Murder. Not Dangerous Driving. Not reckless driving etc etc . Murder.

It means nothing that he was driving the car as there was obviously intent on the part of Spaven. The car was a means to an end in the same way as if he used a knife, gun or other weapon. 

I saw this on the BBC News webpage.

Absolutely horrible of course, as is any murder.

ATB from George

Steve J posted:

It means nothing that he was driving the car as there was obviously intent on the part of Spaven. The car was a means to an end in the same way as if he used a knife, gun or other weapon. 

That's my point Steve. It clearly differentiates murder, in which the car is the weapon and the driver intends to cause death, from carelessness, negligence, inattention etc in which the driver has no intention to cause death.

Unfortunately, the net result for a cyclist or pedestrian when dealing with a murderous or inattentive driver is much the same! Either way it is bad luck ...

Car drivers really often have never thought quite how dangerous a car can be to other road users. So dangerous that apparently a murderer has decided that the car would make a suitable weapon ...

ATB from George

Driving is the single most dangerous thing we do on a regular basis. It is the thing we do that is most likely to kill our family, our friends, ourselves, as well as innocent bystanders. Yet too many drivers don't take this grave reponsibility seriously. They drive whilst distracted and undertake all sorts of other unsafe behaviours such as speeding and other impatient behavours.

That our road toll had plummeted is not due to improvement in driving standards. Dramatic reduction in drunk driving was one positive, but sadly now has effectively been replaced by text-driving). The credit for the reduction in road toll goes to a combination of better roads (where drivers trade much of the improved safety for increased speeds) and much safer cars.

I wish that speed limits were set more sensibly. 120/130 is far too low most of the time.

Bananahead posted:

I wish that speed limits were set more sensibly. 120/130 is far too low most of the time.

I know you're trolling a bit, but "far too low" for what?

Take off?

I changed my driving practices after a speed awareness course I attended.  The bit that really hit home was the statistic they put up to justify the speed limit being 30 in urban areas the gist of which was if you hit someone at 30mph or less they have a good chance of surviving, beyond that speed the risks of death increase very rapidly so even an increase to 35mph caused an exponential rise in the death rate.

That was enough evidence for me, although personally I think there is an argument for a higher motorway speed limit when roads are dry and conditions are good.

J

Jonathan Gorse posted:

.....personally I think there is an argument for a higher motorway speed limit when roads are dry and conditions are good.

J

 

To what effect? The current speed limit is too safe?

winkyincanada posted:

Bananahead posted:

I wish that speed limits were set more sensibly. 120/130 is far too low most of the time.

I know you're trolling a bit, but "far too low" for what?

My car will hit its restricted speed fairly easily and will also stop quite adequately. It is only for a short portion of my regular journey that I can use that performance legally. I would like variable speed limits to work both ways. Reduce them for heavy traffic and bad weather but increase them for light traffic. 180 seems reasonable.

Bananahead posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Bananahead posted:

I wish that speed limits were set more sensibly. 120/130 is far too low most of the time.

I know you're trolling a bit, but "far too low" for what?

My car will hit its restricted speed fairly easily and will also stop quite adequately. It is only for a short portion of my regular journey that I can use that performance legally. I would like variable speed limits to work both ways. Reduce them for heavy traffic and bad weather but increase them for light traffic. 180 seems reasonable.

Buy a slower car? Book yourself a track day? I don't see the justification for reducing the your safety and that of others so you can enjoy your car's performance.

winkyincanada posted:

Bananahead posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Bananahead posted:

I wish that speed limits were set more sensibly. 120/130 is far too low most of the time.

I know you're trolling a bit, but "far too low" for what?

My car will hit its restricted speed fairly easily and will also stop quite adequately. It is only for a short portion of my regular journey that I can use that performance legally. I would like variable speed limits to work both ways. Reduce them for heavy traffic and bad weather but increase them for light traffic. 180 seems reasonable.

Buy a slower car? Book yourself a track day? I don't see the justification for reducing the your safety and that of others so you can enjoy your car's performance.

Of course you don't. You have a strange view of these things.

It's only an argument about degree. There are speed limits. Reducing them may increase safety. Increasing them may reduce safety. But only by small percentages. And not even back to the risk profile of what was decided to be acceptable when the limits were first set.

If you want to increase your own safety then buy a better car. Or use different roads. Or don't drive.

Bananahead posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Bananahead posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Bananahead posted:

I wish that speed limits were set more sensibly. 120/130 is far too low most of the time.

I know you're trolling a bit, but "far too low" for what?

My car will hit its restricted speed fairly easily and will also stop quite adequately. It is only for a short portion of my regular journey that I can use that performance legally. I would like variable speed limits to work both ways. Reduce them for heavy traffic and bad weather but increase them for light traffic. 180 seems reasonable.

Buy a slower car? Book yourself a track day? I don't see the justification for reducing the your safety and that of others so you can enjoy your car's performance.

Of course you don't. You have a strange view of these things.

It's only an argument about degree. There are speed limits. Reducing them may increase safety. Increasing them may reduce safety. But only by small percentages. And not even back to the risk profile of what was decided to be acceptable when the limits were first set.

If you want to increase your own safety then buy a better car. Or use different roads. Or don't drive.

So you suggest I should buy a different car, avoid roads on which you and those like you choose to race along, or simply give up driving altogether? To accommodate your wish to drive faster? I'm not sure it is me who has a strange view of this. Actually, your view isn't strange at all. It's simply arrogant and selfish.

Reducing speed limits WILL increase safety. Increasing then WILL reduce safety. That's not a point for debate. But yep, it's an argument about degree of cost and benefit. The debate is whether your thrills are more important than others' safety.

Winky,

I don't recall bananahead stating that he would like to drive at 180 for thrills. Where did this come from ?

Jonathan Gorse posted:

I changed my driving practices after a speed awareness course I attended.  The bit that really hit home was the statistic they put up to justify the speed limit being 30 in urban areas the gist of which was if you hit someone at 30mph or less they have a good chance of surviving, beyond that speed the risks of death increase very rapidly so even an increase to 35mph caused an exponential rise in the death rate.

That was enough evidence for me, although personally I think there is an argument for a higher motorway speed limit when roads are dry and conditions are good.

J

 

ISTR that a year or so ago the Gov was considering raising the Motorway speed limit from 70mph to 80mph. This seems to have evaporated.

I haven't heard of any proposal for 112mph (180km/h) and I don't think too many sections of the UK motorway system would be safe at 112mph even in the dry and at night, when traffic is light.

BTW I bumped into one of your training captains a couple of times this past month, Rob Hurst. But I forgot to ask him if you knew each other.

Don Atkinson posted:

Winky,

I don't recall bananahead stating that he would like to drive at 180 for thrills. Where did this come from ?

 

 

No, to be fair he hasn't said why he wants to drive at that speed. Maybe he's just in a hurry. There does seem to be something about getting behind the wheel that makes people impatient.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Winky,

I don't recall bananahead stating that he would like to drive at 180 for thrills. Where did this come from ?

 

 

No, to be fair he hasn't said why he wants to drive at that speed. Maybe he's just in a hurry. There does seem to be something about getting behind the wheel that makes people impatient.

Man's natural way of getting from A to B is on foot.

Our anscecters domesticated horses which allowed us to travel further and faster.

Even bicycles(*) and trains were designed with both speed and distance in mind, together with less effort than walking.

Cars are no different. Its nothing to do with impatience. Its convenience and practicality. (*) I presume that's why you cycle from N Vancouver and down Robson each day rather than walk - nothing to do with impatience ?

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Winky,

I don't recall bananahead stating that he would like to drive at 180 for thrills. Where did this come from ?

 

 

No, to be fair he hasn't said why he wants to drive at that speed. Maybe he's just in a hurry. There does seem to be something about getting behind the wheel that makes people impatient.

Man's natural way of getting from A to B is on foot.

Our anscecters domesticated horses which allowed us to travel further and faster.

Even bicycles(*) and trains were designed with both speed and distance in mind, together with less effort than walking.

Cars are no different. Its nothing to do with impatience. Its convenience and practicality. (*) I presume that's why you cycle from N Vancouver and down Robson each day rather than walk - nothing to do with impatience ?

It has everything to do with impatience. Unless it is for a thrill, what other reason is there for wanting to do 180 on a public road?

Impatience would also be the guy that overtook a line of three cars (and me) on a narrow blind uphill curve on a wet road tonight. Horn blaring the whole way. Riding my bicycle doesn't count as impatience.

winkyincanada posted:

Bananahead posted:

If you want to increase your own safety then buy a better car. Or use different roads. Or don't drive.

So you suggest I should buy a different car, avoid roads on which you and those like you choose to race along, or simply give up driving altogether? To accommodate your wish to drive faster? I'm not sure it is me who has a strange view of this. Actually, your view isn't strange at all. It's simply arrogant and selfish.

Except that I didn't suggest that.

I suggested that today you have a choice.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Winky,

I don't recall bananahead stating that he would like to drive at 180 for thrills. Where did this come from ?

 

 

No, to be fair he hasn't said why he wants to drive at that speed. Maybe he's just in a hurry. There does seem to be something about getting behind the wheel that makes people impatient.

Again.

I didn't say that I want to drive at 180.

I suggested that 180 would be a sensible speed limit for when the conditions allow for it.

Wow, 180 (112 mph) seems extremely fast to me. Unnecessarily fast. In the US most states have a max of 70 mph, less in congested areas, and some desolate highways allow 80 mph as conditions permit. I remember traveling on the Autobahn as a passenger 27 years ago. The whole thing was a white knuckle experience for me as an American passenger while my German host continued casual conversation driving in the left lane with his blinker on at speeds of 100-120 mph. Driving at high speeds may have some cultural acceptance at places in Europe, but there's no arguing that reaction times and crash impacts are governed by universal physics.

Bananahead posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Bananahead posted:

If you want to increase your own safety then buy a better car. Or use different roads. Or don't drive.

So you suggest I should buy a different car, avoid roads on which you and those like you choose to race along, or simply give up driving altogether? To accommodate your wish to drive faster? I'm not sure it is me who has a strange view of this. Actually, your view isn't strange at all. It's simply arrogant and selfish.

Except that I didn't suggest that.

I suggested that today you have a choice.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Winky,

I don't recall bananahead stating that he would like to drive at 180 for thrills. Where did this come from ?

 

 

No, to be fair he hasn't said why he wants to drive at that speed. Maybe he's just in a hurry. There does seem to be something about getting behind the wheel that makes people impatient.

Man's natural way of getting from A to B is on foot.

Our anscecters domesticated horses which allowed us to travel further and faster.

Even bicycles(*) and trains were designed with both speed and distance in mind, together with less effort than walking.

Cars are no different. Its nothing to do with impatience. Its convenience and practicality. (*) I presume that's why you cycle from N Vancouver and down Robson each day rather than walk - nothing to do with impatience ?

It has everything to do with impatience. Unless it is for a thrill, what other reason is there for wanting to do 180 on a public road?

Impatience would also be the guy that overtook a line of three cars (and me) on a narrow blind uphill curve on a wet road tonight. Horn blaring the whole way. Riding my bicycle doesn't count as impatience.

Winky,

There are exceptions to everything.

Driving a car at 30mph in town isn't per se impatience. Its convenience and practicality.

Ditto 70mph on a motorway when the conditions allow. Or 80mph or even 112mph.

Last night I walked home from town, about 3.5 miles along the canal towpath. I lost count of the number of impatient, aggressive cyclists who rang their bells and expected me to move aside so that they could pass without delay ! That definitely was impatience. But generally, cyclists are no more impatient than motorists, and motorists per se are not impatient. Some are. but just because they drive a car, does not necessarily make them impatient or aggressive.

If the intension is to use a car specifically as a weapon to kill or harm someone it's of little concern if the vehicle in question has a top speed of 80mph or 180mph.

Just getting back on topic : )

Debs

naim_nymph posted:

If the intension is to use a car specifically as a weapon to kill or harm someone it's of little concern if the vehicle in question has a top speed of 80mph or 180mph.

Just getting back on topic : )

Debs

It's an interesting subject maybe.

If you wished to kill someone with a car then what is the best model to use?