Well of course you are going to have less injuries at 20mph. I think we should reduce it even further to 5mph
This is often done on private property such as car parks. Some people think speeding is OK as long as it's on public roads
Well of course you are going to have less injuries at 20mph. I think we should reduce it even further to 5mph
Lons":1t2a1tqa said:Anyway this is becoming decidedly boring now :lol:
Bob
Finial":33ni9sxx said:.... One reason there are now so few pedestrians and bike riders on the road is the fact that drivers speed.
Finial":1n74z9e2 said:I understand your point. But, and without any personal criticism, it isn't just you in your car exposed to the risk. Modern cars have all sorts of protection for the occupants, can stop quicker and so on. They feel safe to drive. That all encourages risk taking and faster driving. I ride a bike and know that doesn't feel safe. Thousands of bike riders (and pedestrians) are injured every year. I know what it feels like to be hit by a car and I don't like it. I ride defensively, but bad drivers object to that. I want bad driving firmly discouraged. Call it the nanny state if you like, but it sounds good to me. I wouldn't care about people driving fast if it was just them at risk. But it isn't.
Obviously not a very good driving simulator then, as it contradicts all the evidence found in the real world.RogerS":39niv3gr said:Thats an interesting link, Phill. I was intrigued to pick up reference to this study which seems to belie one line of reasoning adopted by some.
A 1994 study by Jeremy Jackson and Roger Blackman using a driving simulator, reported that increased speed limits and a reduction of speeding fines had significantly increased driving speed but resulted in no change in the accident frequency. It also showed that increased accident cost caused large and significant reductions in accident frequency but no change in speed choice. The abstract states that the results suggest that regulation of specific risky behaviors such as speed choice may have little influence on accident rates.[22]
MMUK":1cgt0i0u said:You're up early, did you wet the bed again?
MIGNAL":2b2odhuw said:MMUK":2b2odhuw said:You're up early, did you wet the bed again?
That was a quick edit MMUK. You first typed something about Jacob being a troll.
How ironic.
clk230":2ealbga2 said:MMUK- You seem to have a personal dislike of Jacob (which you entitled to) but your personal insults towards him leave a very bad smell across the forum IMO.
DrPhill":3iy2eqv1 said:clk230":3iy2eqv1 said:MMUK- You seem to have a personal dislike of Jacob (which you entitled to) but your personal insults towards him leave a very bad smell across the forum IMO.
The 'ad hominen' attacks are disappointing though, I wish we could live without them. They lower the tone and taint the forum.
Finial":d2tktpf2 said:Sorry, I missed where Jacob attacked anyone personally rather than just their argument. What page was that on?
Jacob":d2tktpf2 said:3
YOU are just thick!
MMUK":3qfz57m8 said:DrPhill":3qfz57m8 said:clk230":3qfz57m8 said:MMUK- You seem to have a personal dislike of Jacob (which you entitled to) but your personal insults towards him leave a very bad smell across the forum IMO.
The 'ad hominen' attacks are disappointing though, I wish we could live without them. They lower the tone and taint the forum.
In that case maybe you should be directing your concerns to the instigator of these arguments then.
This has been going on a long time before I started posting on this forum and I gather that said person has been banned from pretty much every other forum. It's not hard to see why.
Enter your email address to join: