80mph speed limits, Pah

[MOCAŠ]

No un-insured car on the road - no accident involving it.

So yellow cars are dangerous too? Cos if you take them off the road, there won't be any accidents involving them either. And cars with a stripe down the side, or ones that don't have alloy wheels...

It's irrelevant!

 

[markjay]

We are 'punishing' drivers of cars with high CO2 emissions because we want to edge them into buying cars with lower CO2 emissions. This shows how seriously the UK government (and the EU, who set the targets) take global warming.

We are in no way rewarding or punishing drivers of cars which are more safe or less safe to them, their passengers, occupants of other vehicles, and pedestrians. What does this means about our attitude to car safety?

 

[LTD]

I agreed with that post #125.

and that therefore defeats most of your subsequent debates about a non-insured car being safer in any accident.

 

[MOCAŠ]

To be precise, Insurance does remove the risk of 'Loss' with regard to safety (if it is in place.)

No. It offers compensation for loss. If that loss is the life of a loved one, insurance won't remove that loss. Same applies to a cherished car. You just get a bag of cash to do with what you will.

 

[LTD]

So yellow cars are dangerous too? Cos if you take them off the road, there won't be any accidents involving them either. And cars with a stripe down the side, or ones that don't have alloy wheels...

It's irrelevant!

Eh ???

As far as I knew, there was no legal exclusion to properly insuring a yellow car.

 

[MOCAŠ]

and that therefore defeats most of your subsequent debates about a non-insured car being safer in any accident.

Getting silly now - where's your thinking cap?

 

[LTD]

Getting silly now - where's your thinking cap?

In the boot of my properly insured car.

 

[SJX]

The definition of safety, as you said - says it all, and protecting against loss is an element of safety -by definition.

I do however see where you are edging from. Subject closed from me.

 

[markjay]

Instead of 'safety' - shall we talk about 'reducing road deaths and injuries?'

 

[LTD]

I think we all need to open a beer or pour a glass of something.

We all agree that safety saves lives. Illegal actions on the road, and in putting a car on the road, can cost us dearly - both emotional and financial.

I suggest we tar and feather *** at the soonest opportunity for starting this thread.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Eh ???

As far as I knew, there was no legal exclusion to properly insuring a yellow car.

Your argument seems to be that the safety level is increased by having fewer cars on the road.

The corollary of this argument is that if all those drivers, having been removed from the road, then became insured, there'd be more cars on the road - so the more (insured) drivers there are, the more dangerous our roads become. It's not a sensible argument.

 

[SJX]

Especially as he (***) hasn't hardly typed anything.........

 

[MOCAŠ]

Instead of 'safety' - shall we talk about 'reducing road deaths and injuries?'

Now, that's just semantics...

 

[artyman]

Unless the speed can be maintained (safely of course) how much actual time would it save on the average journey, a few minutes at most I suspect, it may only make a significant difference on say a journey from London to Glasgow, and then only 18 minutes even assuming you could average 80 mph as against 70mph, you could lose that much time queuing for something to eat on the way!

 

[markjay]

I wonder... will drivers of uninsured cars use the the roads less than they otherwise would, for fear of getting caught?

 

[MOCAŠ]

I wonder... will drivers of uninsured cars use the the roads less than they otherwise would, for fear of getting caught?

This was my point about uninsured drivers not necessarily being dangerous/unsafe drivers. They may be far more careful or risk averse simply due to their status.

 

[LTD]

This was my point about uninsured drivers not necessarily being dangerous/unsafe drivers. They may be far more careful or risk averse simply due to their status.

What about a driver, say Lewis Hamilton, that is entitled to drive a car on a third-party basis but the car he is driving does not meet the required standards to attain the principal insurance policy ?

The car should not be insured therefore an F1 driver should not be on the road - regardless of ability.

Insuring drivers is a sensible option - provided that the cars that they drive are road legal.

 

[markjay]

A car that does not display its VRM is illegal for use on public roads - but not necessarily unsafe? There are other examples... overly polluting cars... untaxed cars (but with valid MOT) etc... all are unsafe only by association - e.g. the keeper's general attitude towards law and order, but not directly due to the reason that made them illegal to be driven on public highways.

 

[LTD]

A car that does not display its VRM is illegal for use on public roads - but not necessarily unsafe?

Being there against the regulations deems it unsafe. It cannot be party to an accident if it is not there.

I agree totally about the attitude of the driver. If they drive a car that is not road-worthy then they have no respect for the regulations that keep us safer - regardless of their ability.

 

[MOCAŠ]

It cannot be party to an accident if it is not there...

...just like yellow cars, and stripey cars...

I give up.