A risk analysis of speeding

I don't think they will... ^ as above, I am quiet useless at arranging things and when my dad said to me "What do you want for xmas?" I said "An Advanced driving course" (Not that seeing M3 after M3 smashed up on Fab Direct wasn't a sobering sight)

Maybe sometime this year (when the roads are a bit warmer)

I was offered a discounted IAM course a couple of years ago as I was under 21.... �30!!! I thought he was taking the michael, so I left it.

Should have just bought it. It's now �80 and I keep hinting at relatives around birthday time because I really want to do it...

Its never going to happen though spokey, so its just on with the push to get people to do it volunterily.

May I organise you an assessment drive ?

Its a basic test.

Like everything else, it needs practise.

Lots & lots of very good training out there for peanuts.

How about ( this is never going to happen, but here goes), any current licenced drivers will have their entitlement to drive removed on 31/12/06, unless they can produce a recognised advanced driving certificate.

That tough enough for you ?

this is the problem these people are not shown the rules of the motorway how to drive what the signs are what to do if you break down, but because they demonstrated they can drive carefully at 28mph around town,we let them on the motorways because they have every right to be there.

then when theres and rta we can all say its speed its careless but what it is is negligence on behalf of the powers to be allowing this in the first place

another roundabout thread I see.

Just so it doesn't get left out, every single camera system, and everything that doesn't involve an immediate stop, only ever hits the majority of (generally) law-abiding citizens.

Those who are: insured, correctly registered, etc.

As per ususal, Johnny chav -who picked up a dog for a 'couple of ton' and can't even write his own name, let alone fill in a V5 - gets off scot-free.

Fantastic system you advocate!   

spokey wrote: Nigel wrote: How about, scameras have absolutely nothing to do with road safety. They are there to enforce the law...period. Now what arguement do you have ? That would be a lovely statement of the truth. Apart from the bit it's missing: "And collect more revenue from motorists." The arbitrary nature of the law leaves me with little doubt that it is unfair and unjust. It is very easy for your speed to vary by a couple of MPH. You might get a cramp, or sneeze, or whatever, and in that second, you could get snapped. What do you say when a road has had NO accidents on it, but because of activism, the speed limit gets dropped by 10 MPH? Yesterday, I was doing 60 safely and responsibly on this road, today, on the same stretch of road in the same conditions, I'm a crazy law-breaker, exceeding the speed limit by 20%!! The whole problem for me is that speeding is criminalised because the government is unwilling to expend a bit of effort and make us all better, safer, smoother drivers; and keep us like that. The philosophy is NOT "let's make better drivers", it's "we can't be @rsed to do anything about making it better, so let's just make it slower." The problem with this approach is that it further defers the issue and makes an actual correction even less likely. I really would not be surprised within my lifetime to find a ridiculous blanket speed limit, like 40MPH and there will STILL be idiots killing themselves because they still can't drive and there will still be pious, sanctimonious morons like Transport 2000 advocating even slower limits. So, starting from the perspective that the philosophy is wrong, the law that "defends" the philosophy is also wrong, then the enforcement of that law is ALSO wrong. Cameras enforce the law, I can't argue with that. I can argue with the value of the law, though. I can argue with the arbitrary nature of the law, as well. I can definitely argue with the reasoning behind the law as well.

Spot on Spokey