So if the Gardaí asked YOU how to stop road deaths, what would you tell them?

cnocbui

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You've misinterpreted what was stated. To put it more accurately, excessive speed was a contributory cause in 12.5%. It does not say if the excessive speed involved breaking a speed limit.

Yes it does, try reading it again.

It's also true to say that the speed of the vehicle is a factor in 100% of the degree of severity of injuries and liklihood of deaths.

Stating the blinding obvious, a bit like saying that if the cars weren't moving in the first place, there wouldn't have been any accidents, injuries or deaths.

cyclopath2001

thebman wrote: »

TBH, it depends on what you hit.

And how fast you hit it.

towel401

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes it does, try reading it again.



Stating the blinding obvious, a bit like saying that if the cars weren't moving in the first place, there wouldn't have been any accidents, injuries or deaths.

if we had a mass suicide, the roads would be a lot safer

thebman

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

And how fast you hit it.

Once your going over a certain speed which isn't that high and certainly not illegal, it matters little what speed you are doing, the end result will be the same, serious injury or death.

It depends a lot on what you hit. If you go through a hedge into a field or into a sign post or into a wall or through a gate or into a truck or a car.

Also depends on how old the car you were driving is. There are many factors, speed is only one and is focused on way too much.

cyclopath2001

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes it does, try reading it again.

Yep, I missed the footnote, but the point is the same. The interpretation is still wrong.

Reducing vehicle speeds is not just about reducing the causes of accidents but also about reducing the severity of what happens when an impact occurs for whatever reason. Pro-speeders, who have a high opinion of their own car-handling skills, like to restrict the contra-speed argument simply to the causes as this suits their agenda.

The points about lower speed inciting dangerous behaviour suggest the need for psychological profiling of motorists to ensure that drivers are temperamentally suited to drive safely and considerately towards others, no matter what the imagined provocation.

Mr. Presentable

cnocbui wrote: »

People who think speed kills -
So breaking the speed limit is actually a factor in only a very small % of accidents.

.

Much as I dislike having to agree with Cyclopath , you are mixing two different things here. The mantra is speed kills. And it is correct. Nobody is saying it causes the accidents, just that when the accident occurs the damage is proportionate to the speed. Or if you like, the energy expended when the speed suddenly stops.

Carelessness etc causes accidents.

Speed causes damage.

As the sarcastic will observe, you can pull out into the path of other cars at 5kmh all day long and there'll be no fatalities. These are accidents. But do it once when they're doing 120kmh and there'll be carnage.

thebman

Yeah but once your going over a certain speed, speed is irrelevant as your going to die or be seriously injured at least. That speed is about 50KM/H.

We can't drive between towns at that speed or on motorways at that speed, it is crazy talk. Current speed limits are find in built up areas which protects people for the most part.

People crashing at high speed stopped paying attention or were doing something else careless that caused an accident. The speed may have resulted in the death but doing something else wrong caused the accident and ultimately the death.

thegen

High rate of RTA fatalities??????????

A mate of mine is an industrial insurance acessor, he also does RTA's.

He says it is purely down to speed.

Mike...

thegen wrote: »

High rate of RTA fatalities??????????

A mate of mine is an industrial insurance acessor, he also does RTA's.

He says it is purely down to speed.

speed or incompetience?????

Johnny Utah

thegen wrote: »

High rate of RTA fatalities??????????

A mate of mine is an industrial insurance acessor, he also does RTA's.

He says it is purely down to speed.

Your mate is wrong. Tell him to find another gig!

Mr. Presentable

*mono* wrote: »

speed or incompetience?????

The fatality is due to speed

The accident due to incompetence..........

Mr. Presentable

thebman wrote: »

. The speed may have resulted in the death but doing something else wrong caused the accident and ultimately the death.

Absolutely! It's just that some posters seem to believe that speed is being ascribed as the cause of the accident. It's not. It's ascribed as the cause of the fatality.

ottostreet

I've read every post in here, and seriously, the amount of people who are speaking sensibly is very low! Let's look at this subjectively.

A nutter in a car...is a nutter. An arbitary figure on a sign at the side of the road he's driving along at 100mph at 5 in the evening isn't going to slow him down..If he wants to speed, he's going to speed. Now, let's say you are someone who does a lot of driving, we're talking 50+ miles a day (a relatively decent amount, lets say)...Are you going to go around ALL DAY, every day, obeying the speed limit? You are no nutter, but you will put the foot down when you get the chance, maybe even going to 140 kph on a motorway! OH HOW DARE YOU!? Now lets say you're the type that doesn't drive very much at all. To the shops and back, maybe the occasional trip into the local town to meet your mother for some coffee. You are very much going to grasp the idea that 'Speed is the no.1 factor in every death' yes?
I've seen this with my own aprents. My mother drives maybe 5 miles a day, and adheres stringently to every limit, every rule, yet still lacks basic awareness. Many time I have cringed in the car beside her. My dad used to be the same, every speed limit, constantly giving out about my speeding when i did 70mph with him. Then he got a job in Dublin, and his attitude changed. He likes to put the foot down now, and get to where he needs to be, without his 'restricted engines' and tracker.
The conclusion that modified car drivers are the problem is rubbish as well. I would feel much safer with a guy who has been driving high powered cars for quite a while, obviously cares for his car, and is doing 75mph on a decent road, than with a middle aged woman driving her opel zafira doing 50mph, oblivious to the queue behind her.
I intended this to be coherent, but I fear my anger may be showing through. I am a relatively high mileage driver, doing around 30-40,000 miles a year. Basic incompetence on the road is the biggest issue, not speed, not the cars, no arbitary speed limits. Before someone is allowed operate a machine, its checked that they know what theyre doing yes? How come then, that despite there being a driving test, so many drivers are so shockingly bad and lack basic understanding of rules of the road? My mother, who got her full licence this time last year, was unaware that you were supposed to stay left on a motorway. Improve the procedures for getting onto the road, and we may see a drop in road fatality numbers. Even though I'm of the opinion that where people and moving machinery are involved, there will ALWAYS be fatalities. Preventing these fatalities is impossible, in much the same way that 'world peace' is impossible. The numbers are about as low as they're ever going to get.

cyclopath2001

ottostreet wrote: »

... there will ALWAYS be fatalities. Preventing these fatalities is impossible, in much the same way that 'world peace' is impossible. The numbers are about as low as they're ever going to get.

I disagree completely.

There is huge scope for improvement in current road-user behaviour.

It's not a question of skill, it's a question of attitude.

TheNog

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's not a question of skill, it's a question of attitude.

I disagree, its a question of both skill and attitude

ninty9er

I'd tell them it's none of their business and leave decision on making the roads safer to the people whose job that is.

I would however tell them to get up off their arses and start implementing the copious amounts of legalislation we already have.

galwaytt

Bambi wrote: »

Never said that they didnt. The question remains though: why do we sell people cars that can travel above our maximum speed limits? Why give someone the means to break the law?

..to help us all on this, please advise make/model/year of car you drive, and report back.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Don't overtake then in that case. The reason people are overtaking are because people driving more slowly are holding them up. If engines were restricted then everybody would be driving slowly.

You've obviously never driven on a motorway in the UK/Continent where trucks (all limited) draft each other within a few feet. Remember the two-second rule ? Yep, and when accidents happen, they're big ones. 40t doesn't stop in 15 feet.

Fey! wrote: »

€100 fines per blown bulb, or if lights are being used incorrectly (no lights in low light situations, fogs used instead of dims (or when not foggy), lack of indicating).

Car seized for defective tyres.

No NCT, you can't tax the car (same as the rule for DoE and commercial vehicles).

PSVs (taxis/buses); defective lights/tyres, €500 fine for driver. 3 offences, no more PSV license. These are vehicles often on the road 24/7, and the number of them with faulty lights is a disgrace. The drivers should be checking their cars before their shift to make sure they're OK.

€100 fine for PSVs blocking people from parking in legal spaces, or blocking roadways/junctions, or turning paths into taxi ranks.

€500 fine for anyone blocking emergency services. Loss of PSV license for same offence.

€100 fine for anyone parked on paths.

Mandatory carrying of spare bulbs and hi-vis vests (I would include first aid kits and extinguishers, but the majority of people don't know how to use them, rendering them useless).

Average speed speed cameras (2 cameras with ANPR calculating a cars average speed between them over a fixed distance), rather than fixed point (like the one at the Spa Hotel).

€100 fine for anyone caught using lanes incorrectly (60kph in the overtaking lane of a dual carraigeway with a 100kph limit, refusing to allow other motorists pass safely on the right).

€1,000 fine, a ban, and 100 hours picking the rubbish up off the side of the road whilst wearing a bright pink hi-vis vest for anyone convicted of drink driving. Fine and community service doubled on each conviction for repeat offenders. Car seized and auctioned at 3rd offence.

€500 fine and 50 hours picking the rubbish up off the side of the road whilst wearing a bright green hi-vis vest for anyone convicted of driving without an appropriate license/no insurance. Fine and community service doubled on each conviction for repeat offenders. Car seized and auctioned at 3rd offence.

Full reports of road deaths being disclosed, including anything relevant which may have preceeded the accident (driver fatigue/fight with partner/etc). Gruesome pictures included (although this may only serve to numb the senses).

If I think of anything else, I'll add them later.

Better idea, and more productive: please list all accidents, casualties and fatalities caused by the above list

Bambi wrote: »

Sez you.


Futher to that central point, it:

- would increase the cost of vehicles Tough
- wouldn't prevent speeding on the vast majority of roads True
- would prevent us from using our vehicles legally in other countries where the speed limit is higher again Tough, happens in other walks of life all the time
- wouldn't have any effect on vehicles visiting from other countries True
- would be very easy to circumvent (think the power restrictors on learner motorbikes), and so would not deter those who want to break the law anyway.

Power restrictors have done nothing to cut motorcycle deaths. The power limit in France has served to increase it, though. Will that do ?

GreeBo wrote: »

Stopping road deaths is pretty simple. Lower the speed limits.

Stopping road accidents is a much harder problem involving all of the above ideas.

Well, we lowered the national limit to 80kph, and it made no difference, so what are you babbling about...?

Bambi wrote: »

So are you breaking the speed limit when you overtake?

Yes, if you exceed the posted limit. This from my Garda driving tester.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You've misinterpreted what was stated. To put it more accurately, excessive speed was a contributory cause in 12.5%. It does not say if the excessive speed involved breaking a speed limit.

It's also true to say that the speed of the vehicle is a factor in 100% of the degree of severity of injuries and liklihood of deaths.

Deliberate obfuscation on your part: excessive speed takes NO account of the posted speed limit, which is the only thing a Garda, or revenue-generator (camera) - can enforce. And you haven't quantified the contributory factor, either. If I take it as the same level as speed, generally (and why not), that's a only a 4% contribution. It doesn't make any difference what you do, there is simply no data that will get you to the all-pervasive breaking-the-speed-limit-is-the-root-of-all-evil position........and as for your closing comment, it is also true to say that obeying the speed limit was a factor in 96% of all fatal accidents.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

And how fast you hit it.

If the cyclist you refer to has not stopped behind the yield line, or indeed stopped at all, it won't matter a jot what speed was involved.

nipplenuts wrote: »

Much as I dislike having to agree with Cyclopath , you are mixing two different things here. The mantra is speed kills. And it is correct. Nobody is saying it causes the accidents, just that when the accident occurs the damage is proportionate to the speed. Or if you like, the energy expended when the speed suddenly stops.

Carelessness etc causes accidents.

Speed causes damage.

As the sarcastic will observe, you can pull out into the path of other cars at 5kmh all day long and there'll be no fatalities. you will if you're on a bicycle...ask cyclopath.....These are accidents. But do it once when they're doing 120kmh and there'll be carnage.

If this were true, cyclists wouldn't need helmets, and all F1 crashes would be fatal, given the sheer speed involved. That this is not the case proves speed is not the sole, or even major, factor in the death at all, but more that the nature of the crash, is. Two cars, small hours of the night, head on collision, wet conditions, travelling at 29mph/49kph each. Impact is now 58mph/100kmh, and you can rest assure there are fatalities. Both drivers under the speed limit, both sober. So what good is a speed limit there ? And that situation, or similar, is very common.

nipplenuts wrote: »

The fatality is due to speed

The accident due to incompetence..........

No, fatality is due to impact - either physical or inertial. Both entirely liable to kill you far below the lowest posted limit in this country. 68 drivers and 20 passengers died in Ireland in 2007 without having a seatbelt, or not-known to be wearing a seatbelt (Source: RSA 2007 Accident Fact Book) . So there you have it - to cure the biggest unknown factor of fatalities in cars - all you have to do is to rigorously enforce the seatbelt laws. It won't cost a cent, or require new laws. Just stand at any street corner, or another favourite - outside a school or shop, and give out the big tickets, say Eur 200. Per offence.

The accident is due to any number of human-being factors: tired, inattentive, mobile phone, low sun, dirty windscreen, poor eyesight, poor judgement (of speed, position), poor position. Oh, and bad luck/kharma/fate. You cannot control everything.

TheNog wrote: »

I disagree, its a question of both skill and attitude

Agreed.

stratos

easy to stop road accidents, take out the airbags and replace with sticks of dynamite. That will slow you down.

ninty9er

stratos wrote: »

easy to stop road accidents, take out the airbags and replace with sticks of dynamite. That will slow you down.

I believe the OP asked about curbing road deaths, not slowing people down!

cyclopath2001

galwaytt wrote: »

If the cyclist you refer to has not stopped behind the yield line, or indeed stopped at all, it won't matter a jot what speed was involved.

I was not referring to any cyclist. There is quite a difference to the outcome if a pedestrian is struck at 40kph and if struck at 60kph.

galwaytt wrote: »

So what good is a speed limit there ?

We need some clear way of measuring good/bad driving behaviour. Otherwise it would always be a matter of opinion and there would be no effective basis for disqualifying drivers who deliberately and persistantly break the rules. If limits are set and a driver breaks them repeatedly, either he's got an eyesight problem or a bad attitude.

We have a points system based on a variety of metrics which judge unsafe and unsocial behaviour. Let's make it work.

Calverton

I would tell them to stop setting up speed sting operations on down hill sections of road immediately after a sign indicates a decrease in speed form 80 to 50 for example. They usually to this around blind corners, and causes people to brake heavily when they see the boys in yellow jackets.

cnocbui

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yep, I missed the footnote, but the point is the same. The interpretation is still wrong.

Reducing vehicle speeds is not just about reducing the causes of accidents but also about reducing the severity of what happens when an impact occurs for whatever reason. Pro-speeders, who have a high opinion of their own car-handling skills, like to restrict the contra-speed argument simply to the causes as this suits their agenda.

The points about lower speed inciting dangerous behaviour suggest the need for psychological profiling of motorists to ensure that drivers are temperamentally suited to drive safely and considerately towards others, no matter what the imagined provocation.

German autobahns have shown quite nicely that this mantra of reducing speeds to reduce accidents is hogwash. The argument that anything faster than walking pace is intolerable is a bit of reductio ad absurdum. What do you want, men with red flags walking in front of cars? Think that has been tried.

Before you start proposing 'psychological profiling' of motorists, perhaps we could try something really insane and 'out there' like ensuring that the only people allowed to drive vehicles are people who have demonstrated an adequate profficincy to do so by obtaining an appropriate liscence.

I made a suggestion about greatly reducing the need to overtake in the first place, thus eliminating frustration and allowing reasonable and legal speeds to be maintained by the majority of road users. Your response to my suggestion implies you have serious negative issues with regards motorists. I wonder if your user name suggests a reason for that.

Cuddlesworth

Zube wrote: »

This is an odd point of view to have when road deaths have fallen enormously recently, and are still falling, year on year. 2008 had the lowest road death count since 1959 when records began.

You may argue that this ad campaign or that speeding campaign isn't responsible, but you can't argue that deaths won't be reduced when it's a fact that they are being reduced.

ever see the episode of the simpson's where they have the bear patrol? Do you think that the advertising campaign is the only reason for the decreasing figures or a huge range of external factors? Like insurance, a change of attitude towards cars, safety features etc.

Zube

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Do you think that the advertising campaign is the only reason for the decreasing figures or a huge range of external factors? Like insurance, a change of attitude towards cars, safety features etc.

Sure, but that is an entirely different argument from the one you were making, which is that deaths on the road are inevitable and we shouldn't spend money trying to reduce them.

I don't believe speed-trapping on the countries safest roads or ad campaigns aimed at boy racers which air when said boy racers are already in the pub are much help, myself, but I think money should certainly be spent to reduce road deaths.

Hermy

So if the Gardaí asked YOU how to stop road deaths, what would you tell them?

I'd ask them to have some respect for the Rules of the Road.
On far too many occassions I have seen members of An Garda Síochána show utter contempt for the very rules it is their job to enforce.
How can we have a credible road safety policy when our police force is seen to set such a poor example?

daveharnett

Independant national audit of speed limits and signage.
A mimimum of 10 lessons with a licenced instructor before learners can drive accompanied as usual.
Move the vast majority of TC to unmarked cars.
Keep the unmarked cars on the road (ie out of the hedgerows!), with an emphasis on enforcement and education of 'minor' laws (tailgating, lane discipline etc.)

None of this is terribly expensive. The audit (and implementing the changes) would probably cost 10-20 million - small potatoes really. Yes, some revenue would be lost by the speed cameras, because the 'easy money' stretches of road wouldn't exist. But I think that any loss could be recouped pretty easily from other offences - at E50 per ticket, EACH unmarked car could take in 5000 per shift for tailgating on the M50/Naas Rd until people get the message.

thebman

lol true and things such as blocking a yellow box, not indicating at a round about and breaking red lights or not approaching lights with caution.

There are a loads of little offenses which don't even get warnings at the moment which are bad driving behavior.

Distance between cars is one, inappropriate use of headlights etc... If you brought in not penalty points but just small fines for these even just 5 or 10 euro, they'd make a fortune and people would start driving better.

Its amazing but people won't drive safer to safe someone's life. Make it cost them a tenner and they become model citizens. Kind of sad really

I know some of the above might be impossible to prove but even if you can't fine them, people should be cautioned for bad behavior over and over again until it gets into their head how to behave. Its like training a dog. Of course this is necessary because our test was/is crap so since people weren't trained properly to begin with, we now must correct their behavior.

If people were just being cautioned then they wouldn't have a record for it so garda abuse wouldn't really be an issue unless they were pulling someone over for no reason over and over in which case they could be reported for it and the person could sue for distress caused by the officer. You can say that this wouldn't correct peoples driving habits but it definitely would. It works for dogs and works for humans in other situations and children so why wouldn't it work for drivers on the road?

Of course you wouldn't generate any revenue from it so the government might not like this idea.

GreeBo

Calverton wrote: »

They usually to this around blind corners, and causes people to brake heavily when they see the boys in yellow jackets.

Thats only a problem is you are up the arse of the car in front OR you are driving at an inappropriate speed for the gap you have left.
I would suggest that you both slow down and obey the 2 second rule and then it wont matter a damn.

Thanks,
Paul.

JimmyCrackCorn!

Design the roads to be safe.

German style drivers licences for all

flazio

I know some people said about fitting speed regulators in cars rendering them unable to speed. While I wouldn't want to see that in every car I think this would make a great endorsement on a convicted dangerous driver. i.e. Keep every driver innocent until proven guilty.

cyclopath2001

cnocbui wrote: »

The argument that anything faster than walking pace is intolerable is a bit of reductio ad absurdum. What do you want, men with red flags walking in front of cars? Think that has been tried.

I was wondering when this straw-man' would appear. Nobody has proposed anything of the sort. With the exception of walking in front of huge, slow-moving road-going, fire-spitting steam engines (to warn horses), the red-man thing never happened. It was the modern equivalent of a pilot car preceding a wide load. But, I can see the myth lives on.

cnocbui wrote: »

Before you start proposing 'psychological profiling' of motorists, perhaps we could try something really insane and 'out there' like ensuring that the only people allowed to drive vehicles are people who have demonstrated an adequate profficincy to do so by obtaining an appropriate liscence.

And who have a considerate and caring attitude towards others?

cnocbui wrote: »

Your response to my suggestion implies you have serious negative issues with regards motorists.

Only with motorists who break traffic light, lane-use, parking, speed, overtaking, indicating, cell-phone laws or who don't show consideration for others......the rest I have no problem with.

vibe666

Garda TC should be making a big effort to enforce basic road safety and the rules of the road, followed by modelling the irish driving test on the best of the rest of europe. the information is already out there on what makes for safe drivers, someone just needs to get off their a$$ and do something about it.

HashSlinging

A lot of road deaths have to do with basic road design, the rural roads in Ireland are very antiquated and are not suited to modern cars. Most are just about wide enough for trucks.

Edit. So theres very little the Gardai can do about it, except police the roads..

...stephen...

im 17 and drive a 08 range rover, i no alot of people are going to complan. but its not the speed limit is to slow or anything. But in the range rover there is no real difference between 50mph and 80 90mph it all feels the same init and its does stop a hell of alot faster than any of the small cars, i tell you a hell of alot faster. I drove one of them small **** cars for my driving test 06 hondajazz, man you can really not get it to 60 let alone over it.. So if your going fast in that you are pushing it, where in the jeep your not even trying at 80 or so, and you feel alot faster 2:D

Tragedy

You're 17 and drive an 08 range rover, why are you measuring everything in MPH?

barry-

just wondering what insurance company insures you to drive a range rover at 17?

Zube

...stephen... wrote: »

in the range rover there is no real difference between 50mph and 80 90mph it all feels the same init and its does stop a hell of alot faster than any of the small cars, i tell you a hell of alot faster.

You are simply wrong.

With a 60 mph stopping distance of 119 feet for the RR, 133 for a Honda Jazz, there is only a 12% difference. The RRs stopping distance at 65 mph will equal the Jazz's 133 feet at 60.

crocro

...stephen... wrote: »

im 17 and drive a 08 range rover, i no alot of people are going to complan. but its not the speed limit is to slow or anything. But in the range rover there is no real difference between 50mph and 80 90mph it all feels the same init and its does stop a hell of alot faster than any of the small cars, i tell you a hell of alot faster. I drove one of them small **** cars for my driving test 06 hondajazz, man you can really not get it to 60 let alone over it.. So if your going fast in that you are pushing it, where in the jeep your not even trying at 80 or so, and you feel alot faster 2:D

I think the conclusion here is that a child should not be allowed to drive a car.

seamus

...stephen... wrote: »

it all feels the same init and its does stop a hell of alot faster than any of the small cars, i tell you a hell of alot faster.

Stephen, one thing you may not have considered is your own reaction speed.

If you're doing 100kph, and it takes you 0.5 seconds to react to a hazard and hit your brakes (very reasonable for an alert 17 year-old), then before you even press the brake pedal, the vehicle will have travelled nearly 30 metres. That's 90 feet. And that's 90 feet regardless of what vehicle you're driving.

The stopping distance of a RR at 60mph is 119 feet. Which gives a total braking distance of 209 feet in a RR. If the Jazz's stopping distance is 133 feet, then that 223 feet is less than 7% slower than the Range Rover.

It's not insignificant - but it's not nearly enough to say, "It's ok to go faster in a Range Rover because it stops quicker". In reality the difference is barely the length of two cars and it's very rare that there's that kind of distance between "crash" and "don't crash".

goldenbrown

no new car can be sold after 2011 which can exceed 120 kph unless it is a recognized public emergency vehicle, (police, Fire, ambulance etc.)...

Cuddlesworth

goldenbrown wrote: »

no new car can be sold after 2011 which can exceed 120 kph unless it is a recognized public emergency vehicle, (police, Fire, ambulance etc.)...

This really annoys me. There are hundreds of roads in this country with 80kph and 100kph limits which I could easily kill myself and others on.

Germany have proved that on appropriate roads increased or unlimited speeds are not something to be afraid of.

Fran Costello

flazio wrote: »

What are your suggestions for the fairest most equal way to police our roads and put a stop to unnecessary road deaths?

Essentially if we want to cut out road deaths we need to look again at manufacture. Why build machines which can go much faster than legal?

It's the equivalent of producing stereos but banning playing them beyond 7.

Humans will always push technology to its limits and therefore the limitations need to be considered at manufacture stage.

Carlow52

goldenbrown wrote: »

no new car can be sold after 2011 which can exceed 120 kph unless it is a recognized public emergency vehicle, (police, Fire, ambulance etc.)...

That list of exemption include ministerial cars?

Zube

Fran Costello wrote: »

Essentially if we want to cut out road deaths we need to look again at manufacture. Why build machines which can go much faster than legal?

How many road deaths last year were caused by people driving at more than 120 km/hr?

If a cars max speed is a major cause of deaths, whay have road deaths dropped to less than half what they were in the 70s while cars have grown faster and faster?

thebman

crocro wrote: »

I think the conclusion here is that a child should not be allowed to drive a car.

At least not unaccompanied.

Don't think it is only kids that have this attitude either. A lot of people simply don't understand braking distances or don't care in which case they need to wake up.

Stephen, do you have your full license because I hope your parents aren't with you when your doing those speeds and thinking it is okay.

thebman

goldenbrown wrote: »

no new car can be sold after 2011 which can exceed 120 kph unless it is a recognized public emergency vehicle, (police, Fire, ambulance etc.)...

Read the thread it has been done to death already.

...stephen...

crocro wrote: »

I think the conclusion here is that a child should not be allowed to drive a car.

This "child" as you put it is prob a better driver than yourself.(and im not trying to be cocky) I learned how to drive the right way,moving machines, towing cars trailers, pulling massive loads on quads, driving forklifts, driving different types of machines like tractors,teliporters,dumpers so fort....Ever had a signal accdent tip or even scratch and i have been doing this for about the last 5 years. Okay i dont know i always seem to be able to pull up alot faster. maybe different roads conditions or something.Its a commercial vechical... and when its on a fleet it costs me 0 euro to go on it. With like six other cars.

Zube

...stephen... wrote: »

im not trying to be cocky

but you're 17, so you can't help it. All youngsters think they are brilliant drivers. This is precisely why young drivers get such savage loading on insurance.

After you've written off a couple of cars you may get some sense, if you're still able to drive.

horrible island

Can anyone tell me was there a Gatso van parked behind the hedge just after the lights on the Concolbert Rd yesterday evening at 5PM?

dyl10

Ban Cars...