. I only go on two LR forums - this one and yours. I suppose it must make me look like a trouble-maker, but it's not like that really. I'm surprised you seem to have a problem with me posting a link to this thread though, after all it could just as easily be the other way round. Les. Les, I don't have a problem with you posting a link. It would seem I maybe went off a little half cocked (so unlike me!!!). I reacted to the fact I thought you only frequented occassionally. So apologies. It is a fact LRO's forum seems to have more than it's fair share of muppets, but, on the whole, the forum users are a fairly intelligent lot, who don't condone things like excessive speeding, which is proved by the backlash that the thread is experiencing. Regards Gresh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bull Bar Cowboy Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 ... except that the energy is proportional to the square of the speed. Leave him alone, we're all singing from the same hymn sheet here. B) Absolutely right TC ………………. Ralph was also spot on the money ………… when you hit an immovable object your body stops but the organs try to keep moving with more than often fatal results. Equally having worked with the emergency services for over 30 years I can see and sympathize where Ben is coming from ……. but indeed, we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Speeding is clearly wrong and should be appropriately punished, however, I doubt that any one of us 'halo glowing' folk on this thread have never committed a speeding offence (intentionally or unintentionally). Without knowing the exact circumstances of a motorcycle traveling at 128mph on the motorway it is difficult to comment further………. but if it was me, I would not want it in the public domain. Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishbosh Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 The speed limit is a LIMIT, not a TARGET. Drive at speeds appropriate for the road conditions and please don't speed in roadworks - my colleagues lives are at risk when you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffbeaumont Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I have wondered why in these days of fly-by-wire throttles they don't put in a dead spot in the throttle around 30, 40, 50 & 70 where it engages a sort of cruse control which will regulate the speed and ignore small pedal movements. If you move out of the dead spot - it accelerates / decelerates as normal.It would make it a lot easier to regulate your speed without continuously checking the speedo - which IMHO can be as unsafe as speeding slightly. I've had a couple of people almost rear-end me around speed cameras where they were paying more attention to the speed than the traffic slowing in front of them! I'm not so convinced that's a good idea - as bishbosh already said, the speed limit is a limit not a target. Making the car sit much more 'comfortably' at 30mph than a little below it encourages the tendency we probably all have anyway to drive up to the limit without considering the hazards. There are plenty of roads in town where 30mph is way too fast to stop if anything goes wrong (kids runs out from between parked cars, for instance). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffbeaumont Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Blimey, my reply isn't & wasn't intended as a joke, speeding isn't something to joke about, & Yes I know how the physics work, if my reply caused offence then I'm sorry, but I don't see how it could of.I to deal with vehicle incidents but on rally stages where things can & do go wrong & the outcome can be just as sad There's a big difference with rally crashes - the victims (except in particularly tragic instances where spectators have been involved) are competitors in a high risk sport, and they are fully aware of the danger they are choosing to put themselves in. When people take risks on public roads they don't just put themselves in danger (personally, I wouldn't really have a problem with that), they also risk the lives of other people who have that danger forced on them. That's not a dig at you by the way - I know that wasn't really what you were saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollythelw Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I still enjoy 160mph beemer chasing on the autobahn on the way back home, but then I according to the press Im probably a goat killing drug addict bound to die. Before anyone gets on thier high horses yes I do know what Im doing and no I dont use speed in inappropriate places. The problem I see is poor standards of driving not the digits involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonr Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I'm not so convinced that's a good idea - as bishbosh already said, the speed limit is a limit not a target. Making the car sit much more 'comfortably' at 30mph than a little below it encourages the tendency we probably all have anyway to drive up to the limit without considering the hazards. There are plenty of roads in town where 30mph is way too fast to stop if anything goes wrong (kids runs out from between parked cars, for instance). Fair point and I agree that people should drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions however, in most peoples minds - that translates into the speed limit (and often more). If the car helps you to drive at the limit, although it is of mixed benefit, I think that on average it would reduce not increase speeds. Some cars are just difficult to keep at or near the speed limit - and I think the tendancy for most drivers rightly or wrongly is to exceed it. Si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.