A man on the radio just now was disgusted after being fined and getting three points for reading a text on the motorway. He was only checking to see who it was from - he wasn’t talking or anything! Maybe people should get points for demonstrating they have no sense.
And then there’s the guy who uses his mobile at 100mph on the motorway because he’s been driving for 42 years without an accident, but it’s ok because he’s in a big, fast Volvo (his words). I just don’t know how you justify that to yourself. What is it with the bravado that goes with driving dangerously? The number of people who give me smug little smiles while explaining how fast they’ve driven, or that they use their phone…
If somebody steps out in front of me and dies, I’ll spend the rest of my life wishing it hadn’t happened. If I’m going too fast, or on the phone, I’ll spend the rest of my life knowing they might still be alive if I’d been obeying the law. It’s a complete no-brainer - I’m in control of a massive machine travelling at high velocity only metres away from fragile beings: the onus is entirely on me to do everything I can to be safe, and my judgement is nothing compared to qualified road safety experts.
I’ve been called a ‘goody-goody’ when people discover I only drive speed limits after asking questions that assume I go as fast I possibly can. I’m fed up of this. I like the exhilaration of speed as much as the next guy, but there is no justification for putting yourself above other people on public roads because “it’s quiet”, or “the houses are set back”, or my favourite “I have to keep up with traffic”. It sometimes seems like most men1 are incapable of making this distinction, but maybe that’s unfair. Thus far I’ve quietly fumed when people look down their noses at me, but one day I’m going to react badly.
Man, some issues get me annoyed rather quickly. I should stop listening to the Jeremy Vine show 
I shall have some lunch and calm down.
- let’s face it, it’s normally men [↩]
-----
15 Responses to “Mobile phones and driving” 
-----
Leave a Reply
Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.Where am I?
You are currently reading the wongaBlog weblog archives - hello!
Recent Comments 
-
- Andrew: I could live with that.
- Andrew: Maybe any combination of letters that isn’t any other word should mean ‘manoeuvre’. Sure,...
- Andrew: That’s fair enough. I admit I was less sure about the i-before-e stuff, but I thought the attitude...
- Andrew: I disagree. I mean, sure there are common spelling ‘errors’ that should be adopted —...
- Lauren: I was wondering why you hadn’t said much about it. Glad you liked it.
Latest Posts
Subscribe
Values
Stats!
- Since October 2003 there have been 2,966 posts and 4,779 comments. Akismet, meanwhile, has nuked 57,836 spam attempts.
OK, driving at 40 on a 40 road is fine. I can understand why people want to adhere to speed limits. But there’s just something which drives me crazy about people doing 34-35 on a 40 road. It’s 40!! The one that always gets me is coming out of Henley on Arden towards the M42…village dwellers just love driving 10-15% under the speed limit. I can hear them mumbling through their boiled sweets to their cagooled wife…”better to be safe than sorry.”
You’re still safe AT 40!
Errrr, hello? A 40mph is the *maximum* speed, it is *not* a target! Suggest you get your highway code out!
Ah yes, the famous “40 mile speed limit” argument.
Look, like Lynsey says it’s not a target. Face it: there are circumstances in which the driving conditions dictate that 40 may be ludicrously fast on a road even though the speed limit allows you to go that speed. As our Mr Wongablog also points out, in an argument between cars and people, people come off worse most times (except by sheer luck). And that includes people in other cars/vehicles. In fact, as my partner says, doesn’t driving one of those big SUV style cars just mean you have crap driving skills (I need them bull-bars) and have a very small appendage? I digress…
The point is that driving safely involves constant vigilance and monitoring of other idiots on the road (and elsewhere). Doing stuff that distracts from focusing on the task just sucks of stupidity. And using the excuse of “I’m safe” doesn’t work. It isn’t a race.
If there is good visibility, a dry road and you’ve got a brain there should be no problem in driving AT the speed limit - making it quicker for all while staying within safety limits. If the highway code dictates I can drive at 40 under certain conditions and I drive at thirty then there’s really no argument, I’m holding everyone up unnecessarily. People can bag their shopping in slo-mo at the checkout - of course there’s no rush but you are nevertheless pissing a helluva lotta people off.
The pedestrian vs. car thing doesn’t really hold water either. There are many measures in place to prevent pedestrians from being hurt which should be adhered to as strictly as speed limits for drivers - if the pedestrian doesn’t and the driver cannot stop in time while travelling at a lawful speed then I’m afraid that is the fault of the pedestrian. true enough the pedestrian doesn’t deserve to die for his stupidity but then again the driver doesn’t deserve to die for speeding.
I believe that if restrictions against PEDESTRIANS are increased - such as fines for jaywalking etc. in proportion to those placed upon motorists, the accident rate would undoubetly decrease. I don’t know about you guys but my parents always told me to KEEP OFF THE ROAD because big nasty cars that could hurt you move along them.
And the same applies to motorist to motorist. I’m referring generally to the highway code, taking into account decreasing speed in bad conditions, it’s the people who take it much further than this on top of the laws designed to keep us safe.
When you think that if everyone drove at 20 mph, virtually nobody would be killed on the roads (either drivers or pedestrians), don’t so many of these other objections pale into insignificance, Paroxysm?
Well if we’re going to go that slow we could all buy a bicycle. Cars are designed to get us there faster than any other widely available transport, 20mph would make them largely redundant. You can hardly blame society, life expectancy would significantly increase without McDonalds but it’s convenient and stress free. The government need to be the ones who set the example - and not by punishing or criticzing those acting within their jurisdiction but by imposing restrictions and tightening existing laws at all levels of the legal process. Furthermore it’s the government’s duty to do this! Individual choice in this case as in the case of global warming is bound to fail. The people of this country cannot be expected to get the spoon in their mouth (and shouldn’t be) so crack out the bib Labour!
…anywayyy
“If somebody steps out in front of me and dies, I’ll spend the rest of my life wishing it hadn’t happened. If I’m going too fast, or on the phone, I’ll spend the rest of my life knowing they might still be alive if I’d been obeying the law”
Perfectly put - exactly how I feel! Everyone at work thinks I’m weird because I don’t have points on my licence(!)
How do you plan on enforcing the ‘fine for Jaywalking’ bit? We have the all important red route where I live and nobody has ever enforced that.
By the way, I feel totally comfortable as a passenger when Andrew’s driving because I know he sticks to the speed limit. If you think about it, every time you get into a car, you’re putting your life in the hands of the driver. Nobody’s thought about the helpless passenger yet.
I agree that people should drive within the speed limits, but also close enough to the speed limits that it doesn’t cause a danger to other drivers that the driver is driving too slowly.
Example: OAP driving down station road at 15mph. Everyone driving has to slow (suddenly) right down. They then want to overtake, which is often tricky around there. That causes problems too. (They were actually arrested for dangerous driving.)
That’s also why I think that speed cameras can be seen as dangerous; many people slow down suddenly before the speed cameras. I think that this is probably out-weighed by the benefits of people driving more slowly.
Interesting point made:
===========================================================================================
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/2002/rcas/pdf/rcas01.pdf
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/2002/vsgb/pdf/vsgb.pdf
Logical proof that speeding does not kill in 99% of cases:
* 15,704 child pedestrians injured in accidents in 2001.
* 107 child pedestrians killed in 2001.
* 65% of cars in 30mph zones free-travel at over 30mph.
Therefore
* 10,207 vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a free travelling speed of more than 30mph.
* Assuming that all the child pedestrians were killed by drivers who free travel at over 30mph, we still have 10,100 left who were not killed by cars that have a free travelling speed of over 30mph.
Conclusion
Out of 10,207 cases where cars use a free travelling speed of over 30mph AND had accidents with child pedestrians 10,100 survived. We know for sure that speeding didn’t kill in all these cases where the children survived. In the remaining 107 it is possible that speeding killed. The 107 who tragically died are just 1% of the total.
===========================================================================================
Comment: got to take into account really good healthcare! I thought that the above was interesting.
I’d be interested to see what the dead rates / accident rates were on the German Autobahns / roads on the Isle of Man. Anyone?
Does anyone remember that study about the actual speed your car shows in relation to what your car is actually going. In tests on Top Gear I think that they showed one car reporting it was travelling at 30 whereas it was actually driving at 37 mph.
“How do you plan on enforcing the ‘fine for Jaywalking’ bit? We have the all important red route where I live and nobody has ever enforced that.”
Blanket fine: fine everyone called J?
This sounded cool, so I wanted to add it:
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Speed doesn’t kill people, people kill people.
At the end of the day you should drive safely, and follow the speed limits. They’re there for a reason. It’s your responsibility if you are driving too fast / inappropriately, and unfortunately people tend to learn the hard way.
Yeah i’m now a big advocate of staying within the speed limit, but having someone going at 35mph on a country road in good weather conditions, when vehicles will often be approaching it from behind at speeds averaging 60mph is dangerous. I particularly dislike inappropriate 30 zones on major thoroughfares where the speed limit is enforced by lampposts but there is no residential area nearby or the footpath is safely offset by verging or entire forests.
Thanks for providing some stats Ed. I’m glad you guys agree with me. I am also glad to say I have not had a single point on my license in three years and haven’t yet hit any pedestrians. hurrah!
J - thanks
Ed - I don’t think looking at the number of deaths says much. What about serious injuries? What about injuries not life-threatening, but that nevertheless have effects for a long time? I think it’s actually the case that most cars are clocked high - when you think you’re going at 30, you’re more likely going at 27. Call me cynical, but I don’t trust Top Gear stats as far as I can throw them
Paul - The thing is, I don’t think that driving a car gives you any qualifications for judging ‘inappropriate’ speed limits. It’s like saying that using a computer qualifies you to tell me about what firewall I should use - you simply need knowledge of different things. Most drivers think they can judge, but have you ever heard anybody say that a speed limit is too high? It seems to me that such judgements *always* come from a desire to go faster, never any actual knowledge of safety.
I agree that driving slowly can be dangerous, but *far* less often than going too fast. I’m sure if we looked at the number of deaths attributable to somebody going too slowly compared to too fast, there’d be no comparison. If you go around a country road corner and can’t slow down in time for somebody going 35mph, you’re going too fast. But dealing with such things is just part of being on the road - if people can’t overtake safely, it’s not the fault of the person going slowly.
Everyone on the road is a wanker ;). At least at certain times anyway. The biggest problem with encountering a slow person is the slight increase it stress it causes. Unfortunately as far as I can see, stress grows exponentially and once you are on tilt you might as well have been drinking/taking drugs as far as your ability to make judgements is concerned. This is not the fault of the slow person, but of human nature and the system as a whole. I am therefore an advocate of technology. The sooner I can get into my car and have it drive me to work the better!
Incidentally, it must be ten years since I last saw a prototype self drive system apparently operating on the news. Where the hell is it?!
The best argument I heard against the phone/driving ban was (and I am defining “best” as “funniest” here) a woman on the radio who said it was ridiculous because the ban is more dangerous than using a mobile phone. Her example was that she was chatting away on her phone when a police car started following her and the police car scared her and made her more likely to lose control.
It may be a new definition of chutzpah.