that assumes (most incorrectly) that I have only sped 100 timesQWAKA wrote:wouldn't that be almost 100 deaths? not a thousand.....Gosling1 wrote:......With almost 100 speeding/traffic convictions to my name, I can hardly add an objective post to this most magnificent thread, other than saying that if speed really did kill, well I must have already died a thousand deaths.....
the reality of course - like most of the punters here - is that the the ratio of * actually speeding : fine for speeding * would be in the region of 10 or 15 - or maybe even 50:1 !
In all probability, I have actually died about 10,000 deaths !!!! and this is why I personally laugh my bags out at the *Speed Kills* campaign. Its utter bollocks.
As has been pointed out by some learned colleagues here - it is a combination of factors - poor training / nil training, lack of road skills / lack of common sense / poor road conditions / poor vehicle choice (just to name a few) - which contribute to the road toll in a *far* greater manner, than just doing 103 in a 100 !!!!! That sort of petty bullshit earns no respect from the community at large, and never will.
In more advanced countries - where fast cars and fast motorbikes and good-quality roads are in abundance - drivers have a much greater degree of leniency as far as being booked. Over in places like Italy - the popo will certainly book you for doing 140+ in a 100 zone............but will never book someone for straying slightly over the limit for a short period.
Its all about revenue here, nothing more and nothing less. If it wasn't about revenue, why do speed limits continue to be lowered as cars and bikes are becoming safer to drive/ride ??? What a crock.
