I'm all for child safety having two of my own, but I do feel they are taking the michael at the moment. Warrington is becoming horrendous to drive through at any time of the day now. There just seems to be no planning at all and Warrington has some of the worst traffic lights I've ever seen. Long Lane is a prime example, driving from Hilden Road to say PC World would probably take 15 minutes once you've sat at those never changing lights for 5 minutes watching no cars go anywhere then crawled along Long Lane at sub 20 mph to join the queue to the lights onto Winwick Road which are horrific. When the Long Lane traffic finally goes to green the lights on the roundabout then go to red meaning 2 cars max can get through.

20mph on Long Lane is fine at school time and when kids are out vandalising cars and getting trollied, but when you drive down there at 2am and the plank in front of you is doing 19 mph it just becomes a tad annoying.

cruising long lane for orfords finest at 2am eh?

Technically speeding didn't kill the child, the child running out into the road killed him. Educate children better about road safety. Contraversial viewpoint, i understand, but i'm sick of the owness being put on the driver.

No it doesn't. I was doing 90mph on the motorway the other day, and nearly all my driving life have done so. Haven't killed a single person. Inappropriate speed kills. If i was doing 90mph down Long Lane, now that would be dangerous. This is the part that annoys me about the "speeding tax" that seems to be implied on drivers. I drive a little quicker than maybe i should. Who's more dangerous? Myself, or the 80yr old granny with the reaction times of an oil tanker? The way to stop poor driving is regular retests. If you can't pass regular standard checks, you can't drive. Driving is a privelidge, not a neccessity.

Or the driver losing control and driving onto the pavement?

Or if the car had been going 20mph then the child would not have been killed.

What is the difference in braking distance between 70 and 90 mph?

Depends what car you are driving surely? Doing it in an old car, it would be horrendous. Doing it in a modern car, with further uprated brakes, and its not going to be much different to a standard car. Again, the point is being missed. If everyone leaves enough space to the car in front, we could all do 140+mph safely. However, some idiots drive too close to be doing 40mph let alone 70mph. I appreciate the point you are making, and i'm not excusing poor driving, but to point the finger of blame at speed alone is simply ridiculous.



Again, if the driver is on the pavement, then its not speed killing is it? If you can't keep a car on the road at 30mph, then frankly, you shouldn't be driving. As with the 20mph thing, i have absolutley no problem whatsoever with limits like that being put in place outside schools and playgrounds, i'd drop them even further, but why they should be enforced outside of these hours is ridiculous.

You are just trying to create here.

I expect you are, because you seem to have the attitude that you are a great and safe driver, and can therefore drive safely at higher speeds than most other people.

The 80 year old granny probably knows she is a bad driver and therefore drives very slowly. Even if she does hit a pedestrian she is going so slowly they will probably not be killed.

I can't remember the exact stats but it's something like 80% chance of dying if hit at 40mph, 20% if hit at 20mph. Therefore the answer to your question is pretty obvious really, isn't it.

Once again, quoting convenient government stats at me that aren't relevant to my point. I don't class myself as a great driver. Can i control a car? Yes. Better than some drivers? Yes. Thats why i enjoy doing track days etc..they allow you to test yourself in demanding situations. Do i drive like i do on the track, on the road? No. Thats why i go to a track to do it. The point i am making is that speed alone DOES NOT KILL. If i'm driving down an empty road at 4am in the morning as i often do on my way to fishing, and i'm doing 50mph in 40mph zone, am i likely to kill anyone? No. If i stop at a red light, and there's nothing coming, i drive through. Oh no, i've jumped a red light. Did anyone die? No. Its sweeping generalisations that are just wrong, hence my statement about "inappropriate speeding kills". If i do 40mph outside a school during school ours, then thats just reckless, as it would be if i did it in a resedential area. Everyday i see so much much dangerous driving its unbelievable. Undertaking, tailgating, using mobile phones, smoking, dangerous speeding, and combinations of them all. Does a speed camera or a copper with a camera catch any of this? No, and i'll guarantee that those driving styles contribute to more accidents every year than out and out speed.

You can't have a set a rules that obey you when it suits though. That would be silly.

Timmy, from what you are saying, you are quite simply a reckless driver. Believe me, speed does kill. Try picking up the body of a 16 year old girl who's just been killed by a speeding driver. Going through a red light because you can't see anything coming is quite simply reckless. People with an attitude like yours should simply not be on the road.

Drinking and driving doesn't kill. I could drink 10 pints and drive at 80mph and I'd be fine. Its colliding with something that kills. And yet its drink driving thats the offence.....why not make it colliding thats the offence...?

You would be fine until you hit something. Then you wouldn't be watching the Wire for about 5-10 years.

Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed does.

And yes someone being knocked over can quite easily be to blame (speed in this case can be irrelevant). You could be doing 10mph in a 30 zone and hit some one who wanders into the road (for whatever reason) and run them over; they may die. It doesn't stop them being at fault though.