# Speeding in a thirty limit



## USER1999 (Jan 24, 2014)

Ok, no googling here, and no one who's been on a speed awareness either. Guesses only.

How much past the 30 mile an hour speed limit can you go, before getting a ticket?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

murphthemog said:



			Ok, no googling here, and no one who's been on a speed awareness either. Guesses only.

How much past the 30 mile an hour speed limit can you go, before getting a ticket?
		
Click to expand...

33 mph


----------



## Jon321 (Jan 24, 2014)

Always thought it was 10% so im saying 33


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 24, 2014)

34mph?

2 + 10%??


----------



## Qwerty (Jan 24, 2014)

Is it  +10%. 33mph?


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 24, 2014)

Should be zero tolerance...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

I think it's actually 31 mph you can get a ticket for but the cameras don't flash until 33 mph


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 24, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			34mph?

2 + 10%??
		
Click to expand...

Wouldn't 2 plus 10% be 35?


----------



## JustOne (Jan 24, 2014)

I thought the tolerance was 10% + 2 mph (so 35mph) for a camera. You can probably get one for less if a police car happens to be behind you ??


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Should be zero tolerance...
		
Click to expand...

So 30.01 mph means points ?


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So 30.01 mph means points ?
		
Click to expand...


Harsh... But absolutely so...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Harsh... But absolutely so...
		
Click to expand...


You could be pottering along at 29 mph and some pulls out and you swerve and accelerate past and go over 30mph ? Or someone loses control behind you and you accelerate to move away and go over 30mph - plus thousands of other scenarios that could just sneak you over the limit. 

I agree on the theory but practically it's impossible hence the tolerances


----------



## pbrown7582 (Jan 24, 2014)

Guidelines vary but it always was 10% +3 but I think more than likely there will be many areas with zero tolerance especially with the increase in 20mph limits.


----------



## SaintHacker (Jan 24, 2014)

Technically you can be fined for breaking the limit by 1 mph, but it would rarely stand up in court. It differs between police forces but the general rule of thumb is 10% +2mph.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 24, 2014)

Well, the guys who used to do 70-80 in the 30mph area that I used to live in would seem to believe at least 50mph!

I'm a fan of zero tolerance in residential areas and Cameras on every 2nd lamp-post, with only the odd one active - and that varying randomly too.


----------



## kmdmr1 (Jan 24, 2014)

I got caught speeding in a 30mph 12 months ago,
6 points
Â£480 fine
plus a court appearance,,,
Didnt have the option to go on a speed awarness course.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You could be pottering along at 29 mph and some pulls out and you swerve and accelerate past and go over 30mph ? Or someone loses control behind you and you accelerate to move away and go over 30mph - plus thousands of other scenarios that could just sneak you over the limit. 

I agree on the theory but practically it's impossible hence the tolerances
		
Click to expand...


Due to the total inability of the vast majority to stick to the 30mph limit [or anything near it] in urban areas... I have more and more become a supporter of a blanket reduction to 20mph in urban streets...


----------



## pbrown7582 (Jan 24, 2014)

kmdmr1 said:



			I got caught speeding in a 30mph 12 months ago,
6 points
Â£480 fine
plus a court appearance,,,
Didnt have the option to go on a speed awarness course.
		
Click to expand...


Wow you weren't doing 32mph


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Due to the total inability of the vast majority to stick to the 30mph limit [or anything near it] in urban areas... I have more and more become a supporter of a blanket reduction to 20mph in urban streets...
		
Click to expand...

I agree that all urban areas should be 20mph and I think most residential areas are going that way


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

kmdmr1 said:



			I got caught speeding in a 30mph 12 months ago,
6 points
Â£480 fine
plus a court appearance,,,
Didnt have the option to go on a speed awarness course.
		
Click to expand...

Well I'm guessing you were doing well over 40mph then 

That's awful


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 24, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Due to the total inability of the vast majority to stick to the 30mph limit [or anything near it] in urban areas... I have more and more become a supporter of a blanket reduction to 20mph in urban streets...
		
Click to expand...

And when people don't stick to that, what are you going to drop it to then?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			And when people don't stick to that, what are you going to drop it to then?
		
Click to expand...



Build more sped bumps to slow drivers down :thup:


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 24, 2014)

kmdmr1 said:



			I got caught speeding in a 30mph 12 months ago,
6 points
Â£480 fine
plus a court appearance,,,
Didnt have the option to go on a speed awarness course.
		
Click to expand...

I guess you were doing more than 42 then.


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Build more sped bumps to slow drivers down :thup:
		
Click to expand...

People will just buy citroens, or vans, or hire cars.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 24, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Due to the total inability of the vast majority to stick to the 30mph limit [or anything near it] in urban areas... I have more and more become a supporter of a blanket reduction to 20mph in urban streets...
		
Click to expand...

Can't agree with that! What you are saying is that in order to get folk to only go 30, you need to reduce the speed limit to 20! That defies logic. What really needs to happen is to make the limit reasonable/appropriate and then police it!

I have seen figures perhaps not from England, that found the 'proper' limit under normal conditions, was between the 75th and 80th percentile of measured speeds.


----------



## G_Mulligan (Jan 24, 2014)

I was told after being stopped by the police it was 10% +1 so 33 in a 30. I would not trust this with a camera though. Usually only speed on a 70mph anyway. Think a steady 80-85 is perfectly safe and I leave good distances.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

20mph within residential areas is reasonable and appropriate - that's were 80% of collisions happen.


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 24, 2014)

G_Mulligan said:



			I was told after being stopped by the police it was 10% +1 so 33 in a 30. I would not trust this with a camera though. Usually only speed on a 70mph anyway. Think a steady 80-85 is perfectly safe and I leave good distances.
		
Click to expand...

You would be surprised that police guidelines are to ping you at 78 then.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

G_Mulligan said:



			I was told after being stopped by the police it was 10% +1 so 33 in a 30. I would not trust this with a camera though. Usually only speed on a 70mph anyway. Think a steady 80-85 is perfectly safe and I leave good distances.
		
Click to expand...

Read up on the Hungerford crash 

80-85 may feel safe with a good distance but it's far from it 

If you had to break at 80 mph and a car broke at 70 mph - when he stopped you would collide at 71 mph and would need a further 80 metres to stop - another 70 metres for the extra 5 mph

I'll sit at around 72-75 mph if a clear road is ahead


----------



## kmdmr1 (Jan 24, 2014)

murphthemog said:



			I guess you were doing more than 42 then.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately was more than 42,was more than 52 (and I usually do watch my speed),

I had a clean licence for over 20 years,and last time I got caught it was for speeding in a 30,
Dont know how I got my speed and its something I did (Do now) focus on,


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

kmdmr1 said:



			Unfortunately was more than 42,was more than 52 (and I usually do watch my speed),

I had a clean licence for over 20 years,and last time I got caught it was for speeding in a 30,
Dont know how I got my speed and its something I did (Do now) focus on,
		
Click to expand...

Nearly double the speed limit ?! 

Sorry but IMO that should be a ban of sorts


----------



## kmdmr1 (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Nearly double the speed limit ?! 

Sorry but IMO that should be a ban of sorts
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree,deserved a ban (even though I never intended to speed)


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

kmdmr1 said:



			Totally agree,deserved a ban (even though I never intended to speed)
		
Click to expand...


Yes sorry it wasn't aimed at you specifically - I believe they should bring in incremental bans - 30 day bans instead of 6 points for example or curfew on driving 

But the better news is traffic collisions are on the decrease in the country 

The biggest increase though is collisions due to people on mobile phones


----------



## Imurg (Jan 24, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Can't agree with that! What you are saying is that in order to get folk to only go 30, you need to reduce the speed limit to 20! That defies logic. What really needs to happen is to make the limit reasonable/appropriate and then police it!

I have seen figures perhaps not from England, that found the 'proper' limit under normal conditions, was between the 75th and 80th percentile of measured speeds.
		
Click to expand...

Policing it is virtually impossible unless you have cameras every few yards - and that ain't gonna happen is it...
A few years ago the Powers that Be made a Song and Dance about the fact that over 50% of drivers now follows the 30 limit. 50%..?
Big Yuks on that. Drop the limit in Town to 20 and people will do 25. That reduces impact speeds, means fewer KSI's and saves a shed load of money
From my experience, very few stick to 30.
According to a SIDS, my car is doing 29 whilst showing 30
Anyone care to guess how many times I get overtaken each day in a 30 limit whilst doing 30....


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If you had to break at 80 mph and a car broke at 70 mph - when he stopped you would collide at 71 mph and would need a further 80 metres to stop - another 70 metres for the extra 5 mph
		
Click to expand...

The above is twaddle without additional numbers - like the distance between the cars!

And it all depends on 'good distance'. The gaps that we are accustomed to are way too small. 

If the road ahead and behind is clear, then 80-85 is quite possibly safe (if illegal), though there's also other catastrophic, however unlikely, events like punctures, stray animals, oncoming traffic and hazardous obstacles to consider. If it's not clear, slowing down to increase the gap make the new speed safe(r).


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 24, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Due to the total inability of the vast majority to stick to the 30mph limit [or anything near it] in urban areas... I have more and more become a supporter of a blanket reduction to 20mph in urban streets...
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			I agree that all urban areas should be 20mph and I think most residential areas are going that way
		
Click to expand...

As a failed pedestrian, 20mph gets my vote.

But a big no to speed bumps. Ambulance drivers hate them with a passion.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 24, 2014)

The answer to the original post can be found here;

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

3.5, 9.2 and 9.6 might be particularly relevant to the current debate.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 24, 2014)

On the A77 the other night a range rover was towing a small sheep trailer with no lights on. [so no brake lights].
I hung back and was overtaken by a numpty who then proceeded to drive at 60mph 12 feet behind the rear of the trailer with no brake lights lights.
Sometimes all you can do is shake your head.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 24, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Due to the total inability of the vast majority to stick to the 30mph limit [or anything near it] in urban areas... I have more and more become a supporter of a blanket reduction to 20mph in urban streets...
		
Click to expand...

That would be a complete waste of time without major engineering measures to make it self-enforcing.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			The above is twaddle without additional numbers - like the distance between the cars!

And it all depends on 'good distance'. The gaps that we are accustomed to are way too small. 

If the road ahead and behind is clear, then 80-85 is quite possibly safe (if illegal), though there's also other catastrophic, however unlikely, events like punctures, stray animals, oncoming traffic and hazardous obstacles to consider. If it's not clear, slowing down to increase the gap make the new speed safe(r).
		
Click to expand...


Well it's not twaddle but I'm sure you know best - oh confirm it with the AA and Traffic Police if you wish because they have a great video to prove the above :thup:

Believe Thames Valley show it on the advance driver course and speed awareness course


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 24, 2014)

Crawling along at 50mph on a 70 mph  motorway causes more accidents, and some have the cheek to wear driving gloves.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			As a failed pedestrian, 20mph gets my vote.

But a big no to speed bumps. Ambulance drivers hate them with a passion.
		
Click to expand...


Yes they aren't very friendly to the emergency services but believe more should be in residential areas


----------



## shewy (Jan 24, 2014)

Thing is with the op it's hard to prove tolerances,working with instrumentation you realise it drifts all the time,so unless it's been recently calibrated then chances your 33mph speeding ticket may not stick in court.Anyone doing 40+ though really does deserve a ban and not just points.
Was there not a thing about speed cameras and  non solid contacts giving false readings as well?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

shewy said:



			Thing is with the op it's hard to prove tolerances,working with instrumentation you realise it drifts all the time,so unless it's been recently calibrated then chances your 33mph speeding ticket may not stick in court.Anyone doing 40+ though really does deserve a ban and not just points.
Was there not a thing about speed cameras and  non solid contacts giving false readings as well?
		
Click to expand...


The equipment now is highly calibrated 

The time it gets thrown out is when it's been used incorrectly 

Companies rely on them performing - if word got out that something failed then every single police force around the world would stop using it


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 24, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Should be zero tolerance...
		
Click to expand...

Careful now - you'll get into trouble here if you display zero tolerance around anything.  They'll always find a scenario or ten where it is reasonable to break any speed limit


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 24, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			Crawling along at 50mph on a 70 mph  motorway causes more accidents, and some have the cheek to wear driving gloves.

Click to expand...

Impatient drivers cause accidents - not the driver driving at or below the speed limit


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Impatient drivers cause accidents - not the driver driving at or below the speed limit
		
Click to expand...


Drivers driving at extreme low speeds compared to the flow of traffic can also cause collisions hence why the police are pulling people up for it now.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well it's not twaddle but I'm sure you know best - oh confirm it with the AA and Traffic Police if you wish because they have a great video to prove the above :thup:

Believe Thames Valley show it on the advance driver course and speed awareness course
		
Click to expand...

Foxholer is spot on, it is twaddle without knowing the relative positions of the vehicles when the braking commenced.  And on a first glance your numbers for the additional braking distances don't stack up either.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Drivers driving at extreme low speeds compared to the flow of traffic can also cause collisions hence why the police are pulling people up for it now.
		
Click to expand...

Extremely slow speeds I agree - but for example given 50mph is not extremely slow in a 70mph


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Foxholer is spot on, it is twaddle without knowing the relative positions of the vehicles when the braking commenced.  And on a first glance your numbers for the additional braking distances don't stack up either.
		
Click to expand...

Two cars going along - one at 70 and one at 80 break at the same time - when the one at 70 stops the one at 80 is still travelling at 71 mph and then takes a further 70-80 metres to stop. It's been proven by the Thames Valley police when lookin at stopping distances and impact speeds from 20 mph up to 100 mph.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Extremely slow speeds I agree - but for example given 50mph is not extremely slow in a 70mph
		
Click to expand...

50mph whilst the flow of traffic is 70mph is dangerous unless in a artic/truck


----------



## ger147 (Jan 24, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Extremely slow speeds I agree - but for example given 50mph is not extremely slow in a 70mph
		
Click to expand...

It is if you camping in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Two cars going along - one at 70 and one at 80 break at the same time - when the one at 70 stops the one at 80 is still travelling at 71 mph and then takes a further 70-80 metres to stop. It's been proven by the Thames Valley police when lookin at stopping distances and impact speeds from 20 mph up to 100 mph.
		
Click to expand...

Try having a look at the Highway Code braking distances; braking distance from 70 mph is shown as 75 metres.  So you believe that an extra 10mph is going to add a further 70 - 80 metres in braking distance do you?  I don't know what you think it is you've seen but trust me, you haven't remembered it properly.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			50mph whilst the flow of traffic is 70mph is dangerous unless in a artic/truck
		
Click to expand...

What difference does it make whether it's a car or a truck doing 50mph.  Danger comes as a result of impatient drivers wanting to pass when there is oncoming traffic.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 24, 2014)

ger147 said:



			It is if you camping in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway.
		
Click to expand...

Against the law these days I thought


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Try having a look at the Highway Code braking distances; braking distance from 70 mph is shown as 75 metres.  So you believe that an extra 10mph is going to add a further 70 - 80 metres in braking distance do you?  I don't know what you think it is you've seen but trust me, you haven't remembered it properly.
		
Click to expand...


Apologies it's around 40 metres.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What difference does it make whether it's a car or a truck doing 50mph.  Danger comes as a result of impatient drivers wanting to pass when there is oncoming traffic.
		
Click to expand...


Oncoming traffic ? It's a motorway or dual carriageway - the only place you can do 70mph


----------



## ger147 (Jan 24, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Against the law these days I thought
		
Click to expand...

As is not keeping up with the flow of traffic.


----------



## ger147 (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Apologies it's around 40 metres.
		
Click to expand...

Varies from car to car.  It's certainly not that in my car which has carbon ceramic brakes.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2014)

ger147 said:



			Varies from car to car.  It's certainly not that in my car which has carbon ceramic brakes.
		
Click to expand...


This was using a Vauxhall Omega police car.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Oncoming traffic ? It's a motorway or dual carriageway - the only place you can do 70mph
		
Click to expand...

So issue with someone driving at 50mph on a m/way or d/carriageway is? (assuming not lane hogging middle lane which is dangerous and hence why now illegal)


----------



## ger147 (Jan 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			This was using a Vauxhall Omega police car.
		
Click to expand...

But you accept the idea that braking distances vary from car to car?


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 24, 2014)

Back to the original question.

Answer, 35 in a 30 gets you pinged, 34 doesn't. 

Guess what? I was doing 35. 

Who gets to go on a speed awareness course? Me.

And I was driving down a road, in a 30, where the houses end ( I was past them), and 100 yards later the limit changes to 60. I got pinged by a mobile camera unit just short of the national speed limit sign, at 35 in a 30. According to the paperwork, if I'd been doing 34 I'd have been fine. But is wasn't.

Fair do's I was speeding, but I wondered how many would think this was within tolerance.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 24, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So issue with someone driving at 50mph on a m/way or d/carriageway is? (assuming not lane hogging middle lane which is dangerous and hence why now illegal)
		
Click to expand...

The main danger with slow drivers is not necessarily speeds when on m/ways or dual carriageways, it's joining these roads, roundabouts and numerous other instances of crap awareness.


----------



## Lincoln Quaker (Jan 24, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			On the A77 the other night a range rover was towing a small sheep trailer with no lights on. [so no brake lights].
I hung back and was overtaken by a numpty who then proceeded to drive at 60mph 12 feet behind the rear of the trailer with no brake lights lights.
Sometimes all you can do is shake your head.
		
Click to expand...

scary isn't it, some people have no idea or think its never going to happen to them, tailgating is something that does my head in, this morning on the way to work coming into the village 500 yards before a school is a 30 zone I always slow down as you never know and I am not prepared to take the risk that a kid will run out in front off you.4x4 sat right u my backside and even looking to overtake me,20 yards from the school and he stops to let his kids out, just incredible.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 25, 2014)

Going to a forum meet, I was held up for 1.5 hours on the M25 and was snapped near the course. I saw no signs and the summons said that there need not be any speed signs where the cameras are situated! I was 1 mph over the limit for an awareness course, so took the hit of 3 points, the first ever in 41 years of driving!

The silly thing is, as far as I'm concerned, it's the faster driver who is more dangerous surely, and need the awareness course the most!


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Apologies it's around 40 metres.
		
Click to expand...

So it was twaddle!

According to the charts/tables/formulae I have seen...
If 2 cars side by side when they brake, one at 80, one at 70 brake at same time.
Braking distance @ 70 is 75 metres; braking distance @ 80 is around 110 metres. The car starting at 80 will be travelling at nearly 50 as it passes the stopped 70mph starter and will take another 35 metres to stop.

No idea where you got you numbers from, but you may have confused Braking and Stopping distances (Stopping includes thinking/reaction time). Again, it depends what the distance between the vehicles (in the same lane) is as to how this affects any collision speeds.

I believe the key thing that the authorities try to get across about Motorway speed differentials is that it's not a linear. In the example above, the initial difference was only 10mph, but the difference at collision is significantly more - as in the 50 mph above!

Now back on-topic please. The thread's about 30mph areas!


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 25, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			And when people don't stick to that, what are you going to drop it to then?
		
Click to expand...




Blue in Munich said:



			That would be a complete waste of time without major engineering measures to make it self-enforcing.
		
Click to expand...


Would be relatively straightforward with modern vehicles to 'engineer in' some form of speed governance....


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Would be relatively straightforward with modern vehicles to 'engineer in' some form of speed governance....
		
Click to expand...

This technology has existed for some considerable time - linking GPS to Engine Management.

I'm waiting for the time when... you enter your destination and the car transports you there - without the necessity of a 'driver'! Conceptually simple; practically challenging! But that's what Engineers love!


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Can't agree with that! What you are saying is that in order to get folk to only go 30, you need to reduce the speed limit to 20! That defies logic. What really needs to happen is to make the limit reasonable/appropriate and then police it!
		
Click to expand...

Can't see the 'logic' of those that feel the need to be travelling at 40+ and often 50+ on residential roads myself... 

20mph, for me, is more appropriate than 30mph for residential areas...


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			As a failed pedestrian, 20mph gets my vote.
		
Click to expand...

I am now a 'failed' cyclist... Really can't find the courage anymore to take my chances on the local roads... Particularly at school run time...


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Imurg said:



			Policing it is virtually impossible unless you have cameras every few yards - and that ain't gonna happen is it...
		
Click to expand...

So is that going to be any different with a limit of 20 compared to a limit of 30?

On that 30 mph road I mentioned where folk were doing 70-80, a 20mph limit would be a) pointless! and b) inappropriate - 30 was/is the right limit.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			So is that going to be any different with a limit of 20 compared to a limit of 30?

On that 30 mph road I mentioned where folk were doing 70-80, a 20mph limit would be a) pointless! and b) inappropriate - 30 was/is the right limit.
		
Click to expand...


70/80 during a 30mph limit ?! Which road is this and is it residential 

Would bring in some chicanes and ramps and if collisions then a speed camera


----------



## Imurg (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			So is that going to be any different with a limit of 20 compared to a limit of 30?
.
		
Click to expand...

It becomes less critical at slower speeds.
Hit a pedestrian at 30 and there's a 20% chance of them dying.
At 36 it's 50:50
So at 20 it must be virtually zero.
If someone is doing 25 I guess that risk rises to 5%..?
So although you would be breaking the limit, your chances of increasing the KSI stat is low.
And that's really what Speed Limits are about - and by the way...A Speed Limit is a Limit not necessarily a target.


----------



## the hammer (Jan 25, 2014)

murphthemog said:



			Back to the original question.

Answer, 35 in a 30 gets you pinged, 34 doesn't. 

Guess what? I was doing 35. 

Who gets to go on a speed awareness course? Me.

And I was driving down a road, in a 30, where the houses end ( I was past them), and 100 yards later the limit changes to 60. I got pinged by a mobile camera unit just short of the national speed limit sign, at 35 in a 30. According to the paperwork, if I'd been doing 34 I'd have been fine. But is wasn't.

Fair do's I was speeding, but I wondered how many would think this was within tolerance.
		
Click to expand...

HID was done at 34 in a 30.


----------



## Captainron (Jan 25, 2014)

I've always believed that you got a 10% tolerance. My speedo is under calibrated as its cars are these days. I have a sat nav which I think gives me a more accurate measurement and shows that I am only doing 27 when the speedo shows 30. Living in Lincolnshire has taught me no end of patience here. I actually try and drive with my mpg reading on and see of I can increase it. Sad hey?


----------



## Vice (Jan 25, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-24849948



Foxholer said:



			This technology has existed for some considerable time - linking GPS to Engine Management.

I'm waiting for the time when... you enter your destination and the car transports you there - without the necessity of a 'driver'! Conceptually simple; practically challenging! But that's what Engineers love!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Captainron said:



			I've always believed that you got a 10% tolerance. My speedo is under calibrated as its cars are these days. I have a sat nav which I think gives me a more accurate measurement and shows that I am only doing 27 when the speedo shows 30. Living in Lincolnshire has taught me no end of patience here. I actually try and drive with my mpg reading on and see of I can increase it. Sad hey?
		
Click to expand...

The sat nav speed isn't a true accurate reading also - it doesn't take into
account the curvature of the road. It will be closer than your speedo though


----------



## Ethan (Jan 25, 2014)

A few issues. Car speedos over-read speed, so when your indicator says you are doing X you are almost always doing less, but never doing more. Hence the margin for error. 

The basic concept of speed limits is a perfectly reasonable one, but it is distorted by local councils attempts to raise money (although that is now changing) and NIMBYs who have pull with a local council and get their part of the road designated as a 30 when it really does not need to be, and it sits in between sections of 40 or 50 providing nice little speed traps. These areas do nothing to promote road safety. 

Slow driving causes many accidents by causing clumping of traffic, and MPVs with mothers more interested in looking into the back to tell off the kids off and causing other cars to swerve. These culprits are usually not in the accident but just leave the trail of destruction behind them.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Jan 25, 2014)

chrisd said:



			Going to a forum meet, I was held up for 1.5 hours on the M25 and was snapped near the course. I saw no signs and the summons said that there need not be any speed signs where the cameras are situated! I was 1 mph over the limit for an awareness course, so took the hit of 3 points, the first ever in 41 years of driving
		
Click to expand...


So no wonder you won - you had three points before you even teed off the 1st!

Sorry - could not resist that one!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			A few issues. Car speedos over-read speed, so when your indicator says you are doing X you are almost always doing less, but never doing more. Hence the margin for error. 

The basic concept of speed limits is a perfectly reasonable one, but it is distorted by local councils attempts to raise money (although that is now changing) and NIMBYs who have pull with a local council and get their part of the road designated as a 30 when it really does not need to be, and it sits in between sections of 40 or 50 providing nice little speed traps. These areas do nothing to promote road safety. 

Slow driving causes many accidents by causing clumping of traffic, and MPVs with mothers more interested in looking into the back to tell off the kids off and causing other cars to swerve. These culprits are usually not in the accident but just leave the trail of destruction behind them.
		
Click to expand...

The changes off speed limits are now done in conjunction with the Highway Agencies using previous collision reports and risks 

Areas get reduced speed limits and speed cameras due to previous accidents over a 3 year and then monitored again for 3 years


If an area is a 30 or a 20 it's because there have been previous incidents and there is risk of more collisions unless the speed is culled

The days of making money for councils have been gone for a number of years now


----------



## NorfolkShaun (Jan 25, 2014)

Maybe being a little pedantic here but how accurate do people think car speedometers are? 

In work I am involved with plant where the sensor values constantly need calibrating (at least annually) however a car speedometer is never calibrated so really how do you know how fast are you going?

I know when you have a sat-nav in the car the speedometer always reads about 10% higher than the sat-nav

All i'm thinking is that if you can drive at 34 in a 30 and be safe from a speeding ticket how do you know if you are doing 30 or 26 or 35 if nothing is ever calibrated other than the camera that is going to catch you.

I guess some would say that's why you have the 10% grace ....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 25, 2014)

HID got done doing 40mph in a 30mph.  As she already had 3 pts on her licence and had already also done a speed awareness course - court summons - Â£380 fine (inc cost) and 4pts.  Now paranoid about speeding and will stick to the speed limit come what may - no matter what other drivers might think of her and then try and do.  She says it's awful the irritation and anger  towards her that drivers show (flashing lights, swearing, hand gestures) because she is sticking to the speed limit - and then  the risks they take in passing her.


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 25, 2014)

The speedometer in my car pretty much mirrors the speed the sat nav says I'm doing. It's probably the only part of my car that works correctly!


----------



## Ethan (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The changes off speed limits are now done in conjunction with the Highway Agencies using previous collision reports and risks 

Areas get reduced speed limits and speed cameras due to previous accidents over a 3 year and then monitored again for 3 years


If an area is a 30 or a 20 it's because there have been previous incidents and there is risk of more collisions unless the speed is culled

The days of making money for councils have been gone for a number of years now
		
Click to expand...

But some of the cameras and speed limits remain from the money making days. Many of these are not based on historical accident patterns. Not that the accidents are necessarily caused in the same areas where they occur. Sometimes bunching in one place is released somewhere else, with accidents. The correct solution is to relieve the bunching not impose further bunching by arbitrary speed limits. 

And the areas which get reduced limits them displace their accidents to the areas just outside. A bit of a zero sum game, perhaps?




PS. Never had a penalty point.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			HID got done doing 40mph in a 30mph.  As she already had 3 pts on her licence and had already also done a speed awareness course - court summons - Â£380 fine (inc cost) and 4pts.  Now paranoid about speeding and will stick to the speed limit come what may - no matter what other drivers might think of her and then try and do.  She says it's awful the irritation and anger  towards her that drivers show (flashing lights, swearing, hand gestures) because she is sticking to the speed limit - and then  the risks they take in passing her.
		
Click to expand...

15% of people who take the speed awareness course get another ticket within 6 months 

I think everyone caught speeding should do an awareness course but also increase the price


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 25, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			HID got done doing 40mph in a 30mph.  As she already had 3 pts on her licence and had already also done a speed awareness course - court summons - Â£380 fine (inc cost) and 4pts.  Now paranoid about speeding and will stick to the speed limit come what may - no matter what other drivers might think of her and then try and do.  She says it's awful the irritation and anger  towards her that drivers show (flashing lights, swearing, hand gestures) because she is sticking to the speed limit - and then  the risks they take in passing her.
		
Click to expand...

Obviously the 3pts & speed awareness  course didn't do the trick. Did your wife use to get annoyed when she was stuck behind some one sticking to the speed limit?


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			15% of people who take the speed awareness course get another ticket within 6 months 

I think everyone caught speeding should do an awareness course but also increase the price
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I get the feeling that you just pull facts out the air at times just to back up your opinion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			But some of the cameras and speed limits remain from the money making days. Many of these are not based on historical accident patterns. Not that the accidents are necessarily caused in the same areas where they occur. Sometimes bunching in one place is released somewhere else, with accidents. The correct solution is to relieve the bunching not impose further bunching by arbitrary speed limits. 

And the areas which get reduced limits them displace their accidents to the areas just outside. A bit of a zero sum game, perhaps?




PS. Never had a penalty point.
		
Click to expand...

So are accidents being caused because the limit is too low or because people ignore the limits and just go over the limit ?

Limits and speed cameras don't cause accidents - it's the drivers not observing the limits correctly whilst others do 

I drive to work through all the limits - there is a 30 onto a 40 then a 50 and then NSP and it goes up and down throughout the journey. It's easily done to follow the limits and not get flashed by the camera and you can see why the limits are there. 

If we stick to the limits then there should be minimal problems


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			I'm sorry but I get the feeling that you just pull facts out the air at times just to back up your opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for letting me know :thup:


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Thank you for letting me know :thup:
		
Click to expand...

No problem at all :thup:


----------



## hovis (Jan 25, 2014)

Each county is different. Staffs is 10% + 3mph.

We hold the speed awareness courses at our station and what amazes me is when we see the attendees arrive and handbrake it into our yard!!!!!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 25, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Obviously the 3pts & speed awareness  course didn't do the trick. Did your wife use to get annoyed when she was stuck behind some one sticking to the speed limit?
		
Click to expand...

No - she just usually has too much on her mind when driving and is not good at watching her speed.  A couple of years back my daughter complained that I drove too slow (we were in town) - and mum drove faster.  I just try and drive to the speed limit (when it's 30mph)!  

Now she is a nervous and paranoid driver (being hassled by irritable impatient drivers) worried abut getting caught for speeding again as she'd then be just one more speeding offence from being banned - yes - I know


----------



## Ethan (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So are accidents being caused because the limit is too low or because people ignore the limits and just go over the limit ?

Limits and speed cameras don't cause accidents - it's the drivers not observing the limits correctly whilst others do 

I drive to work through all the limits - there is a 30 onto a 40 then a 50 and then NSP and it goes up and down throughout the journey. It's easily done to follow the limits and not get flashed by the camera and you can see why the limits are there. 

If we stick to the limits then there should be minimal problems
		
Click to expand...

The counsel of perfection argument. That rarely works and road and traffic planning should not assume it. 

In the real world, bunching most certainly causes accidents. If it doesn't, then please explain how variable speed limits on the M25 (and other motorways) work.

There is some evidence that speed cameras do cause accidents, not directly at the site but nearby.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So are accidents being caused because the limit is too low or because people ignore the limits and just go over the limit ?

Limits and speed cameras don't cause accidents - it's the drivers not observing the limits correctly whilst others do 

I drive to work through all the limits - there is a 30 onto a 40 then a 50 and then NSP and it goes up and down throughout the journey. It's easily done to follow the limits and not get flashed by the camera and you can see why the limits are there. 

If we stick to the limits then there should be minimal problems
		
Click to expand...

100% with you on this one...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No - she just usually has too much on her mind when driving and is not good at watching her speed.  A couple of years back my daughter complained that I drove too slow (we were in town) - and mum drove faster.  I just try and drive to the speed limit (when it's 30mph)!  

Now she is a nervous and paranoid driver (being hassled by irritable impatient drivers) worried abut getting caught for speeding again as she'd then be just one more speeding offence from being banned - yes - I know 

Click to expand...


Sorry but having too much on her mind and not concentrating is signs of a very bad driver ( no disrespect )

Seen it before with a girl who played hockey with my oH was very "ditzy" but ended up causing a major accident and some serious casualties 

It's the same when you see people on mobile phones and dancing and singing to music - they aren't concentrating whilst in charge of what could be classed as a lethal weapon !


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			The counsel of perfection argument. That rarely works and road and traffic planning should not assume it. 

In the real world, bunching most certainly causes accidents. If it doesn't, then please explain how variable speed limits on the M25 (and other motorways) work.

There is some evidence that speed cameras do cause accidents, not directly at the site but nearby.
		
Click to expand...


In the real world people should slow down 

Bunching is caused I believe by people speeding then arriving at cars doing the speed limit or slowing down for a reason. 

Again accidents will occur at speed camera sites or nearby - because people are speeding and then have to stop suddenly to avoid getting caught 

I see it every morning


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 25, 2014)

Observation abut attitudes to speeds.  

Fuss recently over lowering speed limit on M1 south of Sheffield from 70mph to 60mph - 35mile stretch - all the usual motorist concerns raised.   BIG fuss made.  

Let's look at the numbers as they are easy.  35miles at 70mph takes 30minutes (obviously),  35miles at 60mph (mile a minute) takes 35mins.  So all the fuss and bother and bluster was over 5minutes journey time.

And though not wishes to mix subjects - look at how opponents of HS2 ask why a 20mins off London-B'ham journey makes any difference - when to motorists 5mins extra travelling time to Sheffield seems a terrible imposition and issue.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			There is some evidence that speed cameras do cause accidents, not directly at the site but nearby.
		
Click to expand...

A camera can't cause an accident.
If a driver sees a camera and slows suddenly to avoid getting flashed and gets hit up the backside, what's the cause?
The root cause is someone driving too close behind
The secondary cause is speeding.

A few years ago Clakson had the Transport Secretary on Top Gear and was having a go about cameras.
The TS said to him..
"Jeremy. We post regular Speed Limit signs when required. We now don't hide the camera. We post a sign within 1KM to warn you of a camera. We post a speed limit sign just before the camera. We paint the camera bright yellow. If you're still getting caught - who's fault is it?"
Given a clear road the majority of Drivers will break the limit....how is the camera causing the crash?
If not at the site then nearby - why? Because the drivers are accelerating to get back up to an illegal speed....?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 25, 2014)

Main road from me into Guildford goes 70mph/60mph/50mph/40mph/30mph.  When I am in the 40mph section there is a sign trlling me speed camera ahead - and there is one.  Limit drops to 30mph and couple of hundred yards further on there is a speed camera.  It is very easy when in the 40mph stretch to gradually slow down so that by the time I reached the 30mph stretch I am not going to get flashed.  

It's not difficult - and as it happens most drivers adhere to it.  So if you overtake someone in the 40mph stretch as he slows down - then be it on your head.  And you are the driver likely to braek hard on hitting the 30mph stretch and cause issues - following traffic also braking (because you instinctively brake if the car in front brakes suddenly) - and that is what can cause tail backs at speed camera controlled zones.


----------



## cleanstrike (Jan 25, 2014)

My copy of the _Highway Code_ states quite clearly that I can do whatever speed I damn well please ... providing I don't get caught.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 25, 2014)

cleanstrike said:



			My copy of the _Highway Code_ states quite clearly that I can do whatever speed I damn well please ... providing I don't get caught.  

Click to expand...

Which would be funny if many didn't actually believe it.


----------



## PIng (Jan 25, 2014)

During my 30 years of driving I've been caught speeding 3 times, each time I've been doing around 40mph on an empty dual carriageway which for some reason had 30 mph limits. I wasn't deliberately flouting the law - it just seemed to be a natural safe speed for the road. If the local authorities believe that a road needs a 30 mph limit then why build a dual carriageway?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

PIng said:



			During my 30 years of driving I've been caught speeding 3 times, each time I've been doing around 40mph on an empty dual carriageway which for some reason had 30 mph limits. I wasn't deliberately flouting the law - it just seemed to be a natural safe speed for the road. If the local authorities believe that a road needs a 30 mph limit then why build a dual carriageway?
		
Click to expand...

Did you know it was 30mph ?


----------



## Imurg (Jan 25, 2014)

PIng said:



			During my 30 years of driving I've been caught speeding 3 times, each time I've been doing around 40mph on an empty dual carriageway which for some reason had 30 mph limits. I wasn't deliberately flouting the law - it just seemed to be a natural safe speed for the road. If the local authorities believe that a road needs a 30 mph limit then why build a dual carriageway?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe due to the weight of traffic at certain times of the day they ned the extra road space but the road still goes through a zone deemed to need a 30 limit.

Long, long ago, far back in the mists of Time, I gave up wondering why roads had a certain speed limit on them. "Far greater minds than ours" have decreed that this road is 30 but that road, which to be fair looks like it should be a 30 but it is in fact a 40....

Speed limits are what they are, they're not generally variable, even though it appears many believe they don't apply on a Sunday morning....


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Imurg said:





Ethan said:



			There is some evidence that speed cameras do cause accidents, not directly at the site but nearby.
		
Click to expand...

A camera can't cause an accident.
If a driver sees a camera and slows suddenly to avoid getting flashed and gets hit up the backside, what's the cause?
The root cause is someone driving too close behind
The secondary cause is speeding.
		
Click to expand...

I have a foot in both camps on this one!

For the 'Cameras cause Accidents' argument
Many motorists instinctively slow down approaching Speed Cameras, whether they are speeding or not. And if the Camera was removed, the traffic would pass by the spot smoothly just as it did the previous several miles. So there is an element of 'Cause' - in the similar way that hazardous objects on the road cause (or don't) accidents.

For the 'Too close/Speed' argument
Yes. Travelling too close is almost certainly the major cause of such collisions. And speed is generally a major factor too.

And for we neutrals...
Speed Cameras are a classic application of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle!


----------



## PIng (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Did you know it was 30mph ?
		
Click to expand...

I can't remember for the first 2, but for the one a few weeks ago I'd just turned onto the dual carriageway from a side road and before I knew it I was staring into a police mobile camera. My fault entirely, but some roads are deceptive in that even 40 mph on a dual carriageway *seems* slow and you end up speeding without realising.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

When people approach a camera and they arent speeding their breaking will be minimal - when approaching it and they are speeding then the breaking will be braking sharper which will possibly cause more problems 

Whatever element of cause ban be placed on the camera - the main cause will always be the driver


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

PIng said:



			I can't remember for the first 2, but for the one a few weeks ago I'd just turned onto the dual carriageway from a side road and before I knew it I was staring into a police mobile camera. My fault entirely, but some roads are deceptive in that even 40 mph on a dual carriageway *seems* slow and you end up speeding without realising.
		
Click to expand...

There will be signs telling you what speed limit is on the dual carriageway unfortunately - i know its harsh mate.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			In the real world people should slow down 

Bunching is caused I believe by people speeding then arriving at cars doing the speed limit or slowing down for a reason. 

Again accidents will occur at speed camera sites or nearby - because people are speeding and then have to stop suddenly to avoid getting caught 

I see it every morning
		
Click to expand...

Bunching is actually described in flow dynamics in physics. Too much of any kind of stuff prevented from moving away (and hence separating out) quickly enough equals bunching. Artificial speed restrictions and/or bottlenecks can do this, or if used properly, can sometimes prevent it. Speeding may or may not be involved. Traffic travelling too slowly can cause it just as much. Have you ever sat behind a lorry doing 54 passing a lorry doing 53 up a long hill? Was there a long queue of traffic doing legal speeds behind.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			When people approach a camera and they arent speeding their breaking will be minimal
		
Click to expand...

Although in general I agree there is a camera on the way to Oxford from here in a 50 zone.
There are signs for the 50 close by, a sign just before the camera that clearly says 50 and yet virtually everyone slams on their brakes when they see the camera and goes past it at 40.....for the life of me I can't even begin to imagine what's going on in their heads.
But it's not the camera causing the braking - it's drivers being completely oblivious to what's going on around them.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

The lorries can't go any faster and again that's poor driving 

But it's still no excuse for people speeding - people need to be more aware of other motorists 

Instead of complaining about speed limits - stick to them

The problem is people aren't aware of others - they are only interested in themselves 

It's a mentality that needs to change on the roads


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Imurg said:



			Although in general I agree there is a camera on the way to Oxford from here in a 50 zone.
There are signs for the 50 close by, a sign just before the camera that clearly says 50 and yet virtually everyone slams on their brakes when they see the camera and goes past it at 40.....for the life of me I can't even begin to imagine what's going on in their heads.
But it's not the camera causing the braking - it's drivers being completely oblivious to what's going on around them.
		
Click to expand...

Yep totally agree - most certainly about a lack of awareness

Think it would great if everyone could do a speed awareness course but prob to impractical


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			When people approach a camera and they arent speeding their breaking will be minimal...
		
Click to expand...

I should hope so too. I'm just trying top imagine bits falling off/apart as cars approach a camera! Of course, the 'breaking' could be caused by a speeding driver not *braking* and colliding with them!


----------



## Ethan (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The lorries can't go any faster and again that's poor driving 

But it's still no excuse for people speeding - people need to be more aware of other motorists 

Instead of complaining about speed limits - stick to them

The problem is people aren't aware of others - they are only interested in themselves 

It's a mentality that needs to change on the roads
		
Click to expand...

I think you have made your viewpoint clear through repetition and yet more repetition in more than 30 posts on this thread. But you have ignored all the stuff you can't refute. 

The simple fact is that unthinking application of speed limits causes accidents. And stuff other than excessive speed causes accidents too. Including driving that is too slow for the road. That is why some countries have minimum speeds as well. the mentality of 29mph good, 31 mph bad is an example of concrete thinking. Any fule kno it ain't as simple as that. 

Sorry if that doesn't figure into your 'just follow the speed limit' mantra. It is a complicated world out there.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I should hope so too. I'm just trying top imagine bits falling off/apart as cars approach a camera! Of course, the 'breaking' could be caused by a speeding driver not *braking* and colliding with them!

Click to expand...


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 25, 2014)

Been there done that did my speed awareness course because they had me doing 36MPH. 

I actually enjoyed the speed awareness course as it put some very interesting points across. The most interesting one was this. The figures are not spot on as I haven't got time to do the maths on it, but I think this is what we where shown on the course regarding the speed that a car is still doing if it brakes a 30MPH speed limit.

At 30MPh it takes 75 feet
At 33MPH after 75 feet the car is still going something like 20MPH
At 35MPH after 75 feet the car is still going about 27MPH

Not spot on but if someone who has the time on their hands would like to do the maths then please feel free. But I think it just goes to show that if you brake the limit you are in more danger of killing someone. 

Something that we did on the course was to say the reason we where speeding. When you actually think about it there is no reason to speed, there are only excuses.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			I think you have made your viewpoint clear through repetition and yet more repetition in more than 30 posts on this thread. But you have ignored all the stuff you can't refute. 

The simple fact is that unthinking application of speed limits causes accidents. And stuff other than excessive speed causes accidents too. Including driving that is too slow for the road. That is why some countries have minimum speeds as well. 

Sorry if that doesn't figure into your 'just follow the speed limit' mantra. It is a complicated world out there.
		
Click to expand...

Yes slow drivers cause accidents - poor drivers cause accidents - reckless drivers cause accidents - lack of concentration from drivers causes accidents 

Speed limits don't "cause" accidents - drivers application to driving cause accidents 

Trying to shift the blame away from drivers won't change things 

People will blame speed limits or councils or cameras or "NIMBYs" but the irrefutable fact is the cause is the car and the driver 

People have tried to prove others are to blame but it will always come back to take personal responsibility of the vehicle under your control and your own actions


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 25, 2014)

This is most strange, I find myself agreeing with Phil!!

I always relate speeding to cheating, so don't start greeting when you are caught and have to pay the penalty.
Lack of knowledge of the rules is no excuse in the law.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes slow drivers cause accidents - poor drivers cause accidents - reckless drivers cause accidents - lack of concentration from drivers causes accidents 

Speed limits don't "cause" accidents - drivers application to driving cause accidents 

Trying to shift the blame away from drivers won't change things 

People will blame speed limits or councils or cameras or "NIMBYs" but the irrefutable fact is the cause is the car and the driver 

People have tried to prove others are to blame but it will always come back to take personal responsibility of the vehicle under your control and your own actions
		
Click to expand...

You just don't get it. 

Goodbye.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			You just don't get it. 

Goodbye.
		
Click to expand...


Got it a long time ago


Have a good day and watch your speed :thup:


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			This technology has existed for some considerable time - linking GPS to Engine Management.

I'm waiting for the time when... you enter your destination and the car transports you there - without the necessity of a 'driver'! Conceptually simple; practically challenging! But that's what Engineers love!
		
Click to expand...

It's called a bus pass. with driver or 3wood.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 25, 2014)

So LiverpoolPhil. 

As you have set yourself up to be the moral compass in this subject, is it safe to assume that

1, you have never broken a speed limit ever
2, you have never been "done" for speeding

just askin


----------



## guest100718 (Jan 25, 2014)

My work takes me to Germany next week, where at certain times I will be going as fast as I possibly can


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			So LiverpoolPhil. 

As you have set yourself up to be the moral compass in this subject, is it safe to assume that

1, you have never broken a speed limit ever
2, you have never been "done" for speeding

just askin
		
Click to expand...


Have I broken the speed limit - yes I have I have gone over the speed limit at times - do I ensure I don't on all roads - yes

Have I ever been "done" - yes I have been caught speeding 

But got an attitude wake up a while back for reasons im not going to divulge


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 25, 2014)

I think the opening point in this thread has been lost somewhat. Murph was just asking if anyone realised what the tolerance was that you are given when caught speeding. I can't understand the big debate that is going on. 

I see speeding like this. There are speed limits put in place to protect motorists and pedestrians. No one can ever have a good excuse to break speed limits, apart from emergency services. I would love to see the speed limits reduced in residential areas to 20MPH, then there might be a chance that people will drive no faster than 30MPH. 

I would love to see minimum speed limits put in place to make people drive at a speed that IMO is going to make traffic flow better and stop people getting frustrated which makes them start doing stupid things. Yes I have followed someone on an A-class road doing 30MPH in a 60 zone and I got that annoyed that I over took in a stupid place and nearly hit someone coming towards me.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 25, 2014)

guest100718 said:



			My work takes me to Germany next week, where at certain times I will be going as fast as I possibly can 

Click to expand...

There'll still be someone tailgating you flashing their lights.


----------



## guest100718 (Jan 25, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			There'll still be someone tailgating you flashing their lights. 

Click to expand...

I got a taxi from the airport last time and my cabbie was tailgating at 150mhp !!! not Ks, mph!


----------



## triple_bogey (Jan 25, 2014)

guest100718 said:



			My work takes me to Germany next week, where at certain times I will be going as fast as I possibly can 

Click to expand...

Thats the spirit.........:cheers:


----------



## London mike 61 (Jan 25, 2014)

guest100718 said:



			My work takes me to Germany next week, where at certain times I will be going as fast as I possibly can 

Click to expand...


Im going to do the same on English roads , and in my car that could mean overtaking pedestrians even !!


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

MegaSteve said:



			Would be relatively straightforward with modern vehicles to 'engineer in' some form of speed governance....
		
Click to expand...

The actual fitting to new vehicles, yes, manufactured in at the factory; retro-fitting to existing vehicles would be nigh on an impossibility, and that assumes that the powers that be get it past the motor industry, which is nowhere near a given.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			A few issues. Car speedos over-read speed, so when your indicator says you are doing X you are almost always doing less, but never doing more. Hence the margin for error. 

The basic concept of speed limits is a perfectly reasonable one, but it is distorted by local councils attempts to raise money (although that is now changing) and NIMBYs who have pull with a local council and get their part of the road designated as a 30 when it really does not need to be, and it sits in between sections of 40 or 50 providing nice little speed traps. These areas do nothing to promote road safety. 

Slow driving causes many accidents by causing clumping of traffic, and MPVs with mothers more interested in looking into the back to tell off the kids off and causing other cars to swerve. These culprits are usually not in the accident but just leave the trail of destruction behind them.
		
Click to expand...

Hell of a lot of truth in that post, particularly the middle paragraph



Liverpoolphil said:



			The changes off speed limits are now done in conjunction with the Highway Agencies using previous collision reports and risks 

Areas get reduced speed limits and speed cameras due to previous accidents over a 3 year and then monitored again for 3 years


*If an area is a 30 or a 20 it's because there have been previous incidents and there is risk of more collisions unless the speed is culled*

The days of making money for councils have been gone for a number of years now
		
Click to expand...

Possibly the least accurate post in this thread.  The lowering of a speed limit to 20mph should be done as per the guidance in the appropriate Government publication, and for a number of the existing ones they were nowhere close to meeting the guidelines but were pushed through for the reasons Ethan alludes to, although I see that it has been re-written to make it easier to appease those who think they need them.

The Highways Agency is only responsible for speed limits on the trunk road network.  There is an incumbent duty in legislation for the Highway Authority to identify areas that need accident reduction measures, but these do not necessarily mean speed reductions, and cameras do not necessarily go anywhere near the actual accident sites.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 25, 2014)

17 years of driving & no points on my licence. 
But receive 6 points on here for upsetting some one. 
Seriously you can't make it up.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Hell of a lot of truth in that post, particularly the middle paragraph



Possibly the least accurate post in this thread.  The lowering of a speed limit to 20mph should be done as per the guidance in the appropriate Government publication, and for a number of the existing ones they were nowhere close to meeting the guidelines but were pushed through for the reasons Ethan alludes to, although I see that it has been re-written to make it easier to appease those who think they need them.

The Highways Agency is only responsible for speed limits on the trunk road network.  There is an incumbent duty in legislation for the Highway Authority to identify areas that need accident reduction measures, but these do not necessarily mean speed reductions, and cameras do not necessarily go anywhere near the actual accident sites.
		
Click to expand...


My OH father teaches speed awareness courses and used to work in traffic and still consults with the highway agency and TV Police when it comes to looking at specific areas that have had collisions and have been deemed at risk

Outside schools is deemed at risk - hence the drop to 20
Residential areas off the main rain ( housing estates ) have been deemed at risk - drop to 20
Areas where pedestrians are large in numbers - at risk - drop to 20

They also look at the figures of collisions over a three period and make recommendations if needed - a recent one was on the Aylesbury to Bicester road - just past the Mazda garage - been dropped to a 40 because of previous history of collisions 

As well other traffic calming measures across TV police area including cameras , filtering , chicanes , speed bumps and reductions of speed 

The A5 is currently being looked as well

Murph will also find all this out at the speed awareness course


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			17 years of driving & no points on my licence. 
But receive 6 points on here for upsetting some one. 
Seriously you can't make it up.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl:

However, they don't last as long - more like 3 months as opposed to 3 years - and they don't increase the cost of your insurance either!

In both cases though, the 'moral' is the same - it pays to know the limits!


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jan 25, 2014)

20 MPH be able to walk faster than the cars if they keep up with these silly speed limits. Just another way of raising revenue. More and more cars on our road and they keep lowering speed limits everywhere then start to scratch their heads when there is traffic build up all over the place. The road and transport policy in this country is an absolute joke and motorists get screwed over price wise for a pants transport system.


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 25, 2014)

On a similar subject, as I come off staples corner, and drive towards London, a two lane slip way merges into a two lane A road. It's a 30 limit. Just up the road, where it all gets crazy, with merging traffic, and cyclists trying to do their thing as well, is often a mobile speed trap.

Does this make anything safer?

In my view, the drivers involved would be better off looking out of the windows, and using their mirrors, than staring at the speedo, trying to avoid a fixed penalty. Four into two is bad enough, without worrying about speed.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

In_The_Rough said:



			20 MPH be able to walk faster than the cars if they keep up with these silly speed limits. Just another way of raising revenue. More and more cars on our road and they keep lowering speed limits everywhere then start to scratch their heads when there is traffic build up all over the place. The road and transport policy in this country is an absolute joke and motorists get screwed over price wise for a pants transport system.
		
Click to expand...


The limits are lowered so that if someone gets hit at 20mph they are more likely to survive than being hit at 30mph

As opposed to trying to raise revenue.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

murphthemog said:



			On a similar subject, as I come off staples corner, and drive towards London, a two lane slip way merges into a two lane A road. It's a 30 limit. Just up the road, where it all gets crazy, with merging traffic, and cyclists trying to do their thing as well, is often a mobile speed trap.

Does this make anything safer?

In my view, the drivers involved would be better off looking out of the windows, and using their mirrors, than staring at the speedo, trying to avoid a fixed penalty. Four into two is bad enough, without worrying about speed.
		
Click to expand...


That does seem very hectic 

You certainly want drivers to concentrate and be aware of other drivers and cyclists etc 

But if you are doing 30mph will you be worried about the speed camera. ?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The limits are lowered so that if someone gets hit at 20mph they are more likely to survive than being hit at 30mph
		
Click to expand...

Excuse?


Liverpoolphil said:



			As opposed to trying to raise revenue.
		
Click to expand...

Reason?

And probably no attempt to educate likely victims so they can avoid getting hit in the first place!

Has the Congestion Charge actually reduced congestion? Or significantly improved Public Transport? Or is it simply another 'tax' like VAT - that was to fund the cost of EU (as was)!


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Excuse?

Reason?

And probably no attempt to educate likely victims so they can avoid getting hit in the first place!

Has the Congestion Charge actually reduced congestion? Or significantly improved Public Transport? Or is it simply another 'tax' like VAT - that was to fund the cost of EU (as was)!
		
Click to expand...

Have to agree with the Fox here. What happens when somebody gets hit by a car doing 20mph and dies do we lower it to 10 mph. Bit of a silly argument to be honest. At the end of the day motorists are an easy target for revenue for the governments and the thing that is really annoying is that very little seems to get spent on the transport network so where is the money going? War funds and EU more than likely.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Excuse?

Reason?

And probably no attempt to educate likely victims so they can avoid getting hit in the first place!

Has the Congestion Charge actually reduced congestion? Or significantly improved Public Transport? Or is it simply another 'tax' like VAT - that was to fund the cost of EU (as was)!
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea about the congestion charge 

And this first part was you are far more likely to survive getting hit by a car doing 20 than you are doing 30 as opposed to lowering it to 20 to increase revenue


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

In_The_Rough said:



			Have to agree with the Fox here. What happens when somebody gets hit by a car doing 20mph and dies do we lower it to 10 mph. Bit of a silly argument to be honest. At the end of the day motorists are an easy target for revenue for the governments and the thing that is really annoying is that very little seems to get spent on the transport network so where is the money going? War funds and EU more than likely.
		
Click to expand...


Preserving life is a silly argument ?


----------



## guest100718 (Jan 25, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			17 years of driving & no points on my licence. 
But receive 6 points on here for upsetting some one. 
Seriously you can't make it up.
		
Click to expand...

He's a sensitive soul. you should know better then to hurt his feelings..


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Preserving life is a silly argument ?
		
Click to expand...

Where do you stop though that is my point, it will come to a time when people on foot will be going faster than the cars. Some people will still die by being hit by a car at 20 mph they only need to bang there head on the ground after impact so what then lower it to 10 mph as you are less likely to die than being hit at 20 mph. More need to be done to stop people getting hit by cars, eg people keeping children until control at all times when near the road instead of letting them run all over the place, people just walking out into the road without even looking, idiots who see traffic coming but walk out into the road anyway and just expect the cars to stop for them and yes I have seen this with my own eyes as well as on Youtube. Seems to be a witch hunt to blame motorists all the time when somebody is hit when the real finger pointing sometimes should be at the person who has been hit, not all the time granted but why are they on the road when there is traffic nearby. There are a whole host of ways to cut down accidents and to just keep lowering speed limits all the time so everyone is driving at snails pace is not the answer, I still say the lower the speed limit is it is easier to catch people out and dish out fines which is a source of revenue for the government. Why have a fine system then, get caught speeding and 2 week ban get caught again 4 weeks etc depending on the severity of the offence, the fines are there because they are a revenue stream for the governments and nobody will convince me otherwise.


----------



## JustOne (Jan 25, 2014)

murphthemog said:



			Back to the original question.

Answer, 35 in a 30 gets you pinged, 34 doesn't. 

Guess what? I was doing 35. 

Who gets to go on a speed awareness course? Me.

And I was driving down a road, in a 30, where the houses end ( I was past them), and 100 yards later the limit changes to 60. I got pinged by a mobile camera unit just short of the national speed limit sign, at 35 in a 30. According to the paperwork, if I'd been doing 34 I'd have been fine. But is wasn't.

Fair do's I was speeding, but I wondered how many would think this was within tolerance.
		
Click to expand...

Are you feeling a combination of frustration and hatred for the police who *knowingly* set up their speed *TRAP* in an area where they know people will be speeding up slightly.... or do you feel that 100yrd stretch of road is a notorious accident blackspot?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

In_The_Rough said:



			Where do you stop though that is my point, it will come to a time when people on foot will be going faster than the cars. Some people will still die by being hit by a car at 20 mph they only need to bang there head on the ground after impact so what then lower it to 10 mph as you are less likely to die than being hit at 20 mph. More need to be done to stop people getting hit by cars, eg people keeping children until control at all times when near the road instead of letting them run all over the place, people just walking out into the road without even looking, idiots who see traffic coming but walk out into the road anyway and just expect the cars to stop for them and yes I have seen this with my own eyes as well as on Youtube. Seems to be a witch hunt to blame motorists all the time when somebody is hit when the real finger pointing sometimes should be at the person who has been hit, not all the time granted but why are they on the road when there is traffic nearby. There are a whole host of ways to cut down accidents and to just keep lowering speed limits all the time so everyone is driving at snails pace is not the answer, I still say the lower the speed limit is it is easier to catch people out and dish out fines which is a source of revenue for the government. Why have a fine system then, get caught speeding and 2 week ban get caught again 4 weeks etc depending on the severity of the offence, the fines are there because they are a revenue stream for the governments and nobody will convince me otherwise.
		
Click to expand...


You stop when the numbers of people killed by speeding - and drink driving and using the mobile is reduced to zero 

That's when you stop being concerned about road safety 

And yes it includes raising awareness for pedestrians - but you can't always stop a kid from running out chasing a ball - if you are doing 30 then there is a 20% chance of fatality - I think it's 50/50 at 40 mph 

At 20 mph that risk is significantly decreased and I have seen 15mph limits in some areas 

Do you need to go faster through housing estates ? 

Housing estates where they have lowered the limit don't have speed cameras to raise revenue - the rely on very visible signage and common sense from motorists 

Yes in the past council used to use speed cameras as a cash cow - those days are gone and most of those cameras have now gone or empty 

When you get caught and offered a speed awareness - the fee doesn't even cover the whole cost 

If you are getting three points and a nominal Â£60 then the fee covers the costs 

If you are getting a bigger fine than you are going to court and are driving considerably faster than the speed limit and deserve the punishment 

I believe all drivers should sit in on a drivers awareness course - and possibly they could look to reduce insurance for those that do that 

And yes a banning system could be included as well to improve awareness


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You stop when the numbers of people killed by speeding - and *drink driving and using the mobile is reduced to zero * Will never happen, always been there and always will.
That's when you stop being concerned about road safety 

And yes it includes raising awareness for pedestrians - *but you can't always *stop a kid from running out chasing a ball - if you are doing 30 then there is a 20% chance of fatality - I think it's 50/50 at 40 mph No always no but a lot of parents simply do not know where their kids are or up to. Not just kids at fault either, far too many adults just walk out without a care in the world

*At 20 mph that risk is significantly decreased *and I have seen 15mph limits in some areas Maybe but as I said some people will still end up dying so then what reduce speed more to where it is quicker to push the car. Has to be a cut off point

*Do you need to go faster through housing estates *? Probably not but people do which is why it is as vital to make sure pedestrians are not on suicide missions

Housing estates where they have lowered the limit don't have speed cameras to raise revenue - the rely on very visible signage and common sense from motorists 

Yes in the past council used to use speed cameras as a cash cow - those days are gone and most of those cameras have now gone or empty 

When you get caught and offered a speed awareness - the fee doesn't even cover the whole cost 

If you are getting three points and a nominal Â£60 then the fee *covers the costs * Cost of what a bit of paper from the cop and admin fee from the court

If you are getting a bigger fine than you are going to court and are *driving considerably faster than the speed limit and deserve the punishment* Why have the fine though an automatic ban may be more of a learning curve
I believe all drivers should sit in on a drivers awareness course - and possibly they could look to reduce insurance for those that do that 

And yes a *banning system could be included *as well to improve awareness
		
Click to expand...

 On that we agree


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 25, 2014)

A pedestrian hit @ 30mph has a 27% chance of surviving.

A pedestrian hit @ 20mph has an 87% chance of surviving.

BUT a pedestrian hit @ 40mph has only a 1% chance of survival.

Just over 8yrs I was hit @ 30mph, and here I sit 8 yrs later suffering 24/7 pain. Pretty much everything I do involves pain, including trying to sleep, and for that there's some great painkillers....... that wreck your gut causing further problems. Maybe with some education I wouldn't have been walking along the PAVEMENT!! I could give you a list of what the last 8yrs have been like... 

What difference would it make to your journey time if your speed limit was dropped from 30 to 20? In truth, the vast majority of your journey isn't spent as high as 30 around town anyway, especially in the residential areas. In time, how long does your average journey around town take, and how much longer would it take if for those brief periods you were at 30 you now travelled at 20?

And finally, do you feel you should put someone's life at serious risk for the sake of being 10mins early?


----------



## JustOne (Jan 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			And finally, do you feel you should put someone's life at serious risk for the sake of being 10mins early?
		
Click to expand...

Society encourages 'earliness'...... or else you'd miss your tee time!!!


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 25, 2014)

JustOne said:



			Society encourages 'earliness'...... or else you'd miss your tee time!!! 

Click to expand...

Perhaps the earliness is to leave 10mins earlier


----------



## JustOne (Jan 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			Perhaps the earliness is to leave 10mins earlier

Click to expand...

But what happens if you do and the traffic is bad...... :rofl:


You can't pre-empt that you should have left 20 minutes earlier, until next time.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 25, 2014)

What, according to etiquette , is the correct position to stand at whilst being given a talking to by a traffic cop?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			A pedestrian hit @ 30mph has a 27% chance of surviving.

A pedestrian hit @ 20mph has an 87% chance of surviving.

BUT a pedestrian hit @ 40mph has only a 1% chance of survival.

Just over 8yrs I was hit @ 30mph, and here I sit 8 yrs later suffering 24/7 pain. Pretty much everything I do involves pain, including trying to sleep, and for that there's some great painkillers....... that wreck your gut causing further problems. Maybe with some education I wouldn't have been walking along the PAVEMENT!! I could give you a list of what the last 8yrs have been like... 

What difference would it make to your journey time if your speed limit was dropped from 30 to 20? In truth, the vast majority of your journey isn't spent as high as 30 around town anyway, especially in the residential areas. In time, how long does your average journey around town take, and how much longer would it take if for those brief periods you were at 30 you now travelled at 20?

And finally, do you feel you should put someone's life at serious risk for the sake of being 10mins early?
		
Click to expand...

That's awful to hear mate  

Sounds like you are lucky to be alive - unfortunately many others aren't 

Speeding will only ever save someone minutes - it's not worth it in the long run


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			A pedestrian hit @ 30mph has a 27% chance of surviving.

A pedestrian hit @ 20mph has an 87% chance of surviving.

BUT a pedestrian hit @ 40mph has only a 1% chance of survival.
		
Click to expand...

While I have sympathy for your condition, I'm calling B-S on those figures! Do you have a reference or link? I've certainly seen numbers (from rather old documents - and from US rather than UK) that are markedly different to those!  And here's a link to a fairly authoratitive organisation's report that certainly disagrees with your figures! http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/highway/info/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf

And without prejudicing the desire for saving lives, I believe there's quite a difference between the speeds at which a collision occurs and the speed limit of the area - the collision is normally quite a bit less than the limit. Can't find the details/reference though.



PhilTheFragger said:



			What, according to etiquette , is the correct position to stand at whilst being given a talking to by a traffic cop?
		
Click to expand...

And is it acceptable to attempt to 'line him up'?

Phil. You are being a bit 'Rocker-ish'!


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That does seem very hectic 

You certainly want drivers to concentrate and be aware of other drivers and cyclists etc 

But if you are doing 30mph will you be worried about the speed camera. ?
		
Click to expand...

How do you know you are doing 30? Ah, yes, by looking at the dash board.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 25, 2014)

I can't believe what I am reading from some people, saying that it would not matter if you dropped the speed limit, people would still be getting killed. Think about these facts of speed against thinking and stopping distances. 

At 20 it is 6M and 6M
At 30 it is 9M and 14M

So doing 20 you get an extra 3M of thinking time and an extra 8M to stop, so you get 11M of extra time to stop when that kid runs out in front of you. It it is not so much the ability to stop in time, but he fact that it gives you more chance to avoid him.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jan 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			A pedestrian hit @ 30mph has a 27% chance of surviving.

A pedestrian hit @ 20mph has an 87% chance of surviving.

BUT a pedestrian hit @ 40mph has only a 1% chance of survival.

Just over 8yrs I was hit @ 30mph, and here I sit 8 yrs later suffering 24/7 pain. Pretty much everything I do involves pain, including trying to sleep, and for that there's some great painkillers....... that wreck your gut causing further problems. Maybe with some education I wouldn't have been walking along the PAVEMENT!! I could give you a list of what the last 8yrs have been like... 

What difference would it make to your journey time if your speed limit was dropped from 30 to 20? In truth, the vast majority of your journey isn't spent as high as 30 around town anyway, especially in the residential areas. In time, how long does your average journey around town take, and how much longer would it take if for those brief periods you were at 30 you now travelled at 20?

And finally, do you feel you should put someone's life at serious risk for the sake of being 10mins early?
		
Click to expand...

Again like Foxy I have sympathy for your plight. However your stats do seem to be a bit adrift. These figure were got from learn 2 live website

Hit by a car at 20 mph, 1 out of 40 pedestrians will be killed. 97% will survive
Hit by a car at 30 mph, 2 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. 80% will survive
Hit by a car at 35 mph, 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. 50% will survive
Hit by a car at 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. 10% will survive.


----------



## moogie (Jan 25, 2014)

More Figures


http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1191.html


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			While I have sympathy for your condition, I'm calling B-S on those figures! Do you have a reference or link? I've certainly seen numbers (from rather old documents - and from US rather than UK) that are markedly different to those!  

And without prejudicing the desire for saving lives, I believe there's quite a difference between the speeds at which a collision occurs and the speed limit of the area - the collision is normally quite a bit less than the limit. Can't find the details/reference though.
		
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that people are so much against driving slower through residential areas. So what is more important? You going 30 or some kid running into the middle of a road to fetch a ball and still being able to play with it again. If you believe the facts or not, the fact that matters is that you have more chance of surviving getting hit at 20 than 30.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There will be signs telling you what speed limit is on the dual carriageway unfortunately - i know its harsh mate.
		
Click to expand...

When I was snapped, the police paperwork stated clearly that not all cameras are supported by speed signs and it is up to the driver to know the correct speed by virtue of the street lighting


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jan 25, 2014)

moogie said:



			More Figures


http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1191.html

Click to expand...

So in other words all these groups and bodies blurt out figures and they all vary, so in reality nobody has a damn clue and just use them to prove/disprove their own agenda


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I can't believe what I am reading from some people, saying that it would not matter if you dropped the speed limit, people would still be getting killed. Think about these facts of speed against thinking and stopping distances. 

At 20 it is 6M and 6M
At 30 it is 9M and 14M

So doing 20 you get an extra 3M of thinking time and an extra 8M to stop, so you get 11M of extra time to stop when that kid runs out in front of you. It it is not so much the ability to stop in time, but he fact that it gives you more chance to avoid him.
		
Click to expand...

You only get that extra time if the kid is considerate enough to run out in front of you at a point when you can see them.  Unfortunately at either 20 or 30mph, a number of pedestrians walk out, usually from between parked vehicles, at a point when there is nothing that can be done by the driver to prevent it, because they can't see them.  In my opinion an awful lot more urban accidents would be prevented if parking was removed from urban streets and visibility splays at junctions were more appropriate but that would cost councils revenue and upset an awful lot of of residents, so a large cause of the accidents doesn't get addressed.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 25, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			What, according to etiquette , is the correct position to stand at whilst being given a talking to by a traffic cop?
		
Click to expand...

In the dock is where you'll stand


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jan 25, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			You only get that extra time if the kid is considerate enough to run out in front of you at a point when you can see them.  Unfortunately at either 20 or 30mph, a number of pedestrians walk out, usually from between parked vehicles, at a point when there is nothing that can be done by the driver to prevent it, because they can't see them.  In my opinion an awful lot more urban accidents would be prevented if *parking was removed from urban streets *and visibility splays at junctions were more appropriate but that would cost councils revenue and upset an awful lot of of residents, so a large cause of the accidents doesn't get addressed.
		
Click to expand...

The do this in parts of the USA. Not only does it look better visability is greater reduced. When I went a year or two ago 1 community had this in place and I asked about when they have visitors and the answer was TOUGH if the cars cannot go on your drive then they must find other means of getting there otherwise any cars spotted parked on the road will be towed. You could see from one end of the street to the other


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

chrisd said:



			When I was snapped, the police paperwork stated clearly that not all cameras are supported by speed signs and it is up to the driver to know the correct speed by virtue of the street lighting
		
Click to expand...


Yes the three street lights in 200 yards ( not sure if that's exact. ) 

They will be automatically 30 mph unless they have a sign indicating any other speed limit


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I can't believe what I am reading from some people, saying that it would not matter if you dropped the speed limit, people would still be getting killed. Think about these facts of speed against thinking and stopping distances. 

At 20 it is 6M and 6M
At 30 it is 9M and 14M

So doing 20 you get an extra 3M of thinking time and an extra 8M to stop, so you get 11M of extra time to stop when that kid runs out in front of you. It it is not so much the ability to stop in time, but he fact that it gives you more chance to avoid him.
		
Click to expand...

Those stats are nonsense as not all cars stop at the same rate.  A car with carbon ceramic breaks will come to a halt in a MUCH shorter distance than an ordinary car and it also varies from driver to driver and on prevailing road conditions.  There is no 1 single figure for stopping distance from a certain speed for all cars.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 25, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			You only get that extra time if the kid is considerate enough to run out in front of you at a point when you can see them.  Unfortunately at either 20 or 30mph, a number of pedestrians walk out, usually from between parked vehicles, at a point when there is nothing that can be done by the driver to prevent it, because they can't see them.  In my opinion an awful lot more urban accidents would be prevented if parking was removed from urban streets and visibility splays at junctions were more appropriate but that would cost councils revenue and upset an awful lot of of residents, so a large cause of the accidents doesn't get addressed.
		
Click to expand...

But if you remove parking doesnt that result in an increase in road speed?

one line of thought re traffic calming was to do away with all parking enforcement, encourage parking wherever you want as this results in lower vehicle speeds


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			Those stats are nonsense as not all cars stop at the same rate.  A car with carbon ceramic breaks will come to a halt in a MUCH shorter distance than an ordinary car and it also varies from driver to driver and on prevailing road conditions.  There is no 1 single figure for stopping distance from a certain speed for all cars.
		
Click to expand...


The amount of cars with ceramic breaks on the road in sure is very minimal 

Breaking distances are done on an average using an average car in good conditions 

Just because you have a car with superior breaks should mean that you can go a bit quicker because you will stop a bit quicker


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I find it hard to believe that people are so much against driving slower through residential areas. So what is more important? You going 30 or some kid running into the middle of a road to fetch a ball and still being able to play with it again. If you believe the facts or not, the fact that matters is that you have more chance of surviving getting hit at 20 than 30.
		
Click to expand...

Where have I stated that I am 'so much against driving slower through residential areas'. I am definitely against the use of misquoted, misguided or plain made up numbers - to justify anything!

The article I linked to when calling B/S on Hobbit is definitely worth a read - an unemotive assessment of the issue! It states that TRL research found that simply changing the speed limit had very little effect - so 20mph zones need to be self-policing imo!

And it's definitely worth being aware that some figures are simply unusable. If simply the number of incidents is counted - as opposed to incidents per thousand (or whatever) vehicles, then the numbers are unreliable for analysis - as no allowance is made for motorists that use alternative routes! It's the usual case of L;DL and Statistics!


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The amount of cars with ceramic breaks on the road in sure is very minimal 

Breaking distances are done on an average using an average car in good conditions 

Just because you have a car with superior breaks should mean that you can go a bit quicker because you will stop a bit quicker
		
Click to expand...

My point was that the published braking distance figures are not FACTS. At best, they are approximations made on the back of several assumptions which even the people doing the calculations know to be false e.g. everyone's reaction time is the same.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			But if you remove parking doesnt that result in an increase in road speed?

one line of thought re traffic calming was to do away with all parking enforcement, encourage parking wherever you want as this results in lower vehicle speeds
		
Click to expand...

It's a possibility Fragger, but if you remove all the obstructions to progress and then have more predictable journey times it can reduce the perceived need to speed.  As chrisd confirmed in this thread, his speeding occurred out of frustration at being delayed and late for a deadline, so when he hit an open road his speed increased.  Removing parking certainly reduces the hiding places from which a pedestrian can emerge, and they are the most likely to be the losers in a accident.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			But if you remove parking doesnt that result in an increase in road speed?

one line of thought re traffic calming was to do away with all parking enforcement, encourage parking wherever you want as this results in lower vehicle speeds
		
Click to expand...

Remove parking possibly gives the illusion of a quieter road 

Are people in that much of a rush they need to drive the car faster 

Why are people looking for other ways when the simplest is to curb speeds in certain areas.

Who really needs to do more than 20mph in a housing estate or through any residential area ?


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			While I have sympathy for your condition, I'm calling B-S on those figures! Do you have a reference or link? I've certainly seen numbers (from rather old documents - and from US rather than UK) that are markedly different to those!  

And without prejudicing the desire for saving lives, I believe there's quite a difference between the speeds at which a collision occurs and the speed limit of the area - the collision is normally quite a bit less than the limit. Can't find the details/reference though.
		
Click to expand...

I don't grab figures out of the air Foxy. The site I got the figures from was the SDT site in the US. So which site is accurate?

Bizarrely, only 2% of pedestrian deaths include vehicles exceeding the speed limits.

The best site for stats is the Dept of Transport... nice to read that pedestrian deaths has dropped from over 850 in 2000 to 420 in 2012. Maybe road safety campaigns, including actively targeting speeders is worthwhile.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			My point was that the published braking distance figures are not FACTS. At best, they are approximations made on the back of several assumptions which even the people doing the calculations know to be false e.g. everyone's reaction time is the same.
		
Click to expand...

They are facts though - they have been proven by physical using a car to physical show the stopping distances


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They are facts though - they have been proven by physical using a car to physical show the stopping distances
		
Click to expand...

Only for that one car & driver so not facts at all I'm afraid.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			My point was that the published braking distance figures are not FACTS. At best, they are approximations made on the back of several assumptions which even the people doing the calculations know to be false e.g. everyone's reaction time is the same.
		
Click to expand...

As far as braking distances, as opposed to overall stopping distances, are concerned, they are calculated on a skid to stop basis.  With a locked wheel the type of brakes are a complete irrelevance, the road surface and the tyres will have a much bigger effect.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			I don't grab figures out of the air Foxy. 

Bizarrely, only 2% of pedestrian deaths include vehicles exceeding the speed limits.

The best site for stats is the Dept of Transport... nice to read that pedestrian deaths has dropped from over 850 in 2000 to 420 in 2012. Maybe road safety campaigns, including actively targeting speeders is worthwhile.
		
Click to expand...

So link? Reference?  I provided one on my challenge (after you picked it up for quote).

I'm still calling B/S until shown the numbers!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			Only for that one car & driver so not facts at all I'm afraid.
		
Click to expand...

The difference between most cars bar your super cars is going to be very minimal


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			So link? Reference?  I provided one on my challenge (after you picked it up for quote).

I'm still calling B/S until shown the numbers!
		
Click to expand...

http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/publichealth/info/rs4-casestudy-20-mph-zones.pdf


http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc...in Residential Areas by Shops and Schools.pdf


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			As far as braking distances, as opposed to overall stopping distances, are concerned, they are calculated on a skid to stop basis.  With a locked wheel the type of brakes are a complete irrelevance, the road surface and the tyres will have a much bigger effect.
		
Click to expand...

So these calculations must pre-date ABS which is standard on the majority of modern road cars which no longer lock wheels and skid?

If not it just shows how irrelevant they actually are as ABS ensures drivers don't skid any more.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			So these calculations must pre-date ABS which is standard on the majority of modern road cars which no longer lock wheels and skid?

If not it just shows how irrelevant they actually are as ABS ensures drivers don't skid any more.
		
Click to expand...


You can still skid with ABS


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

http://www.sdt.com.au/safedrive-directory-STOPPINGDISTANCE.htm

Quite a spread even amongst ordinary cars...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



http://www.sdt.com.au/safedrive-directory-STOPPINGDISTANCE.htm

Quite a spread even amongst ordinary cars...
		
Click to expand...


Not many in that list are " ordinary" 

And even then the difference between most is 2 metres bar one which is  4 metres


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

A BMW 330D is 7 metres less than a Suzuki Alto, neither of which are particularly unusual or uncommon cars on our roads.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 25, 2014)

People are now getting into the pointless argument. The facts on the braking distances are just an average as you can't take into account a Fiesta with brand new brakes against a Range Rover with knackered old brakes. I do agree that different cars and people will have an effect on these stopping facts.

When I had an Impreza I was never worried about hitting something in front of me as my car stopped on a sixpence. I was more worried that the car behind would not stop before it went into the back of me. 

I will put a question to you...... would you prefer to be hit at 20MPH or 30MPH


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			People are now getting into the pointless argument. The facts on the braking distances are just an average as you can't take into account a Fiesta with brand new brakes against a Range Rover with knackered old brakes. I do agree that different cars and people will have an effect on these stopping facts.

When I had an Impreza I was never worried about hitting something in front of me as my car stopped on a sixpence. I was more worried that the car behind would not stop before it went into the back of me. 

I will put a question to you...... would you prefer to be hit at 20MPH or 30MPH
		
Click to expand...

So they are not facts, just approximations which was my point.  And any real world test invariably shows that, on average, real cars in the real world need less distance to stop than the officially published approximations.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/publichealth/info/rs4-casestudy-20-mph-zones.pdf


http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc...in Residential Areas by Shops and Schools.pdf

Click to expand...

Point 8 in a long list at the bottom of the second link is that reduced speed reduces pollution.  Which is directly contradicted by this article;

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/ask-leo-20mph-speed-limits-pollution

So it seems the winner is whoever pointed out earlier in the thread that whatever your point of view, there is always an expert and a statistician prepared to back it up.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			So they are not facts, just approximations which was my point.  And any real world test invariably shows that, on average, real cars in the real world need less distance to stop than the officially published approximations.
		
Click to expand...

But a car going 20 still need less stopping time than if it was doing 30.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/publichealth/info/rs4-casestudy-20-mph-zones.pdf


http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc...in Residential Areas by Shops and Schools.pdf

Click to expand...

Neither of which support Hobbit's numbers!

Here's the (or at least a) Factsheet relating to the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents summary that you quoted. It's the link I added to my challenge of Hobbit's numbers. 

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/highway/info/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf

Dorling's paper is actually a proposal/making a case rather than the analysis that the RSfPoA doc is. He also quotes Ashton and Mackay study (of 1979) which was the old (ancient actually) doc I referred to earlier. Those 35 year old figures are now unreliable imo.


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			But a car going 20 still need less stopping time than if it was doing 30.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, but that same car at 30 may be perfectly capable of stopping in a shorter distance than another car doing 20.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			So these calculations must pre-date ABS which is standard on the majority of modern road cars which no longer lock wheels and skid?

If not it just shows how irrelevant they actually are as ABS ensures drivers don't skid any more.
		
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly from the point of view of the calculation of the braking distances, a wheel on the point of locking as per one with ABS and a locked wheel are so close as to be treated the same way.  However the vehicle with ABS will take longer to stop than one without, as the ABS releases pressure on the brakes in order to keep the wheel revolving then reapplies the pressure, whereas full pressure is maintained in the case of the locked wheel.

ABS is not a braking accessory, it's a steering accessory as you can't steer with a locked wheel but you can with a revolving one.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/...houldnt-upgrade-to-carbon-ceramic-brakes.html

Read the paragraph just above the bold heading "Why is Carbon so squishy" if you don't believe me on the tyres and road grip factor.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 25, 2014)

In the old days when cars were limited to 4mph and  you needed a bloke with a flag walking in front, I guess there were fewer fatalities. Perhaps we should return to those days. Can't be too careful.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			Of course, but that same car at 30 may be perfectly capable of stopping in a shorter distance than another car doing 20.
		
Click to expand...

But you can't dictate speed limits based on the supercars that can stop quicker 

You can't say - well you have a Ferrari with ceramic breaks so you can go 30 in a 20 because you can stop quicker -


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



http://www.sdt.com.au/safedrive-directory-STOPPINGDISTANCE.htm

Quite a spread even amongst ordinary cars...
		
Click to expand...




ger147 said:



			A BMW 330D is 7 metres less than a Suzuki Alto, neither of which are particularly unusual or uncommon cars on our roads.
		
Click to expand...

And when you read the caveat in the paragraph above the table you quote, it concedes that there are so many variables in the test conditions as to make the results worthless;

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The table below lists the BRAKING DISTANCE of various cars from 100 km/h. These cars were tested at different locations on different days.

*[/FONT]
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Be careful comparing results as test results can vary depending on many factors including the road surface, how the speed was measured (as various cars have differing speedometer accuracies), the tyre pressures, fuel load and whether the car had only the driver or had additional passengers.*[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

So do people want to be able to drive quicker ?

Do they want residential areas back from 20mph to 30mph because some figures are about a couple % out

Do people want to drive quicker through residential areas ?


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But you can't dictate speed limits based on the supercars that can stop quicker 

You can't say - well you have a Ferrari with ceramic breaks so you can go 30 in a 20 because you can stop quicker -
		
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting that you can or should do such a thing.  I simply don't accept that you can state as a fact that the overall stopping distance for a car from Speed A is X as there are FAR too many variables involved.


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			And when you read the caveat in the paragraph above the table you quote, it concedes that there are so many variables in the test conditions as to make the results worthless;

*The table below lists the BRAKING DISTANCE of various cars from 100 km/h. These cars were tested at different locations on different days.

*
*Be careful comparing results as test results can vary depending on many factors including the road surface, how the speed was measured (as various cars have differing speedometer accuracies), the tyre pressures, fuel load and whether the car had only the driver or had additional passengers.*



Click to expand...

That is my point - there are many variables in the real world which is why I simply will not accept that there is 1 figure for a stopping distance for a car doing speed A. Quite simply, it depends...


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Neither of which support Hobbit's numbers!

Here's the (or at least a) Factsheet relating to the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents summary that you quoted. It's the link I added to my challenge of Hobbit's numbers. 

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/highway/info/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf

Dorling's paper is actually a proposal/making a case rather than the analysis that the RSfPoA doc is. He also quotes Ashton and Mackay study (of 1979) which was the old (ancient actually) doc I referred to earlier. Those 35 year old figures are now unreliable imo.
		
Click to expand...

Foxy, they're not my figures, they're the SDT figures. If you're that hung up on them Google them. One thing this exercise has shown is that there are a number of sources that quote different figures for survival rates but the figures that are diffinitive is the significant reduction in fatalities where 30's have been changed to 20's. BTW Foxy, they're your figures.


----------



## Captainron (Jan 25, 2014)

I have a mate who drives like he is ferrying miss daisy about on the motorway. Never gets above 60 but going through villages he maintains the same speed and breaks the limits by 20mph or so. Drives me bloody insane. 

I would love all cars to be limited by a satellite system that would adjust the cars limit accordingly but that's not going to happen is it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			That is my point - there are many variables in the real world which is why I simply will not accept that there is 1 figure for a stopping distance for a car doing speed A. Quite simply, it depends...
		
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone has said there is only one stopping distance but I'm not sure of the relevance right now 

Some cars will stop quicker but some will stop slower

But it shouldn't effect the speed you are doing within certain areas


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			Foxy, they're not my figures, they're the SDT figures. If you're that hung up on them Google them. One thing this exercise has shown is that there are a number of sources that quote different figures for survival rates but the figures that are diffinitive is the significant reduction in fatalities where 30's have been changed to 20's. BTW Foxy, they're your figures.
		
Click to expand...

Nope! You quoted them; Your responsibility to provide the reference/link! Otherwise the B/S call stands. And I still think it's B/S (or other 'error') anyway, because so many other sets of figures have been close, but not the same, as the ones in the link I posted.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

More people die getting hit by a car at 30mph than 20mph - the risk is greater at 30mph

The exact figures shouldnt make a blind bit of difference 

If people are far more likely to survive getting hit by a car doing 20mph then it makes sense to reduce the speed limit to that from 30mph

Unless of course you want to drive around estates at 30mph

I most certainly don't want to see 30mph in residential areas


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 25, 2014)

ger147 said:



			Of course, but that same car at 30 may be perfectly capable of stopping in a shorter distance than another car doing 20.
		
Click to expand...

There is a minimum distance in which any vehicle can stop from any speed on a given road because it is governed by the laws of physics.  And carbon ceramic brakes will not reduce that any further, so no, if maximum braking effort is applied in both vehicles it is not possible, assuming that both vehicle's braking systems are properly maintained and working correctly.



Liverpoolphil said:



			I don't think anyone has said there is only one stopping distance but I'm not sure of the relevance right now 

*Some cars will stop quicker but some will stop slower*

But it shouldn't effect the speed you are doing within certain areas
		
Click to expand...

They will, but the difference between them is minimal and not as much as some people would have you believe.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			There is a minimum distance in which any vehicle can stop from any speed on a given road because it is governed by the laws of physics.  And carbon ceramic brakes will not reduce that any further, so no, if maximum braking effort is applied in both vehicles it is not possible, assuming that both vehicle's braking systems are properly maintained and working correctly.



They will, but the difference between them is minimal and not as much as some people would have you believe.
		
Click to expand...

I agree the difference is prob minimal


----------



## ger147 (Jan 25, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			There is a minimum distance in which any vehicle can stop from any speed on a given road because it is governed by the laws of physics.  And carbon ceramic brakes will not reduce that any further, so no, if maximum braking effort is applied in both vehicles it is not possible, assuming that both vehicle's braking systems are properly maintained and working correctly.



They will, but the difference between them is minimal and not as much as some people would have you believe.
		
Click to expand...

More assumptions...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 25, 2014)

I am all for 20mph limits in residential areas but it does need to show a bit of common sense.

In our village we have a newish development of about 15 houses that have their own wee 20mph signs. The road that these signs cover must be all of 40 yards long. Perhaps the cooncil thought that the residents would all be Ferrarri drivers.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If people are far more likely to survive getting hit by a car doing 20mph then it makes sense to reduce the speed limit to that from 30mph
		
Click to expand...

Wrong! It may makes sense to reduce the speed of vehicles (in certain areas) from 30mph to 20mph, but that is not the same thing!



Liverpoolphil said:



			I most certainly don't want to see 30mph in residential areas
		
Click to expand...

That depends on the nature of the road. Plenty of areas where 30 or even maybe 40, is fine imo!


----------



## Andy808 (Jan 25, 2014)

The theory is that there is a 10% leway for mechanical differences in the speedo but the speed limit is 30 so you can be done for anything over 30.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 25, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			This is most strange, I find myself agreeing with Phil!!

I always relate speeding to cheating, so don't start greeting when you are caught and have to pay the penalty.
Lack of knowledge of the rules is no excuse in the law.
		
Click to expand...

Me too - just read the post of LPs you commented upon and I was thinking exactly the same - I agree with Phil


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Wrong! It may makes sense to reduce the speed of vehicles (in certain areas) from 30mph to 20mph, but that is not the same thing!



That depends on the nature of the road. Plenty of areas where 30 or even maybe 40, is fine imo!
		
Click to expand...


So how do you reduce the speed of vehicles down from 30 to 20mph without decreasing the speed limit ?

And please stop telling people they are wrong in the way you are - it's very abrasive and not always strictly true


----------



## London mike 61 (Jan 25, 2014)

No one should be surprised if they get done for speeding, or driving whilst having a mobile stuck to their ear. Both illegal and both dangerous. We may not like them but thems the rules.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			More people die getting hit by a car at 30mph than 20mph - the risk is greater at 30mph
		
Click to expand...

Phil, have you a report that shows this? Everytime I made a common sense statement as above in the m40 thread, you asked for supporting evidence  also, you can't extrapolate the "risk" from that statement. Just because more people die, doesn't mean a higher risk.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Phil, have you a report that shows this? Everytime I made a common sense statement as above in the m40 thread, you asked for supporting evidence  also, you can't extrapolate the "risk" from that statement. Just because more people die, doesn't mean a higher risk.
		
Click to expand...

*Not all motorists will like it but the research underlines work by the Department for Transport in 1999, which showed that reducing traffic speed to 20mph led to a 50 per cent drop in the number of six- to 11-year-olds killed or seriously injured. Thatâ€™s partly due to the speed of impact, because pedestrians have a 90 per cent chance of surviving being hit by a car at under 20mph but a less than 50 per cent chance of surviving at 28mph or higher.*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8644983/Why-20mph-limits-help-save-lives.html


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jan 25, 2014)

This doesn't say anything about the amount of people that die at 20mph and 30mph


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			This doesn't say anything about the amount of people that die at 20mph and 30mph 

Click to expand...


As I said in the original post - the exact figures shouldn't make a blind bit of difference :thup:


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jan 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			As I said in the original post - the exact figures shouldn't make a blind bit of difference :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Ah but it could well do! If very few people die at 30mph, then nothing will be saved by decreasing the limits in those areas.

Side note, that article actually says 20mph shouldn't be applied too much!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 25, 2014)

It shouldn't be applied too much - should be used in the correct and appropiate areas 

Housing estates , near schools , busy pedestrian areas.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So how do you reduce the speed of vehicles down from 30 to 20mph without decreasing the speed limit ?
		
Click to expand...

Read the Factsheet that I linked to and you will see how 

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/highway/info/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf

It also provides the answers as to why you were wrong! I welcome any correction when I am wrong and am prepared to admit it when I am. The same doesn't seem to apply to you, though you are not unique!  

And the chart on Page 1 provides the evidence CheltenhamHacker seems to be looking for - though, imo, it's pretty self evident in this case.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

ger147 said:





Blue in Munich said:



			There is a minimum distance in which any vehicle can stop from any speed on a given road because it is governed by the laws of physics.  And carbon ceramic brakes will not reduce that any further, so no, if maximum braking effort is applied in both vehicles it is not possible, assuming that both vehicle's braking systems are properly maintained and working correctly.
		
Click to expand...

More assumptions...
		
Click to expand...

Er. No! There's a formula. The fastest a moving car can reduce velocity (actually Kinetic Energy) to zero (minimum distance) is a function of the Friction between the Road and Tyres, the (square of the) Velocity and the Mass of the vehicle (that's the laws of physics that BiM is referring to). More efficient brakes/braking will mean any extra distance is minimised. Having a lower initial velocity is the best way to significantly reduce stopping distance.


----------



## ger147 (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Er. No! There's a formula. The fastest a moving car can reduce velocity (actually Kinetic Energy) to zero (minimum distance) is a function of the Friction between the Road and Tyres, the (square of the) Velocity and the Mass of the vehicle (that's the laws of physics that BiM is referring to). More efficient brakes/braking will mean any extra distance is minimised. Having a lower initial velocity is the best way to significantly reduce stopping distance.
		
Click to expand...

So all cars have the same mass? Thought not.

And all brakes being properly maintained is an assumption which is not the case in the real world. Physics will not prevent an Ariel Atom with perfect brakes and brand new tyres stopping in a shorter distance from 30 mph than a 15 year old Range Rover with a leaky slave cylinder and tyres which have seen better days from 20 mph.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Read the Factsheet that I linked to and you will see how 

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/highway/info/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf

It also provides the answers as to why you were wrong! I welcome any correction when I am wrong and am prepared to admit it when I am. The same doesn't seem to apply to you, though you are not unique!  

And the chart on Page 1 provides the evidence CheltenhamHacker seems to be looking for - though, imo, it's pretty self evident in this case.
		
Click to expand...

Here is a little story for you 

About 8 years ago I was walking to my mates through a residential area which was still a 30 - 

A little girl about 100 yards in front of me ran out into the road chasing her dog - she was 7 

She got hit by a car doing 30mph - the driver reacted and skidded but still hit her , we all tried our best at the scene but it was clear she had a head injury as well as legs being broken

Unfortunately the little girl passed away - it was my mates little girl.

I had to go to the coroners as witness and listened to all the reports 

The driver wasn't breaking the speed limit but they worked out that he hit the car at 24 mph 

And that she died of a brain trauma because the force of the collision through her onto the floor where she hit her head.

The police gave a report that the driver reacted normally around a second and conditions were good on the road 

They also did a study that if the driver was doing 20mph there was a 80% chance that she would have survived because the collision speed would have been well under 10mph - maybe not even hitting the poor girl 

I sat there and watched the driver face who was in bits - he was doing the speed limit but still killed someone 

They did a study of that road and within 3 years they introduced a 20mph as well as speed bumps on corners and a chicane.

Thankfully since then no one has been killed - a person has been hit by a car but the car was doing the correct speed limit and he survived with a badly bruise leg and broken ribs

I have no doubt if the limit was 20 mph my mates little girl would be getting ready to do GSCE's right now

So I don't care about any reports you want to post to try and prove a point to ensure you make sure everyone is wrong I sat there and listened to a coroner and other state that a little girl would be alive now if the speed limit was 20mph

So if reducing the speed limit in urban and residential areas saves just one child's life then it has my full backing because I have seen the devastation caused by someone getting knocked over 

Now you can abrasive tell me I'm wrong - but that will just show your character or you can act a bit better and say "sorry I see your point but I will have to disagree with some points" you might get a better response

Enjoy your day


----------



## Smiffy (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The limits are lowered so that if someone gets hit at 20mph they are more likely to survive than being hit at 30mph
		
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
The limit has been lowered to 20 as it has been proved that four scousers can be trained to remove a set of alloy wheels at this speed.
At 30 they struggled, and only managed one.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Smiffy said:



			Incorrect.
The limit has been lowered to 20 as it has been proved that four scousers can be trained to remove a set of alloy wheels at this speed.
At 30 they struggled, and only managed one.
		
Click to expand...

 

Cheeky bugger


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 26, 2014)

I don't think that anyone would disagree that a collision at 20 mph will have a better outcome than one at 30 mph

But I'd like to turn it around and look at it from another angle and forgive me if I appear to be playing devils advocate.

A collision is caused when 2 objects traveling at variable speeds and in different directions ( forget rear Enders in this instance) meet at a specific point in time. 

Now altering the variable speeds will effect the position of the vehicle at this key point in time. 
Decreasing speed will put the vehicle further back on the timeline and the collision may be avoided

However the collision may also be avoided if the vehicle is traveling faster as the vehicle would be beyond the collision point on the same timeline. 
Additionally a slower vehicle is in the danger ( residential) area for longer than a faster vehicle , therefore there is more time for a collision to occur.

Now I agree that this thought process is a bit left field and I'm not putting it forward for serious discussion, I'm just making a point

Unfortunately bad stuff happens, we have some of the safest roads anywhere and you cannot ever eliminate all risk 
I can see the rationale for a 20 limit outside schools etc but think that 30 is ok for residential areas.

I'd also like to see the limit increased on motorways to 80


----------



## Imurg (Jan 26, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			I'd also like to see the limit increased on motorways to 80
		
Click to expand...

Some problems with that..
A lot of the time 80 is relatively safe but..
With the limit at 70, if you stick to it, you rarely get out of the inside lane as everyone else is doing 80
With the limit at 80, the majority will do 85+.
As everyone's going the same direction, there shouldn't really be any incidents at all, barring blow-outs/breakdowns - but there are!
At higher speeds there is less time to react to incidents so it follows that there is a likelihood for more.
You also have the problem of HGV's. Although limited by law to 60, many, especially on inclines, can't do that speed. Many drivers approach HGV's and leave their overtaking way too late, either having to pull out sharply or brake heavily.
Add another 10mph to approach speeds and it's easy to imagine the outcome.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			I don't think that anyone would disagree that a collision at 20 mph will have a better outcome than one at 30 mph

But I'd like to turn it around and look at it from another angle and forgive me if I appear to be playing devils advocate.

A collision is caused when 2 objects traveling at variable speeds and in different directions ( forget rear Enders in this instance) meet at a specific point in time. 

Now altering the variable speeds will effect the position of the vehicle at this key point in time. 
Decreasing speed will put the vehicle further back on the timeline and the collision may be avoided

However the collision may also be avoided if the vehicle is traveling faster as the vehicle would be beyond the collision point on the same timeline. 
Additionally a slower vehicle is in the danger ( residential) area for longer than a faster vehicle , therefore there is more time for a collision to occur.

Now I agree that this thought process is a bit left field and I'm not putting it forward for serious discussion, I'm just making a point

Unfortunately bad stuff happens, we have some of the safest roads anywhere and you cannot ever eliminate all risk 
I can see the rationale for a 20 limit outside schools etc but think that 30 is ok for residential areas.

I'd also like to see the limit increased on motorways to 80
		
Click to expand...

The above has been considered in at least 1 study I have seen - I could dig it up, but suggest you do that yourself.

From memory, it concluded that while there can be occasions where additional speed might avoid a collision, these are rare and almost never in the situations where a 20mph area would be considered. They are, by their nature, always in circumstances where one of the parties has sufficient warning to take evasive action. That's almost invariably not the case in the candidate zones - around Schools etc. 

And while the likelihood of an event may be reduced linearly, the effect of a collision is increased exponentially (to the square of the increased speed). And that's without considering the point at which survival of an 80lb human is unlikely when hit by a 3500lb metallic object!


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 26, 2014)

Yeah I know, that's why I said it wasn't a serious suggestion, just looking at it from another angle


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			I don't think that anyone would disagree that a collision at 20 mph will have a better outcome than one at 30 mph

But I'd like to turn it around and look at it from another angle and forgive me if I appear to be playing devils advocate.

A collision is caused when 2 objects traveling at variable speeds and in different directions ( forget rear Enders in this instance) meet at a specific point in time. 

Now altering the variable speeds will effect the position of the vehicle at this key point in time. 
Decreasing speed will put the vehicle further back on the timeline and the collision may be avoided

However the collision may also be avoided if the vehicle is traveling faster as the vehicle would be beyond the collision point on the same timeline. 
Additionally a slower vehicle is in the danger ( residential) area for longer than a faster vehicle , therefore there is more time for a collision to occur.

Now I agree that this thought process is a bit left field and I'm not putting it forward for serious discussion, I'm just making a point

Unfortunately bad stuff happens, we have some of the safest roads anywhere and you cannot ever eliminate all risk 
I can see the rationale for a 20 limit outside schools etc but think that 30 is ok for residential areas.

I'd also like to see the limit increased on motorways to 80
		
Click to expand...

Well I guess it depends on how much faster you want people to go - yes if he was doing 50 he would have been well past - 40 and the poor girl prob would have walk straight in front as opposed to giving him a second to break


So you can see the limit outside schools for kids - but aren't residential areas full of kids ?

Does going 10 mph slower really effect people's journeys ? Arriving 30 secs to 1 min later that much of a deal

Is it that harmful to people to just go a little slower through housing estates just in case that little boy or girl runs into the road 

Is arriving home that minute quicker worth it ?

And increasing the speed limit on motorways ? Won't that just snowball speeds ? Won't we then see people flying along in the 90's and 100's

Why the rush ? Why the need to go quicker in a car when the difference is minimal


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Er. No! There's a formula. The fastest a moving car can reduce velocity (actually Kinetic Energy) to zero (minimum distance) is a function of the Friction between the Road and Tyres, the (square of the) Velocity and the Mass of the vehicle (that's the laws of physics that BiM is referring to). More efficient brakes/braking will mean any extra distance is minimised. Having a lower initial velocity is the best way to significantly reduce stopping distance.
		
Click to expand...

Foxholer, I believe you are mistaken on mass being involved in the equation, unless I'm forgetting something; I'd confirm it but the necessary notes are buried in the loft somewhere.



ger147 said:



			So all cars have the same mass? Thought not.

And all brakes being properly maintained is an assumption which is not the case in the real world. Physics will not prevent an Ariel Atom with perfect brakes and brand new tyres stopping in a shorter distance from 30 mph than a 15 year old Range Rover with a leaky slave cylinder and tyres which have seen better days from 20 mph.
		
Click to expand...

Physics will not prevent anything, but the laws of physics will dictate how quickly either vehicle stops.  Yes in your highly skewed example the Ariel Atom may stop quicker than the Range Rover, but if you have to skew the facts that far you haven't really got a cohesive argument have you?  A vehicle with brakes will stop quicker from any speed than a vehicle without brakesâ€¦..


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			.....
Does going 10 mph slower really effect people's journeys ? Arriving 30 secs to 1 min later that much of a deal

Is it that harmful to people to just go a little slower through housing estates just in case that little boy or girl runs into the road 

Is arriving home that minute quicker worth it ?

And increasing the speed limit on motorways ? Won't that just snowball speeds ? Won't we then see people flying along in the 90's and 100's

Why the rush ? Why the need to go quicker in a car when the difference is minimal
		
Click to expand...

You really can't see past the extremely blunt instrument that is 'limit' can you! If you as concerned about it as the vast number of (repetitive) posts indicate, I suggest you do some reading of some of the studies rather than simply regurgitating the same argument all the time. Did you check that link I provided earlier?

Indeed, going faster does not *a*ffect travel time unduly in residential areas - and reduced speed can actually improve travel times in some circumstances! But increased speed on long distances does make a significant difference - up to almost 20% I believe. Apply that to your 4 hour round of Golf and it becomes not much over 3 hours!


----------



## guest100718 (Jan 26, 2014)

Is it ok to speed on the motorway if I need to get to the pub that has just opened in the services?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			You really can't see past the extremely blunt instrument that is 'limit' can you! If you as concerned about it as the vast number of (repetitive) posts indicate, I suggest you do some reading of some of the studies rather than simply regurgitating the same argument all the time. Did you check that link I provided earlier?

Indeed, going faster does not *a*ffect travel time unduly in residential areas - and reduced speed can actually improve travel times in some circumstances! But increased speed on long distances does make a significant difference - up to almost 20% I believe. Apply that to your 4 hour round of Golf and it becomes not much over 3 hours!
		
Click to expand...


Read back on my earlier post where I explained exactly what I think of studies and prefer to listen to expert witnesses in a coroners 
case - I have no interest in your studies

And yes in circumstances a journey can be reduced if you go quicker. I'm going to guess those circumstances will never really exist in our roads 

Here is another story for you from a copper

A policeman had a call about an accident and they needed two cars in attendance - one was a high powered car the other was a land rover restricted to 70mph - the journey was about 9 miles maybe a bit more 

High powered car when flying off at over  80 mph but due to our roads was obviously having to slow down all the time because of other users - he arrived at the scene and 10 secs behind him arrived the Land Rover he did a steady just under 70 all the way 

A sat nav calculates a journey using national speed limits - ignoring traffic incidents how times has anyone ever really got to a destination more than 3-5 mins quicker than sat nav ? I haven't 

If people really have the need to go quicker then have track days , go live in Germany 

I would actually be happier if they reduced the limit to 60-65mph - along the same lines as continental Europe ( bar Autobahn ) 

There will very rarely is ever  be an occasion where you "have" to break the speed limit - it's all done by choice


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Indeed, going faster does not *a*ffect travel time unduly in residential areas - and reduced speed can actually improve travel times in some circumstances! But increased speed on long distances does make a significant difference - up to almost 20% I believe. Apply that to your 4 hour round of Golf and it becomes not much over 3 hours!
		
Click to expand...

Care to explain how travelling slower can improve your travel time?

Increased speed on longer distances makes a significant difference- and in other news, Sky grey grass green.
Your 20% figure is plucked from the air and fairly meaningless, yes it's accurate if you average 72 instead of 60 or 60 instead of 50; it isn't if you average 70 instead of 50.


----------



## guest100718 (Jan 26, 2014)

what are you all arguing about?


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

guest100718 said:



			what are you all arguing about?
		
Click to expand...

Time travel I think
Just don't question it!


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I would actually be happier if they reduced the limit to 60-65mph - along the same lines as continental Europe ( bar Autobahn )
		
Click to expand...

Why would you be happier?  Our motorway speed limit is years old and based on the standard of car at the time.  The motorway limit could actually be raised to about 85 without any appreciably greater risk.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Foxholer, I believe you are mistaken on mass being involved in the equation, unless I'm forgetting something; I'd confirm it but the necessary notes are buried in the loft somewhere.
		
Click to expand...

Kinetic energy. E= 1/2MV**2. M is Mass. So Mass is definitely 'involved'. As the Mass of the vehicle also contributes to the Friction, I agree that it's not a 'simple' linear link though (I don't believe I actually stated that it was, if I did, I).  

Should be pretty intuitive too - Think FT=MV (or its integration across the stopping period). Increased Mass requiring more effort to stop - so larger brakes for more leverage. Imagine a Fiesta with Range Rover brakes! Or, more frighteningly, the other way around!

Don't you just love the way Physics (and Maths) can describe 'everything'!


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Here is another story for you from a copper

A policeman had a call about an accident and they needed two cars in attendance - one was a high powered car the other was a land rover restricted to 70mph - the journey was about 9 miles maybe a bit more 

High powered car when flying off at over  80 mph but due to our roads was obviously having to slow down all the time because of other users - he arrived at the scene and 10 secs behind him arrived the Land Rover he did a steady just under 70 all the way
		
Click to expand...

Or the driver of the Land Rover was a more competent driver than the driver of the car.

As to the 20mph limit, I have no issue with it if it is used as it was intended to have been used; in areas where there is a particular risk to vulnerable road users.  Unfortunately my experience is that it is being used as a blunt instrument in what I would consider to be an unnecessary manner, and in certain instances a manner which actually leads to the speed limit being disrespected.  The guidance that I am familiar with is this;

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/circular-1-06/circular-1-2006.pdf

Before anyone tells me it has been updated, I am aware, but this is the version that was in place when a number of the ones I have issue with were put in, hence reference to it.

If this was adhered to fine, but there are too many examples of abuse of it or inappropriate use for my mind to be supportive of blanket 20 mph limits.  n the right place and engineered in the right manner yes, but there should be nothing wrong with 30 mph as a limit in most residential areas if the drivers adhere to it as a limit AND drive appropriately for the prevailing conditions, and this document on speed limits echoes that.


----------



## Robobum (Jan 26, 2014)

Its hard not to let your speed drift up a bit, especially when trying to read this thread whilst driving


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Kinetic energy. E= 1/2MV**2. M is Mass. So Mass is definitely 'involved'. As the Mass of the vehicle also contributes to the Friction, I agree that it's not a 'simple' linear link though (I don't believe I actually stated that it was, if I did, I). 

Should be pretty intuitive too - Think FT=MV (or its integration across the stopping period). Increased Mass requiring more effort to stop - so larger brakes for more leverage. Imagine a Fiesta with Range Rover brakes! Or, more frighteningly, the other way around!

Don't you just love the way Physics (and Maths) can describe 'everything'!
		
Click to expand...

Foxholer, I'm pretty sure that's not the equation accepted and used for the calculation of stopping distances from skid marks, I will try to clarify if I can find it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			Why would you be happier?  Our motorway speed limit is years old and based on the standard of car at the time.  The motorway limit could actually be raised to about 85 without any appreciably greater risk.
		
Click to expand...

So if we raise the limit to 85 - remembering that's just the limit and not many actually stick to it - you then get people going well over the limit and into the 90's and into a ton

Can you not see the increased risk that would create ?


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So if we raise the limit to 85 - remembering that's just the limit and not many actually stick to it - you then get people going well over the limit and into the 90's and into a ton

Can you not see the increased risk that would create ?
		
Click to expand...

Germany manages quite well with no limit on a significant percentage of its Autobahn network; funnily enough in 10 years in total living there, rather than every motorway journey being like a scene from Mad Max, it actually felt very safe.

Back to you.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Or the driver of the Land Rover was a more competent driver than the driver of the car.

As to the 20mph limit, I have no issue with it if it is used as it was intended to have been used; in areas where there is a particular risk to vulnerable road users.  Unfortunately my experience is that it is being used as a blunt instrument in what I would consider to be an unnecessary manner, and in certain instances a manner which actually leads to the speed limit being disrespected.  The guidance that I am familiar with is this;

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/circular-1-06/circular-1-2006.pdf

Before anyone tells me it has been updated, I am aware, but this is the version that was in place when a number of the ones I have issue with were put in, hence reference to it.

If this was adhered to fine, but there are too many examples of abuse of it or inappropriate use for my mind to be supportive of blanket 20 mph limits.  n the right place and engineered in the right manner yes, but there should be nothing wrong with 30 mph as a limit in most residential areas if the drivers adhere to it as a limit AND drive appropriately for the prevailing conditions, and this document on speed limits echoes that.
		
Click to expand...

But drivers don't adhere to 30 mph limits so they are actually going a lot faster 

Yes 20mph shouldn't be everywhere 

But why do people need to go 30mph in a housing estate/residential error ?


What is their need to have the limit to 30mph so they can drive at 30-35mph

Why are people so against having to drive 10mph slower around housing estates or areas with pedestrians 

No one has said why they need to go that fast and have a problem going a little slower


----------



## Robobum (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So if we raise the limit to 85 - remembering that's just the limit and not many actually stick to it - you then get people going well over the limit and into the 90's and into a ton

Can you not see the increased risk that would create ?
		
Click to expand...

You've argued that dangling a carrot doesn't make people want to drink alcohol on the mway.

But a speeding carrot cannot be ignored?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			Germany manages quite well with no limit on a significant percentage of its Autobahn network; funnily enough in 10 years in total living there, rather than every motorway journey being like a scene from Mad Max, it actually felt very safe.

Back to you.
		
Click to expand...

Not disputing what you say in any way, but could that be because of the standard or the attitude of the drivers rather than the level at which the limit is set?  Not having driven there I have no first hand experience, be interested to hear your view.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			No one has said why they need to go that fast and have a problem going a little slower
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps some people feel like me, that driving isn't a pastime or hobby, it's a means to an end.  The car is a means of getting somewhere, the sooner I am there (and less time spent in the car) the better.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			Germany manages quite well with no limit on a significant percentage of its Autobahn network; funnily enough in 10 years in total living there, rather than every motorway journey being like a scene from Mad Max, it actually felt very safe.

Back to you.
		
Click to expand...

We aren't Germany 

If Germany was the stand up example why aren't all countries following example ? Why in fact are most countries at a Lower speed limit than ours

I have driven on the autobahn and the volume of traffic is nothing compared to what we see on our motorways 

Do you really think our motorways and volume of traffic can cope with cars flying around at 90-100 mph ?

Not in a million years and thankfully there is no need to increase the limit


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Not disputing what you say in any way, but could that be because of the standard or the attitude of the drivers rather than the level at which the limit is set?  Not having driven there I have no first hand experience, be interested to hear your view.
		
Click to expand...

The argument here has been about the lethality of a higher speed limit, not the standard of attitude of drivers.  Wild stab in the dark here, I would suggest the standard of motorway driving in Germany may be a little higher than the UK - that would/ could only be down to the fact that significant portions of the Autobanh network have no speed limit.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			Perhaps some people feel like me, that driving isn't a pastime or hobby, it's a means to an end.  The car is a means of getting somewhere, the sooner I am there (and less time spent in the car) the better.
		
Click to expand...

But how much difference does 10mph slower in urban areas really make ?

Mins ? 

Does your life revolve around saving mins in a car journey ?


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			We aren't Germany 

If Germany was the stand up example why aren't all countries following example ? Why in fact are most countries at a Lower speed limit than ours  *No Idea*

I have driven on the autobahn and the volume of traffic is nothing compared to what we see on our motorways - *Complete and utter rubbish*

Do you really think our motorways and volume of traffic can cope with cars flying around at 90-100 mph ? *They already do*

Not in a million years and thankfully there is no need to increase the limit
		
Click to expand...

There you go


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But drivers don't adhere to 30 mph limits so they are actually going a lot faster 

Yes 20mph shouldn't be everywhere 

But why do people need to go 30mph in a housing estate/residential error ?


What is their need to have the limit to 30mph so they can drive at 30-35mph

Why are people so against having to drive 10mph slower around housing estates or areas with pedestrians 

No one has said why they need to go that fast and have a problem going a little slower
		
Click to expand...

So why aren't drivers adhering to the limit, and will lowering the limit change anything?  You keep going on about pedestrians being about, but a lot of times they aren't about on housing estates.  There's no reason why 30mph is inappropriate on a housing estate at 5am on a summer morning, yet on the same road at 8.30am on a winter's morning it could be totally inappropriate, yet you want the same blunt instrument applied to both scenarios, despite the fact that if people drove appropriately it is unnecessary and that it will reduce the quality of life for the residents by increasing levels of pollution.


----------



## Snelly (Jan 26, 2014)

I do about 25000 miles a year, most of it on the motorway and I think that 90mph is what the speed limit on motorways should be  raised to.  If it is raining, it should automatically drop to 75mph. 

Tiredness kills more people than speed. That is a fact.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			Care to explain how travelling slower can improve your travel time?
		
Click to expand...

Read what I posted! Some circumstances. And it's overall travelling times, not necessarily individual ones - though that can happen in cases like the Staples Corner circumstances mentioned several pages ago. It's part of the philosophy behind Variable Speed Limits as well.
Slower speeds allow traffic to 'merge' better - or even feed in at junctions/from side roads. So overall travel time is reduced. And there are times when individual ones are too. Check out the studies!

Btw. To average 70 on a reasonably, or even sparsely, populated Motorway I believe you'd have to be doing about 90-95 as a 'target' speed! I'm not entirely certain, but think RAC/AA etc used to use about 50 as the average speed for Motorway travel!

Oh and that 'up to 20%' was seen in a study I saw quite a while ago. So, out of date and probably not absolutely reliable, but not simply 'picked out of space' either - though it did have my usual disclaimer.



Snelly said:



			I do about 25000 miles a year, most of it on the motorway and I think that 90mph is what the speed limit on motorways should be  raised to.  If it is raining, it should automatically drop to 75mph.
		
Click to expand...

This just confirms my view that you are a selfish b'tard! 

75 is Way, way to high in the wet imo. Check out the difference in stopping distance!



Snelly said:



			Tiredness kills more people than speed. That is a fact.
		
Click to expand...

On Motorways, Yes. But this thread is about 30 MPH (and possibly 20Mph) areas.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			The argument here has been about the lethality of a higher speed limit, not the standard of attitude of drivers.  Wild stab in the dark here, I would suggest the standard of motorway driving in Germany may be a little higher than the UK - that would/ could only be down to the fact that significant portions of the Autobanh network have no speed limit.
		
Click to expand...

I think the two go hand in hand; if your drivers are better trained or have a better attitude then they can be trusted with greater responsibility, i.e. a higher speed limit.  I don't think that there is any dispute that a higher speed is more dangerous when things go wrong, but only when things go wrong.  Are you saying you believe that the drivers in Germany are better because the higher speed limit forces them to be so?


----------



## G_Mulligan (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Two cars going along - one at 70 and one at 80 break at the same time - when the one at 70 stops the one at 80 is still travelling at 71 mph and then takes a further 70-80 metres to stop. It's been proven by the Thames Valley police when lookin at stopping distances and impact speeds from 20 mph up to 100 mph.
		
Click to expand...

but the 70mph is not coming to a dead stop, I am talking about motorways and dual carriageways where I am most of the time simply keeping up with traffic in the fast lane. I have never felt out of control and if someone breaks in front of me I have never felt in danger of going into the back of them. They may break hard and go down to 40 fairly quickly but I can comfortably respond to the same myself. I think the problem arises when people are doing between 80-90 and come up hard and fast on someone overtaking at around 70. If the 70 breaks at this point then the fast car has no where to go. I don't do this and will slow down to leave a good gap until the 70mph moves back over before speeding up again with a clear road ahead.

Also doing 50 in a 70 is for me extremely slow and drivers behind have every right to feel impatient and want to get past.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			There you go
		
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths

Couple of things that stand out from this article

Number of deaths on Motorways in Germany - in 2008 =495 , in the UK it is 157

In 2006 out of the 645 deaths on the Autobahn - 67% were on the unrestricted stretches

In Germany - they have a higher percentage of road deaths on the motorways compared to us between 07-09 it was 12 % compared to 6%

yep looking at that i will stick to having restricted speeds on the motorway :thup:


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 26, 2014)

Bubblewrap is the answer

Cover all vehicles and pedestrians with it, and any collisions will just bounce off and with a safe cushioned fall, no injuries

like zorbing, but on a larger scale.

Look I just come up with the ideas, its up to the engineers to make them work :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			So why aren't drivers adhering to the limit, and will lowering the limit change anything?  You keep going on about pedestrians being about, but a lot of times they aren't about on housing estates.  There's no reason why 30mph is inappropriate on a housing estate at 5am on a summer morning, yet on the same road at 8.30am on a winter's morning it could be totally inappropriate, yet you want the same blunt instrument applied to both scenarios, despite the fact that if people drove appropriately it is unnecessary and that it will reduce the quality of life for the residents by increasing levels of pollution.
		
Click to expand...

people drive over the speed limit because as Steve said - people want to get to places quicker - they are have no awareness of others on the road or pedestrians or cyclists etc.

Hobbit has already told his story of being hit by a car in a residential area and now being in constant pain. My friend lost of daughter after being hit by a car in a residential area - the experts telling her parents that is the car was doing 20 she would still be alive is a good enough reason for me to blanket residential areas to 20 and add chicances and speed bumps and any method needed to slow people down in these areas.

People have become selfish - they dont care about the potential accident they could cause , the mums in their big 4x4's feel safe enough in their big tank they feel they can drive a bit quicker.

Until peoples attitude to driving in this country change then keep applying measures to slow them down as far as im concerned. 

Can you tell me why anyone "needs" to drive over any speed limit .


----------



## User20205 (Jan 26, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Bubblewrap is the answer

Cover all vehicles and pedestrians with it, and any collisions will just bounce off and with a safe cushioned fall, no injuries

like zorbing, but on a larger scale.

Look I just come up with the ideas, its up to the engineers to make them work :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Make them stop Phil, you've got the power!!! Just one little  click

If there is one more 20 page thread on 'the inside of a ping pong ball' I'm going to spontaneously combust


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths

Couple of things that stand out from this article

Number of deaths on Motorways in Germany - in 2008 =495 , in the UK it is 157

In 2006 out of the 645 deaths on the Autobahn - 67% were on the unrestricted stretches

In Germany - they have a higher percentage of road deaths on the motorways compared to us between 07-09 it was 12 % compared to 6%

yep looking at that i will stick to having restricted speeds on the motorway :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Out of how many vehicle movements?  Can't have a valid comparison without adding the weight of traffic.

Yes, 67% of the accidents were on the unrestricted stretches, and  the fact you chose to leave out that the article didn't was that 67% of the network is unrestricted, so if you read all of the article it concludes the the speed limit or lack thereof has no effect on the fatalitiesâ€¦â€¦.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 26, 2014)

Most roads seem to be self regulating a lot nowadays during the day.  You can guarantee you will come across some coffin dodger in a Honda Jazz doing 25 before you go too far if you drive anywhere in an urban area in the day.  And most motorways are very busy.

I do think if you could guarantee you could do a pretty constant 70 then people would get where they are going a lot quicker and safer, instead of the speed up to 85, slow down to 60, speed up to 90, slow down to 55 that seems to go on on most busy motorways.  But then again I'd rather be in the outside lane doing 80 than the inside land doing 55 with 38 tonners behind and in front of you.  

That is what kind of worrys me a bit about slowing Mways down to 60 as they are doing on the M1, as you will technically only be able to do 5mph faster than huge lorries, meaning it will become a lot more difficult to 'escape' them.  I get really worried when I am in an average camera 50 zone, doing 50, with a huge artic up my chuff as I think if I break suddenly then I am probably dead if he goes into me.  At times I have had to deliberately break the speed limit in those zones the speed limit as I figured that is better than an artic driving 5 yards behind me.  And before anyone says why don't I slow down and let it overtake then that is a waste of time as all that happens is that more often than not another one starts driving up your chuff.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 26, 2014)

I don't subscribe to the "raise the motorway speed limit to 80" argument.
Modern cars give you a false sense of security IMO, smash into something at 80, well you're buggered aren't you.
I do around 50,000 miles a year and see a lot of nutters on a daily basis, giving the maniacs another 10 mph to work with is just crazy.
I'm no angel when it comes to driving but I do feel any rise would lead to much worse high speed traffic accidents.


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So if we raise the limit to 85 - remembering that's just the limit and not many actually stick to it - you then get people going well over the limit and into the 90's and into a ton

Can you not see the increased risk that would create ?
		
Click to expand...

Proof of the extra risk please.



Liverpoolphil said:



			But how much difference does 10mph slower in urban areas really make ?

Mins ? 

Does your life revolve around saving mins in a car journey ?
		
Click to expand...

So you NEVER speed in an area that is 20/30 mph (not even by straying over the limit by 1 mph?) or are eve late for anything?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			Proof of the extra risk please.



So you NEVER speed in an area that is 20/30 mph (not even by straying over the limit by 1 mph?) or are eve late for anything?
		
Click to expand...

After seeing my friends daughter pass away no I don't - I even go just below the speed limit around housing estates and schools 

And I plan my journeys accordingly by leaving a bit earlier if needed


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			In Germany - they have a higher percentage of road deaths on the motorways compared to us between 07-09 it was 12 % compared to 6%
		
Click to expand...

LDL&S strikes again!

I'd challenge the usefulness of those numbers - there are other important variables missing. So any conclusion based on those numbers is misleading (at best). To explain, what would the figures be if 95% of either Country's roads were Motorway? 

Here's some stats with 3 different metrics! UK performs very well in all of them! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths

Couple of things that stand out from this article

Number of deaths on Motorways in Germany - in 2008 =495 , in the UK it is 157

In 2006 out of the 645 deaths on the Autobahn - 67% were on the unrestricted stretches

In Germany - they have a higher percentage of road deaths on the motorways compared to us between 07-09 it was 12 % compared to 6%

yep looking at that i will stick to having restricted speeds on the motorway :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Any recent and therefore more valid figures?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 26, 2014)

Is it just me or are folk on here seriously advocating that driving at 90 mph on a motorway will be safer.

You may think you are an F1 driver but a blowout or a smashed windscreen can happen any time.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			people drive over the speed limit because as Steve said - people want to get to places quicker - they are have no awareness of others on the road or pedestrians or cyclists etc.
		
Click to expand...

That is a particularly ridiculous sweeping generalisation.  So those people who wish to get to their destination quicker are the ones that have no awareness?  Really?  My thoughts on the matter would be that there are a large number of motorists who are lacking in awareness, but that it has nothing to do with speed.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			That is a particularly ridiculous sweeping generalisation.  So those people who wish to get to their destination quicker are the ones that have no awareness?  Really?  My thoughts on the matter would be that there are a large number of motorists who are lacking in awareness, but that it has nothing to do with speed.
		
Click to expand...


There are also other drivers that lack awareness


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Foxholer, I'm pretty sure that's not the equation accepted and used for the calculation of stopping distances from skid marks, I will try to clarify if I can find it.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed it wouldn't be. That's the equation for calculating Kinetic Energy - which is what has to be shed in order to stop.

Mass is definitely involved though. Just think how much further it takes to stop in a car that's laden with Adults and Luggage.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Kinetic energy. E= 1/2MV**2. M is Mass. So Mass is definitely 'involved'. As the Mass of the vehicle also contributes to the Friction, I agree that it's not a 'simple' linear link though (I don't believe I actually stated that it was, if I did, I).  

Should be pretty intuitive too - Think FT=MV (or its integration across the stopping period). Increased Mass requiring more effort to stop - so larger brakes for more leverage. Imagine a Fiesta with Range Rover brakes! Or, more frighteningly, the other way around!

Don't you just love the way Physics (and Maths) can describe 'everything'!
		
Click to expand...

 physics info should help,  just use the initials


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Blue in Munich said:



			Out of how many vehicle movements?  Can't have a valid comparison without adding the weight of traffic.

Yes, 67% of the accidents were on the unrestricted stretches, and  the fact you chose to leave out that the article didn't was that 67% of the network is unrestricted, so if you read all of the article it concludes the the speed limit or lack thereof has no effect on the fatalitiesâ€¦â€¦.
		
Click to expand...

:whoo: Missed that!

LDL&S strikes yet again - in fact, I think for both of you - as I don't believe that's the conclusion of the article, just an 'at first glance' reference that is quickly disclaimed!


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			:whoo: Missed that!

LDL&S strikes yet again - in fact, I think for both of you - as I don't believe that's the conclusion of the article, just an 'at first glance' reference that is quickly disclaimed!
		
Click to expand...

Fair point, you're right, having seen it I just had to post it & my typing finger ran away with itselfâ€¦..


----------



## Fyldewhite (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm in to this debate late and obviously haven't read every post. However, my thoughts are that there is far too much emphasis on speed alone. Many have metioned "nutters" driving on our roads and motorways on a daily basis. If someone is caught doing 80 in dreadful weather then they should be done for dangerous driving not speeding. The truth is though that they are probably less likely to get caught as enforcement is seemingly absent in such conditions.

Germany has already been discussed, France have variable speed limits with 82mph in good conditions. This seems reasonable to me though their motorways are quieter on the whole but a sensible approach surely cannot be beyond the wit of man and would get 99% of drivers onside where a large number currently feel victimised by the almost jobsworth tactics of the police.

On the OP? I've always said that driving with one eye on the speedo is driving with only one eye on the road. A few miles an hour doesn't make a significant difference when balanced with awareness and good driving. Again it's the lack of flexibility with arbitary limits that are frustrating, or the apparent inability for the police to show any discretion based on the circumstances or conditions.


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			After seeing my friends daughter pass away no I don't - I even go just below the speed limit around housing estates and schools 

And I plan my journeys accordingly by leaving a bit earlier if needed
		
Click to expand...

It must be absolutely fantastic to know you will never experience a speeding ticket.

Do you have any proof of the extra risk associated with increasing the speed limits on the motorways though?


----------



## Imurg (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			Do you have any proof of the extra risk associated with increasing the speed limits on the motorways though?
		
Click to expand...

Not specifically aimed at you Chris but to all those demanding proof of extra risk in increasing speed limits or reducing limit or whatever - do have any proof to validate your claims...?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			It must be absolutely fantastic to know you will never experience a speeding ticket.

Do you have any proof of the extra risk associated with increasing the speed limits on the motorways though?
		
Click to expand...


Getting a speeding ticket was never my worrying - killing a child is and always will hence why sticking to the limit 

Not sure why that would something worth sniggering at but each to their own


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Imurg said:



			Not specifically aimed at you Chris but to all those demanding proof of extra risk in increasing speed limits or reducing limit or whatever - do have any proof to validate your claims...?
		
Click to expand...

It's ok, but I haven't made any claims just curious to those that are saying something but have no proof to back it up.



Liverpoolphil said:



			Getting a speeding ticket was never my worrying - killing a child is and always will hence why sticking to the limit 

Not sure why that would something worth sniggering at but each to their own
		
Click to expand...

Woah there fella! I don't think anyone is "sniggering" about a child being killed so maybe wind your neck in on that score. I am merely astounded that you NEVER stray above the speed limit at ANY time for whatever reason and remember that there are times when you can break the speed limit and no children will die or even puppy dogs. But as you say each top their own (pomposity).

And you still haven't answered my question about the proof regarding the extra risk when you increase the speed limit on a motorway. Are you really a politician?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 26, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Is it just me or are folk on here seriously advocating that driving at 90 mph on a motorway will be safer.

You may think you are an F1 driver but a blowout or a smashed windscreen can happen any time.
		
Click to expand...

Don't think so myself.  I suppose there is an argument that with the engineering improvements, a modern car doing 80/85 is inherently safer than a car doing 70 when the limits were set back in the day.  

You could argue the safest speed to do is 1 mph, but it's a balance between safety, common sense, increasingly the needs of asthmatic polar bears and the ability for people to get to where ever they are going to do whatever they need to do there.  And there is an argument that 70 mph in some circumstances could be raised. Unless you are an asthmatic polar bear (yes I have stolen that phrase from Jeremy Clarkson). Also I would advocate 20 outside all schools at certain times, no excuses, speed cameras there, the lot.

I suspect it wont be long before most motorways have the variable speed limits, so wouldn't it be nice if the signs read 80 at times when it was safe to do so.  And then police the 80mph more, instead of the '_70 but you wont be done till you are doing 85_' we have today.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			It's ok, but I haven't made any claims just curious to those that are saying something but have no proof to back it up.



Woah there fella! I don't think anyone is "sniggering" about a child being killed so maybe wind your neck in on that score. I am merely astounded that you NEVER stray above the speed limit at ANY time for whatever reason and remember that there are times when you can break the speed limit and no children will die or even puppy dogs. But as you say each top their own (pomposity).

And you still haven't answered my question about the proof regarding the extra risk when you increase the speed limit on a motorway. Are you really a politician?
		
Click to expand...

Careful mate,you could end up with an infraction for Trolling/fanning the flames.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			Do you have any proof of the extra risk associated with increasing the speed limits on the motorways though?
		
Click to expand...

Surely you know that's impossible to quantify until it actually happens! 

But RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister said: 'there is (also) likely to be a slight increase in casualties'. And he's probably as good an authority as anyone!


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 26, 2014)

I am loosing track a bit with the arguement that is going on. I am really struggling to see the argument and who is backing what...lol at the end of the day statistics are a tool that can be used by anyone to justify a point.

Regarding dropping the limit to 20, think about this. By the way, I am talking about Mr average, in an average car, in average conditions, on an average road surface.
Would it give a driver more time to react and either avoid or stop?
Is getting hit at 20 less likely to kill or cause some kind of permanent injury you than being hit at 30?
When someone walks into the road in front of you, would it give them a split second longer to get out of the way?

If you answer yes to any of them, then you must agree that driving at slower speeds puts people at a lower risk.


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Surely you know that's impossible to quantify until it actually happens! 

But RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister said: 'there is (also) likely to be a slight increase in casualties'. And he's probably as good an authority as anyone!
		
Click to expand...

Yes but as it was being bandied about as gospel I had (wrongly) assumed that there was some data regarding it. Hey ho.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			It's ok, but I haven't made any claims just curious to those that are saying something but have no proof to back it up.



Woah there fella! I don't think anyone is "sniggering" about a child being killed so maybe wind your neck in on that score. I am merely astounded that you NEVER stray above the speed limit at ANY time for whatever reason and remember that there are times when you can break the speed limit and no children will die or even puppy dogs. But as you say each top their own (pomposity).

And you still haven't answered my question about the proof regarding the extra risk when you increase the speed limit on a motorway. Are you really a politician?
		
Click to expand...

Again i stick to the speed limit for the reasons stated - i know that may shock you but i hope im not the only person who does and im not sure what the problem is with someone sticking to the speed limit 

Plenty of articles and claims on google - just google speed limit increase on Motorways 

And then i expect i can find on there the proof to counter my claim :thup:


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Again i stick to the speed limit for the reasons stated - i know that may shock you but i hope im not the only person who does and im not sure what the problem is with someone sticking to the speed limit 

Plenty of articles and claims on google - just google speed limit increase on Motorways 

And then i expect i can find on there the proof to counter my claim :thup:
		
Click to expand...

As this is my last post on this subject I am leaving it with this.

Your apology for insinuating I was laughing at children dying is accepted. Or maybe not seen as you haven't actually done it. :angry:


----------



## Phil2511 (Jan 26, 2014)

so you are making statements and when queried you say google it, thats not exactly how you prove a point lol


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			As this is my last post on this subject I am leaving it with this.

Your apology for insinuating I was laughing at children dying is accepted. Or maybe not seen as you haven't actually done it. :angry:
		
Click to expand...

i gave my reasons for me not speeding and you sneered at me in your post about me not speeding - going on about me never getting a speeding ticket - when again i stated that it was for safety reasons after seeing a friends child die in front of me. Will i apologise for me beliefs - not in a millions years

if people want to sneer away about me driving at the correct limit then knock yourself out if it makes people feel superior.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Phil2511 said:



			so you are making statements and when queried you say google it, thats not exactly how you prove a point lol
		
Click to expand...

I posted numerous articles throughout the whole thread - i believe that increase in speed on a motorway increases the risk - have read articles that agree with that.

Ill wait for someone to disprove it now.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I am loosing track a bit with the arguement that is going on. I am really struggling to see the argument and who is backing what...lol at the end of the day statistics are a tool that can be used by anyone to justify a point.

Regarding dropping the limit to 20, think about this. By the way, I am talking about Mr average, in an average car, in average conditions, on an average road surface.
Would it give a driver more time to react and either avoid or stop?
Is getting hit at 20 less likely to kill or cause some kind of permanent injury you than being hit at 30?
When someone walks into the road in front of you, would it give them a split second longer to get out of the way?

If you answer yes to any of them, then you must agree that driving at slower speeds puts people at a lower risk.
		
Click to expand...

I believe I've already pointed out, with references, that, for this task, simply reducing the limit doesn't work - it doesn't actually reduce the average speed significantly! Traffic Calming measures are the best methods to actually reduce speeds - with or without reduced speed limits.


----------



## Phil2511 (Jan 26, 2014)

strange then that the number of deaths PTK for france(20.2) on motorways is almost 1/2 the uk(35.9) yet their motorway speed limit is 85mph based on results from a study between 2000-2009 

just thought i would use the closest country to uk


----------



## Ethan (Jan 26, 2014)

So now we know that Phil was witness to a kid getting knocked down, and this has converted him to being an ardent believer in speed limits. 

OK, so a traumatic event can often precipitate change of behaviour, but sometimes that change is proportionate and sometimes it isn't. In Phil's case, the focus is now entirely on the speed limit, 29 in a 30 zone is good, 31 is bad etc. Although this accident took place in a residential area, he has also extended the same logic to roads with other speed limits. He has assumed that the speed limits, which fall at conveniently round numbers represent some sort of scientifically determined inflection point between safe and dangerous driving. This is false, they are simply points on a continuum which have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It is obvious that the higher the speed of a collision, the more energy which will be exchanged and damage caused. Obviously. But that is very different from knowing what the 'correct' lints are. In truth, everyone knows that the 'safe' speed limit varies with driving conditions, time of day, visibility, road conditions, weather etc. Most of the speed limits in force today were introduced in the 1960s or before. The 70mph limit came in 1967, after much political lobbying and against the advice of the RAC. Back then, common cars were the Ford Anglia (max speed 74, 0-60 in 27 secs), The Mini Mark I (max speed 73, 0-60 27 secs) and the Austin 1100, a relative speed demon at 80mph and 0-60 in 19.7 secs. All of these had drum brakes, skinny tyres (5.5 x 12, typically) and crude suspension compared to today's cars, and didn't have much of the design intended to reduce pedestrian injury. Some of the other speed limits, such as the 30mph limit, date from the 1930s.  

But this obsession with the limit also ignores, of fails to understand, some other issues. all of these other issues are dismissed with an unthinking knee jerk response of 'just follow the speed limit'. This is being in denial. It is obvious and unarguable that if a moron in a slow car causes a tailback, then the risk of accident in that tailback and when it is released, increases. In this case, slow driving causes accidents, but the accidents may not actually involve the slow car. The AA agrees with this point. Phil is keen to cite stats and laws from around the world. Some of these include minimum speeds for obvious reasons, but he is yet to acknowledge these. 

But if he was really concerned with avoiding accident/injury, then surely the better thing would be to abandon the car and use the train/bus/bicycle/Shank's mare.


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 26, 2014)

I clearly deserve to have been pinged or speeding, as I normally view the eta given by my sat nav as the longest a journey should take. I often beat it by at least an hour or so.

Back to my first post, it's quite amazing I managed to get pinged at all, as I was only driving 14 miles, and had left myself one and a half hours to complete it. It took 1 hour 25. It was the only time I got above walking speed the whole trip!


----------



## triple_bogey (Jan 26, 2014)

Ethan said:



			But if he was really concerned with avoiding accident/injury, then surely the better thing would be to abandon the car and use the train/bus/bicycle/Shank's mare.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, that would be the best option for him. Does he qualify for free transport passes yet? :thup:

Anyone can die from head trauma even from 10-15 mph impacts. So don't believe that a 20mph limit will save you.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I believe I've already pointed out, with references, that, for this task, simply reducing the limit doesn't work - it doesn't actually reduce the average speed significantly! Traffic Calming measures are the best methods to actually reduce speeds - with or without reduced speed limits.
		
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I agree that reducing speed limits alone will not reduce accidents. All that does is reduce the damage inflicted in an accident. Getting people to learn how to drive would be a great start too. I could sit here all day and comment on some of the amazing things I have seen idiots do on the roads like most can. 

SO to improve the safety of our roads we need to:

Reduce speed limits in urban areas - they are taking speed limits down to 20 in certain areas
Teach people how to actually drive in a safe manner - god knows how we do that
Put in traffic calming measures to slow people down - speed humps, chicanes etc are already being used to good effect
Make sure that everyone drives a car that is fit for the road - we have MOT's for that
Keep roads properly maintained - they do not do that in a lot of ares.
Introduce minimum speed limits - would be a great idea

So, some of the things needed are being taken care off. Some of them you can't do anything about like the people behind the wheel. But others are possible to sort IMO.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Ethan said:



			So now we know that Phil was witness to a kid getting knocked down, and this has converted him to being an ardent believer in speed limits. 

OK, so a traumatic event can often precipitate change of behaviour, but sometimes that change is proportionate and sometimes it isn't. In Phil's case, the focus is now entirely on the speed limit, 29 in a 30 zone is good, 31 is bad etc. Although this accident took place in a residential area, he has also extended the same logic to roads with other speed limits. He has assumed that the speed limits, which fall at conveniently round numbers represent some sort of scientifically determined inflection point between safe and dangerous driving. This is false, they are simply points on a continuum which have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It is obvious that the higher the speed of a collision, the more energy which will be exchanged and damage caused. Obviously. But that is very different from knowing what the 'correct' lints are. In truth, everyone knows that the 'safe' speed limit varies with driving conditions, time of day, visibility, road conditions, weather etc. Most of the speed limits in force today were introduced in the 1960s or before. The 70mph limit came in 1967, after much political lobbying and against the advice of the RAC. Back then, common cars were the Ford Anglia (max speed 74, 0-60 in 27 secs), The Mini Mark I (max speed 73, 0-60 27 secs) and the Austin 1100, a relative speed demon at 80mph and 0-60 in 19.7 secs. All of these had drum brakes, skinny tyres (5.5 x 12, typically) and crude suspension compared to today's cars, and didn't have much of the design intended to reduce pedestrian injury. Some of the other speed limits, such as the 30mph limit, date from the 1930s.  

But this obsession with the limit also ignores, of fails to understand, some other issues. all of these other issues are dismissed with an unthinking knee jerk response of 'just follow the speed limit'. This is being in denial. It is obvious and unarguable that if a moron in a slow car causes a tailback, then the risk of accident in that tailback and when it is released, increases. In this case, slow driving causes accidents, but the accidents may not actually involve the slow car. The AA agrees with this point. Phil is keen to cite stats and laws from around the world. Some of these include minimum speeds for obvious reasons, but he is yet to acknowledge these. 

But if he was really concerned with avoiding accident/injury, then surely the better thing would be to abandon the car and use the train/bus/bicycle/Shank's mare.
		
Click to expand...

I do believe i have address the slow driver issue and have also said yes they do cause accidents themselves 

I also dont believe i have suggested that people pootle along at 50 mph or 30mph on a motorway because that itself causes problems - also people doing 50mph in the middle of the road 

Same with people doing 30mph on a 60mph road will cause problems and tailbacks 

i would also ask how many tailbacks you see in housing estates because someone is driving too slow - 

If someone is driving at the speed limit and causing a tailback then who is causing the problem ? The guy sticking to the limit - or the people behind him dying to get past because they want not need to get somewhere quicker.

You also get the moron who whilst you are driving at the speed limit is right up your backside , you also get the moron who isnt happy with someone doing the speed limit he must overtake where there is danger 

People dont need to go above the speed limit - unless you can tell me a good enough reason why you "need" to go above the speed limit.

My witnessing my friends daughter being killed tuned me into a more aware drive i believe and made me want to ensure i was as safe as i could possibly be on the road - when i drive through residential areas im quite happy to drive a little bit slower to ensure that if a child did run out then i give them the best chance possible to survive if i didnt react in time or they were too close. I would rather get home safe with no incidents than get home a couple mins early but put people at extra risk.

I dont pootle along a roads at 30 mph when the limit is 60 , i dont hog the middle lane driving at 50 mph on a motorway nor do i do any other acts that i think might put myself and other drivers at risk.

People will never be able to cover every single possible event that "could" but when it comes to our safety then i believe there our people out there far more qualified than us who come up with there desicions on road safety.

But i will ask the question again - is there ever any occasion when anyone bar emergency services "needs" to break the speed limit set out by our governing laws.


----------



## triple_bogey (Jan 26, 2014)

When was you're last speeding fine/ticket?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Here is a little story for you 

About 8 years ago I was walking to my mates through a residential area which was still a 30 - 

A little girl about 100 yards in front of me ran out into the road chasing her dog - she was 7 

She got hit by a car doing 30mph - the driver reacted and skidded but still hit her , we all tried our best at the scene but it was clear she had a head injury as well as legs being broken

Unfortunately the little girl passed away - it was my mates little girl.

I had to go to the coroners as witness and listened to all the reports 

The driver wasn't breaking the speed limit but they worked out that he hit the car at 24 mph 

And that she died of a brain trauma because the force of the collision through her onto the floor where she hit her head.

The police gave a report that the driver reacted normally around a second and conditions were good on the road 

They also did a study that if the driver was doing 20mph there was a 80% chance that she would have survived because the collision speed would have been well under 10mph - maybe not even hitting the poor girl 

I sat there and watched the driver face who was in bits - he was doing the speed limit but still killed someone 

They did a study of that road and within 3 years they introduced a 20mph as well as speed bumps on corners and a chicane.

Thankfully since then no one has been killed - a person has been hit by a car but the car was doing the correct speed limit and he survived with a badly bruise leg and broken ribs

I have no doubt if the limit was 20 mph my mates little girl would be getting ready to do GSCE's right now

So I don't care about any reports you want to post to try and prove a point to ensure you make sure everyone is wrong I sat there and listened to a coroner and other state that a little girl would be alive now if the speed limit was 20mph

So if reducing the speed limit in urban and residential areas saves just one child's life then it has my full backing because I have seen the devastation caused by someone getting knocked over 

Now you can abrasive tell me I'm wrong - but that will just show your character or you can act a bit better and say "sorry I see your point but I will have to disagree with some points" you might get a better response

Enjoy your day
		
Click to expand...

A sad story, that I missed earlier this morning.

However, it doesn't alter change any facts - only explains at least part of your motivation. And there's an (abrasive) argument that if it took such a catastrophic event to make you realise the danger of speed, then you were an irresponsible Driver in the first place!

I too have experienced the trauma of seeing (the results of) RTA deaths (several of times in fact, a couple of whom I knew/were related to), so no need to feel the need to use emotional blackmail!

I'm not going to stop pointing out when you are factually wrong - as opposed to simply having a different opinion - just because you consider it 'abrasive'. If you are wrong, you are wrong. That's your problem, not mine!

Good to see that there have been no further incidents. Was the change to the road a recommendation by the Coroner? And were there any other incidents in the 3 years between that tragedy and the change to the road? And in a similar period before the incident?

And, admittedly somewhat abrasive, banning children from playing with dogs could well have prevented the tragedy too! And just as (in)effective as simply changing the speed limit imo.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

triple_bogey said:



			When was you're last speeding fine/ticket?
		
Click to expand...

over a decade a go in Cyprus


----------



## JustOne (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			And, admittedly somewhat abrasive, banning children from playing with dogs could well have prevented the tragedy too! And just as (in)effective as simply changing the speed limit imo.
		
Click to expand...

I agree........ 7yr old + dog + road = accident.

If I was doing under the speed limit and a child ran out in front of me I wouldn't feel bad, it's NOT my fault if someone decides to run out into the road.

I had someone try to commit suicide in front of my car once by diving (yes literally like you would into a swimming pool) into the road, I was doing 30mph and managed to stop milliseconds before his head went under the wheel. He got up and walked away as I got out of the car to see if he was alright. 2 weeks later he succeeded in his quest, dived in front of a woman driver!!! LOLOL. Probably went down as a RTA STATISTIC when really there was no driver at fault whatsoever.

I had 2 people (separate incidents) step in front of my car about 6 weeks ago (posted here on the forum somewhere) luckily I missed them both..... one was approx 4yrs old and seeing her little eyes peering at me over the front of the bonnet was weird. Hopefully her MUM won't let go of her hand again in a hurry.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I do believe i have address the slow driver issue and have also said yes they do cause accidents themselves 

I also dont believe i have suggested that people pootle along at 50 mph or 30mph on a motorway because that itself causes problems - also people doing 50mph in the middle of the road 

Same with people doing 30mph on a 60mph road will cause problems and tailbacks 

i would also ask how many tailbacks you see in housing estates because someone is driving too slow - 

If someone is driving at the speed limit and causing a tailback then who is causing the problem ? The guy sticking to the limit - or the people behind him dying to get past because they want not need to get somewhere quicker.

You also get the moron who whilst you are driving at the speed limit is right up your backside , you also get the moron who isnt happy with someone doing the speed limit he must overtake where there is danger 

People dont need to go above the speed limit - unless you can tell me a good enough reason why you "need" to go above the speed limit.

My witnessing my friends daughter being killed tuned me into a more aware drive i believe and made me want to ensure i was as safe as i could possibly be on the road - when i drive through residential areas im quite happy to drive a little bit slower to ensure that if a child did run out then i give them the best chance possible to survive if i didnt react in time or they were too close. I would rather get home safe with no incidents than get home a couple mins early but put people at extra risk.

I dont pootle along a roads at 30 mph when the limit is 60 , i dont hog the middle lane driving at 50 mph on a motorway nor do i do any other acts that i think might put myself and other drivers at risk.

People will never be able to cover every single possible event that "could" but when it comes to our safety then i believe there our people out there far more qualified than us who come up with there desicions on road safety.

But i will ask the question again - *is there ever any occasion when anyone bar emergency services "needs" to break the speed limit set out by our governing laws*.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong question, though. 

The right question is what speed best balances road and pedestrian safety versus actually allowing the world to turn? The answer is not that 29 is good and 31 is bad, but that there are speeds which are appropriate to road conditions, weather etc. On a quiet dry motorway on a clear Tuesday in summer, that might be 85. On a dark, busy wet evening in winter, it might be 45. 

As for the issue about housing estates, the same general rule applies - there is a speed which is appropriate given the conditions. There are also residential roads not in estates, roads in urban areas with shops where there are pedestrians, etc etc, and a whole range of scenarios. 

The point about the need to observe or not speed limits is an arbitrary and specious one.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

JustOne said:



			If I was doing under the speed limit and a child ran out in front of me I wouldn't feel bad, it's NOT my fault if someone decides to run out into the road.
		
Click to expand...

H'mm. I think you should still feel bad!

Sure it's not your fault, but you should be driving in such a fashion that, when such events happen, you are capable of avoiding a collision! That's the Defensive Driving approach I learnt 45 years ago!


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Can you tell me why anyone "needs" to drive over any speed limit .
		
Click to expand...

1. Getting a pregnant girlfriend to hospital when she goes into labour
2. Getting an injured pet to the vets
3. Getting an ill child to hospital
4. Getting to that new pub on the M40 before last orders.

And yes I've broken the speed limit in 3 out of the 4 scenarios and would do exactly the same thing again in similar circumstances. Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed is the problem. 90mph on a dry, deserted motorway at 3am might not be a problem while 27mph on a wet road near a school could well be too high.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

its not the wrong question - i believe its avoiding the question 

The speed limits have been set out by people far more knowledgable than us - they have made the judgement call and its in our laws now. Break the speed limit and people will be punished for it. Thats regardless of if you think the road is safe for you to go 50 even though someone has decided its a 30 , thats regardless of what time of night it is. Someone has made that call and its not in our remit to decide to against that call when driving and decide to do something else. Conditions can will slow drivers down but just because the motorway maybe quiet doesnt mean you should be able to go above that limit and you shouldnt "need" to go above that limit.

Are speed limits stopping the world from turning ? Do people really feel the need to want to go quicker ?

we make judgement calls when we drive - the people have set out what they believe should be the maximum speed anyone should drive on that road - now we can debate about the specific road but practically you must not cross that maximum speed regardless of the conditions or what time of day it is - you will not be able to give an reason that can justify someone going over that speed limit set out.

Ill say it again - the speed limit has been set by the authority - is there any reason why someone needs to go above that limit.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			1. Getting a pregnant girlfriend to hospital when she goes into labour
2. Getting an injured pet to the vets
3. Getting an ill child to hospital
4. Getting to that new pub on the M40 before last orders.

And yes I've broken the speed limit in 3 out of the 4 scenarios and would do exactly the same thing again in similar circumstances. Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed is the problem. 90mph on a dry, deserted motorway at 3am might not be a problem while 27mph on a wet road near a school could well be too high.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but they arent "needs" - you have emergency services that can do those for you - and even then they still need to drive with due care and if they hit someone they after to take responsibilty for it and face consquesnces


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But i will ask the question again - is there ever any occasion when anyone bar emergency services "needs" to break the speed limit set out by our governing laws.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/269588/consultation-response.pdf

Question 3: Should the additional purposes for speed limit exemptions 
be largely confined to some of the organisations and purposes currently allowed to fit 
and use blue lights? 
.
.
Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) raised the issue of 
agencies like HM Customs and Excise and the Security Services that are not 
on the list of blue light vehicles but may merit inclusion in the exemption.
ACPOS stressed that careful consideration must therefore be given to the 
operational necessity for potential cases and they must be judged on their own 
merits. Public safety must be the main concern. 

Apparently for pursuit of Drug Smugglers and/or Terrorists resp.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but they arent "needs" - you have emergency services that can do those for you - and even then they still need to drive with due care and if they hit someone they after to take responsibilty for it and face consquesnces
		
Click to expand...

Agree to some degree Phil but let me give you one situation to answer. You have an unwell child showing signs of meningitis. The hospital is 15 miles away and you know that if you jump in the car you can be in A&E in less than 15 minutes if you put your foot down on the dual carriageway between home and the hospital. Or you could dial 999 and ask for an ambulance to turn up which could easily take 15 or 20 minutes minimum. Would you sit at home and wait risking the life of your child just to avoid going a few mph over the speed limit?


----------



## triple_bogey (Jan 26, 2014)

:rofl::rofl:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			Agree to some degree Phil but let me give you one situation to answer. You have an unwell child showing signs of meningitis. The hospital is 15 miles away and you know that if you jump in the car you can be in A&E in less than 15 minutes if you put your foot down on the dual carriageway between home and the hospital. Or you could dial 999 and ask for an ambulance to turn up which could easily take 15 or 20 minutes minimum. Would you sit at home and wait risking the life of your child just to avoid going a few mph over the speed limit?
		
Click to expand...

it is a very specific situation though which - cant say what i would.

Dialing 999 is something i would do straight away before anything and i know they can patch you straight through to the ambulance who talk to you as they are on the move - thats exactly what they did to my OH when i had an asthma attack. 

In fairness the emergency services in urban areas are close with at least paramedics near by. 

But we digress.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Snelly said:



			Really?  Well I look forward greatly to the day you and I meet and you can say that to my face.  We will see what tune you whistle then....
		
Click to expand...

Observation, not Criticism - as pointed out in the bit you haven't quoted. I'm certainly one myself - and not ashamed of it!

I already have evidence that you are generous as well :thup: so don't take it too negatively - apologies if it came across that way!


----------



## London mike 61 (Jan 26, 2014)

I think there is a lot to be said for obeying the ' spirit ' of the law when a life is at stake rather than the letter of the law which could see the loss of life by adhering to the letter of the law. But by no means should anyone use this to excuse bad driving , after all the emphasis is on ' emergency' and life threatening .


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

It's really odd that a number of people see the raising of the motorway speed limit by 10 or 15 mph as more dangerous than wrestling polar bears, not forgetting of course that they are fairly straight and we are all travelling the same direction.  No mention from these people however, regarding poorly lit fairly twisting A roads, where two vehicles can have a closing speed of 120 mph whilst separated by nothing more than a couple of feet of fresh air.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			its not the wrong question - i believe its avoiding the question 

The speed limits have been set out by people far more knowledgable than us - they have made the judgement call and its in our laws now. Break the speed limit and people will be punished for it. Thats regardless of if you think the road is safe for you to go 50 even though someone has decided its a 30 , thats regardless of what time of night it is. Someone has made that call and its not in our remit to decide to against that call when driving and decide to do something else. Conditions can will slow drivers down but just because the motorway maybe quiet doesnt mean you should be able to go above that limit and you shouldnt "need" to go above that limit.

Are speed limits stopping the world from turning ? Do people really feel the need to want to go quicker ?

we make judgement calls when we drive - the people have set out what they believe should be the maximum speed anyone should drive on that road - now we can debate about the specific road but practically you must not cross that maximum speed regardless of the conditions or what time of day it is - you will not be able to give an reason that can justify someone going over that speed limit set out.

Ill say it again - the speed limit has been set by the authority - is there any reason why someone needs to go above that limit.
		
Click to expand...

You have said it plenty of times already. Your argument is a circular one. It basically boils down to you should follow the speed limits because they are the speed limits. Except on Cyprus, though?

As for the idea that they have been set by 'authority' which I interpret as Parliament, then you probably already know that is rather different from saying they have been scientifically determined to be appropriate for today's traffic conditions and vehicles. Because these limits were set before many here were born when both conditions were different. 
To have a sensible discussion on this you need to get past the 'it's the law' mantra and discuss the underlying issues.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			It's really odd that a number of people see the raising of the motorway speed limit by 10 or 15 mph as more dangerous than wrestling polar bears, not forgetting of course that they are fairly straight and we are all travelling the same direction..
		
Click to expand...

And yet still there are crashesâ€¦.....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			It's really odd that a number of people see the raising of the motorway speed limit by 10 or 15 mph as more dangerous than wrestling polar bears, not forgetting of course that they are fairly straight and we are all travelling the same direction.  No mention from these people however, regarding poorly lit fairly twisting A roads, where two vehicles can have a closing speed of 120 mph whilst separated by nothing more than a couple of feet of fresh air.
		
Click to expand...

Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.
		
Click to expand...

It's all about the facts.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hungerford+M4+crash

Are you basing your argument on a solitary incident almost 25 years ago? What percentage have vehicles improved by since then?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.
		
Click to expand...

51 cars involved and 10 deaths. But the original cause was a driver falling asleep and a large contributing factor to that was fog. So again it wasn't speed that was to blame but tiredness and inappropriate speed for the conditions. The reports said that the cars were travelling at 70mph so none of them were speeding but they were driving too fast for the conditions. 

I hate quoting wikipedia but this was the first report I came to.....

"On 13 March 1991, a multiple-vehicle collision occurred during foggy conditions on the eastbound carriageway of the M4 motorway near Hungerford, Berkshire, between the Membury service station and junction 14.Ten people were killed in the pile-up, which involved 51 vehicles, making it one of the deadliest crashes in the history of Britain's motorway network.
[h=2]At 2:15 p.m. on 13 March 1991, a driver fell asleep at the wheel of his van and skidded into the central reservation. A car travelling behind the van changed lanes to avoid contact but other vehicles behind, which were travelling at speeds averaging 70 miles per hour, failed to avoid the crashed van and skidded into the other lanes of the carriageway. Others took evasive action by driving onto the hard shoulder and up the sides of the cutting. An articulated lorry then jack-knifed across all three lanes of the eastbound carriageway". [/h]


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.
		
Click to expand...

No I haven't, but I think you will find that it had nothing to do with drivers exceeding the speed limit.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. That is irrelevant because the question is speed inappropriate to the conditions. That crash happened in fog with poor visibility and the effects were amplified by a number of chance events. The same M4 now has more overhead speed signals and the rules for using these in fog have changed. 

These one off events are always a bad basis for law making. There is a legal saying 'hard cases make bad laws'.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			It's all about the facts.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hungerford+M4+crash

Are you basing your argument on a solitary incident almost 25 years ago? What percentage have vehicles improved by since then?
		
Click to expand...

Nah 

you can use this one

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/05/two-killed-crash-m1-motorway

or this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25211672

or this one 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25290043

or this one 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23968776

or this one

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...G472kl0IcfSC0KRr0ERshGw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.ZGU

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/27/car-sliced-in-two-in-m11-crash_n_4509301.html

at a quick glance think most of them if not all are from the last 6-12 months


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			51 cars involved and 10 deaths. But the original cause was a driver falling asleep and a large contributing factor to that was fog. So again it wasn't speed that was to blame but tiredness and inappropriate speed for the conditions. The reports said that the cars were travelling at 70mph so none of them were speeding but they were driving too fast for the conditions. 

I hate quoting wikipedia but this was the first report I came to.....

"On 13 March 1991, a multiple-vehicle collision occurred during foggy conditions on the eastbound carriageway of the M4 motorway near Hungerford, Berkshire, between the Membury service station and junction 14.Ten people were killed in the pile-up, which involved 51 vehicles, making it one of the deadliest crashes in the history of Britain's motorway network.
[h=2]At 2:15 p.m. on 13 March 1991, a driver fell asleep at the wheel of his van and skidded into the central reservation. A car travelling behind the van changed lanes to avoid contact but other vehicles behind, which were travelling at speeds averaging 70 miles per hour, failed to avoid the crashed van and skidded into the other lanes of the carriageway. Others took evasive action by driving onto the hard shoulder and up the sides of the cutting. An articulated lorry then jack-knifed across all three lanes of the eastbound carriageway". [/h]
		
Click to expand...

it was more in response to everyone travelling in the same direction and on fairly straight roads 

And yes it happened at the speed limit - imagine if the cars were travelling faster - possibly more deaths. 

Some people also made some awful choices whilst it was going on.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Nah 

you can use this one

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/05/two-killed-crash-m1-motorway

or this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25211672

or this one 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25290043

or this one 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23968776

or this one

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...G472kl0IcfSC0KRr0ERshGw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.ZGU

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/27/car-sliced-in-two-in-m11-crash_n_4509301.html

at a quick glance think most of them if not all are from the last 6-12 months
		
Click to expand...

Earth shattering revelations - occasionally people crash cars!!
Nowhere in the first few of those is excessive speed mentioned as being the cause.  If you are that terrified of the dangers of motorway driving then you could just stay in your house.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Nah 

you can use this one

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/05/two-killed-crash-m1-motorway

or this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25211672

or this one 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25290043

or this one 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23968776

or this one

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...G472kl0IcfSC0KRr0ERshGw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.ZGU

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/27/car-sliced-in-two-in-m11-crash_n_4509301.html

at a quick glance think most of them if not all are from the last 6-12 months
		
Click to expand...

Have had a quick look at all of those and can't see anywhere that it says that the accidents were caused by speeding. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

EDIT - and a lot of them seem to be single vehicle accidents rather than multi vehicle collisions. Surely the former can only be put down to either poor driving/driver error or mechanical malfunction.


----------



## brendy (Jan 26, 2014)

With regards to raising the speed limits, if nothing else changes, I think it is fine where it is.
If lanes were segregated off some way then a 90mph lane (or whatever raised limit) would be great as long as there was no chance of lane weavers being able to get near that lane. My only concern would be poor conditions and you could end up with people driving in excess of the conditions simply because a lane says it is ok to do so.
Cars made in the last 15-20 years are far better equipped to deal with emergency stops/heavy braking etc and are much more stable at higher speeds BUT, and heres the but, not all cars are maintained with fresh brakes, tyres and 100% alert drivers. As long as there is a human element, there will always be accidents and adding more speed to the equation is asking for trouble.


----------



## Phil2511 (Jan 26, 2014)

thing about stats and studies is they are worthless in the general jist of things

for every study and statistic that one obsessive uses there will be another that says the exact opposite to be used by the anti's in the world

such is life


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			Earth shattering revelations - occasionally people crash cars!!
Nowhere in the first few of those is excessive speed mentioned as being the cause.  If you are that terrified of the dangers of motorway driving then you could just stay in your house.
		
Click to expand...

you were using the fact that we all go in the same direction on the motorway and its fairly straight it appears as some sort of justification to raise the speed limits on motorways 

Those are just a few crashes already appearing on our motorways at 70mph - let alone any higher 

Do you think the amount would increase or decrease if the speed on the motorways increased ?


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Nah 

you can use this one

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/05/two-killed-crash-m1-motorway no mention of speed 

or this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25211672 again no mention of speed

or this one 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25290043 oops or in this one

or this one 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23968776 Hmm no speed mentioned in this one I see a pattern forming

or this one

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...G472kl0IcfSC0KRr0ERshGw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.ZGU

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/27/car-sliced-in-two-in-m11-crash_n_4509301.html

at a quick glance think most of them if not all are from the last 6-12 months
		
Click to expand...

So all of those reports never mentioned speeds at all but a couple mentioned fog etc. So it isn't speed per se but inappropriate speed. Kinda makes your belief in the arbitrary speed limits look kind of silly.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			Have had a quick look at all of those and can't see anywhere that it says that the accidents were caused by speeding. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

EDIT - and a lot of them seem to be single vehicle accidents rather than multi vehicle collisions. Surely the former can only be put down to either poor driving/driver error or mechanical malfunction.
		
Click to expand...

Those are accidents already happening at 70mph - will ask the same question - do you think the amount will increase or decrease if the speed limit was increased ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			So all of those reports never mentioned speeds at all but a couple mentioned fog etc. So it isn't speed per se but inappropriate speed. Kinda makes your belief in the arbitrary speed limits look kind of silly.
		
Click to expand...

never said any of those accidents were caused by speeding

Those are just a tiny snippet of accidents already happening on our motorways with the speed limit at 70.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			you were using the fact that we all go in the same direction on the motorway and its fairly straight it appears as some sort of justification to raise the speed limits on motorways 

Those are just a few crashes already appearing on our motorways at 70mph - let alone any higher 

Do you think the amount would increase or decrease if the speed on the motorways increased ?
		
Click to expand...

You took a part of my post to try and prove your fairly weak argument - try considering the post as a whole.  Your list of motorway accidents was pointless and proves nothing.  Do you want me to post tons of links to accidents on A roads, the A9 for example?  I won't, because like your post it would be fairly meaningless.

Increase the speed limit on motorways and I doubt you would see any significant increase in fatalities due to speed, you will invariably find that there are other primary causes.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

brendy said:



			With regards to raising the speed limits, if nothing else changes, I think it is fine where it is.
If lanes were segregated off some way then a 90mph lane (or whatever raised limit) would be great as long as there was no chance of lane weavers being able to get near that lane. My only concern would be poor conditions and *you could end up with people driving in excess of the conditions simply because a lane says it is ok to do so.*
Cars made in the last 15-20 years are far better equipped to deal with emergency stops/heavy braking etc and are much more stable at higher speeds BUT, and heres the but, not all cars are maintained with fresh brakes, tyres and 100% alert drivers. As long as there is a human element, there will always be accidents and adding more speed to the equation is asking for trouble.
		
Click to expand...

You mean like they do already?


----------



## brendy (Jan 26, 2014)

I am surprised noone has put up the detailed reports of the millions of accidents per day that never happened...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			You took a part of my post to try and prove your fairly weak argument - try considering the post as a whole.  Your list of motorway accidents was pointless and proves nothing.  Do you want me to post tons of links to accidents on A roads, the A9 for example?  I won't, because like your post it would be fairly meaningless.

Increase the speed limit on motorways and I doubt you would see any significant increase in fatalities due to speed, you will invariably find that there are other primary causes.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know you wouldnt see any significant increase ? And surely one more accident is significant ?

Can you show me what you are using to form the opinion that an increase in speed wouldnt mean an increase in collisions on a motorway.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 26, 2014)

Ask the cops which are safer - motorways (even the M4) or rural roads.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How do you know you wouldnt see any significant increase ? And surely one more accident is significant ?

Can you show me what you are using to form the opinion that an increase in speed wouldnt mean an increase in collisions on a motorway.
		
Click to expand...


Because very simply. the majority of cars on the motorway already ignore the speed limit as it is outdated, they travel at 80 already

raising the limit to 80 wont cause them to go faster, as they then will start burning huge amounts of expensive petrol.

You will always get the odd idiot doing over a ton and yes they need locking up, 

I rest my case


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How do you know you wouldnt see any significant increase ? And surely one more accident is significant ?

Can you show me what you are using to form the opinion that an increase in speed wouldnt mean an increase in collisions on a motorway.
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find that I used the words 'I doubt' rather than I know, it is an opinion formed by my brain and over 25 years of driving experience.  

I see you have decided not to comment on the portion of my post regarding A roads and closing speeds.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Because very simply. the majority of cars on the motorway already ignore the speed limit as it is outdated, they travel at 80 already

raising the limit to 80 wont cause them to go faster, as they then will start burning huge amounts of expensive petrol.

You will always get the odd idiot doing over a ton and yes they need locking up, 

I rest my case
		
Click to expand...

So you dont think because people see the limit is 70 - push it by going to 80

Those same people who see the limit is now 80 - can see that the police give them 10 mph will suddenly start doing 90 ?

People seem ok to go past the speed limit to go to 80-85 - so why wouldnt they do the same if the limit was raised ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			I think you will find that I used the words 'I doubt' rather than I know, it is an opinion formed by my brain and over 25 years of driving experience.  

I see you have decided not to comment on the portion of my post regarding A roads and closing speeds.
		
Click to expand...

I have no problems with your comments on A roads - i agree they are dangerous when you have the possibilties of head on collisions.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Ask the cops which are safer - motorways (even the M4) or rural roads.
		
Click to expand...

I live in a fairly rural area and believe the roads to be far more dangerous than motorways.  Applying the NSL across a lot of rural roads is ridiculous, the amount of potential hazards around the next bend are many and varied.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Ask the cops which are safer - motorways (even the M4) or rural roads.
		
Click to expand...

 More deaths occur in rural roads because of the magic hour - the reduced chance to get people to emergency services within that first hour

There is no doubt that rural roads are more dangerous


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you dont think because people see the limit is 70 - push it by going to 80

Those same people who see the limit is now 80 - can see that the police give them 10 mph will suddenly start doing 90 ?

People seem ok to go past the speed limit to go to 80-85 - so why wouldnt they do the same if the limit was raised ?
		
Click to expand...

If I feel the conditions are suitable then I will do 80 - 85, if you raise the limit to 85 mph it wouldn't mean I would increase my speed, I'm not going to decide that I must be doing 10 - 15 over that limit for the sake of it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			If I feel the conditions are suitable then I will do 80 - 85, if you raise the limit to 85 mph it wouldn't mean I would increase my speed, I'm not going to decide that I must be doing 10 - 15 over that limit for the sake of it.
		
Click to expand...

And exactly what conditions do you feel are suitable for you to ignore the speed limit ?


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you dont think because people see the limit is 70 - push it by going to 80

Those same people who see the limit is now 80 - can see that the police give them 10 mph will suddenly start doing 90 ?

People seem ok to go past the speed limit to go to 80-85 - so why wouldnt they do the same if the limit was raised ?
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe people feel pretty safe travelling at 80. I travel faster on the motorway when I'm driving my car than I do when I'm driving my van as much better breaks. It's called using common sense.
You stick a bad driver behind the wheel of a car it doesn't matter if they're doing 70 or 80.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Or maybe people feel pretty safe travelling at 80. I travel faster on the motorway when I'm driving my car than I do when I'm driving my van as much better breaks. It's called using common sense.
You stick a bad driver behind the wheel of a car it doesn't matter if they're doing 70 or 80.
		
Click to expand...

Faster than 70 mph ?


----------



## brendy (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			More deaths occur in rural roads because of the magic hour - the reduced chance to get people to emergency services within that first hour

There is no doubt that rural roads are more dangerous
		
Click to expand...

Noone mentioned deaths alone though Phil, incidents are the subject full stop. Wing mirrors getting clipped to full on collisions.


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And exactly what conditions do you feel are suitable for you to ignore the speed limit ?
		
Click to expand...

:rofl: 

Really need a banging head against the wall smilie


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Faster than 70 mph ?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah,I regularly do around 75-80mph depending on conditions. 
I travel on the M1 most days in my van and I'd say I average 60mph.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

brendy said:



			Noone mentioned deaths alone though Phil, incidents are the subject full stop. Wing mirrors getting clipped to full on collisions.
		
Click to expand...

I know no one mentioned deaths alone


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And exactly what conditions do you feel are suitable for you to ignore the speed limit ?
		
Click to expand...

Good visibility, dry surface, traffic not too heavy.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			:rofl: 

Really need a banging head against the wall smilie 

Click to expand...

im not sure whats funny

Lets be honest here but people are deciding themselves when they believe conditions are "suitable" to go past the speed limit

Im sorry but its not up to them to decide. Its not up to them think "ah feck it - roads seems ok ill just motor on past 70 and do 85 - should be ok " . That isnt their choice to make.

You can laugh all you want 

But i would hope that people making that choice would get caught and handed the appropiate punishment.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			Good visibility, dry surface, traffic not too heavy.
		
Click to expand...

Other users on the road ? 

Is it really suitable when there are other users on the road ?


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			im not sure whats funny

Lets be honest here but people are deciding themselves when they believe conditions are "suitable" to go past the speed limit

Im sorry but its not up to them to decide. Its not up to them think "ah feck it - roads seems ok ill just motor on past 70 and do 85 - should be ok " . That isnt their choice to make.

You can laugh all you want 

But i would hope that people making that choice would get caught and handed the appropiate punishment.
		
Click to expand...

You are wrong, it is my decision to make and I do.  If I do get caught then fair enough I'll take the punishment without crying about it.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Other users on the road ? 

Is it really suitable when there are other users on the road ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe it is.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			More deaths occur in rural roads because of the magic hour - the reduced chance to get people to emergency services within that first hour

There is no doubt that rural roads are more dangerous
		
Click to expand...

The underlying accident rate is also higher.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			You are wrong, it is my decision to make and I do.  If I do get caught then fair enough I'll take the punishment without crying about it.
		
Click to expand...

And what happens if your decision hurts someone else on the road because remember its not just your road - when you make these choices it also effects other people.

You have a blow out at 85 and pile into someone - do you then say " it was my decision to make"


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 26, 2014)

if its clear on the Mway,  I set the cruise control to 80, if its congested I dont use CC and keep up with the flow

does that make me a bad person?

If I have a blowout im screwed whether im doing 70 or 80


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Ethan said:



			The underlying accident rate is also higher.
		
Click to expand...

it is - no argument there


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			if its clear on the Mway,  I set the cruise control to 80, if its congested I dont use CC and keep up with the flow

does that make me a bad person?
		
Click to expand...

Thats up to you to decide.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And what happens if your decision hurts someone else on the road because remember its not just your road - when you make these choices it also effects other people.

You have a blow out at 85 and pile into someone - do you then say " it was my decision to make"
		
Click to expand...

So how do you feel about the high numbers of incompetent drivers who drive well below the limit but are probably more of a risk,  because as has been pointed out to you a mind numbingly boring number of times now, speed on its own is not a killer.

What happens if I have a blowout at 69 and plough into someone


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			So how do you feel about the high numbers of incompetent drivers who drive well below the limit but are probably more of a risk,  because as has been pointed out to you a mind numbingly boring number of times now, speed on its own is not a killer.

What happens if I have a blowout at 69 and plough into someone 

Click to expand...

What about them - i dont believe i have excused them of anything or suggested they arent a problem - they are

I have agreed that people who drive well below the speed limit can cause problems a number of times now. Is that an excuse for you or others to speed ? 

If you have a blowout at 69 and plough into someone then you at least know you were driving within the laws of this country.


----------



## NWJocko (Jan 26, 2014)

When I first moved down here I was still working in Edinburgh so used to drive up early (4.30/5am) for the week.

One time I was going along at 70 or maybe just under with a completely empty road and the police stopped and breathalised me! Apparently one sign of a drunk driver is that they drive right at the speed limit when the police would expect them to be speeding!!


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If you have a blowout at 69 and plough into someone then you at least know you were driving within the laws of this country.
		
Click to expand...

I'm certain that will make everyone involved feel a lot better 

Bored now, keep up the hand wringing Phil, I'll continue to drive at what speed I feel is appropriate for the conditions and within my capabilities.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Don't get me wrong, I agree that reducing speed limits alone will not reduce accidents. All that does is reduce the damage inflicted in an accident. Getting people to learn how to drive would be a great start too. I could sit here all day and comment on some of the amazing things I have seen idiots do on the roads like most can. 

SO to improve the safety of our roads we need to:

Reduce speed limits in urban areas - they are taking speed limits down to 20 in certain areas
Teach people how to actually drive in a safe manner - god knows how we do that
Put in traffic calming measures to slow people down - speed humps, chicanes etc are already being used to good effect
Make sure that everyone drives a car that is fit for the road - we have MOT's for that
Keep roads properly maintained - they do not do that in a lot of ares.
Introduce minimum speed limits - would be a great idea

So, some of the things needed are being taken care off. Some of them you can't do anything about like the people behind the wheel. But others are possible to sort IMO.
		
Click to expand...

You miss my point.

Simply reducing speed limits does not reduce speeds significantly. 

If everybody drove in a 'safe manner' there'd be no need to do anything, but as they don't...
Traffic Calming measures work best - at least in the 30 or 40mph type areas.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			:rofl: 

Really need a banging head against the wall smilie 

Click to expand...

Not sure if it's going to work but you could try this one...........


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 26, 2014)

Or this one........


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			if its clear on the Mway,  I set the cruise control to 80, if its congested I dont use CC and keep up with the flow

does that make me a bad person?

If I have a blowout im screwed whether im doing 70 or 80
		
Click to expand...

Nothing shocking here,just using good old common sense.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			Nothing shocking here,just using good old common sense.
		
Click to expand...

So if you got stopped by a copper speeding - you would say " i was using my common sense" ?


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			Or this one........






Click to expand...

I've got a feeling we could see this used quite a bit.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So if you got stopped by a copper speeding - you would say " i was using my common sense" ?
		
Click to expand...

You should. The circumstances are important and provide the context for whether there will be a prosecution, and if so, for what.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So if you got stopped by a copper speeding - you would say " i was using my common sense" ?
		
Click to expand...

Nope I'd take what ever penalty was handed to me as I was breaking the law. 
Like I said on a earlier post,been driving 17 yr & no points. It's surprising what common sense can do. 
I did once get pulled for not wearing seatbelt tho obviously lacking in common sense that day.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Ethan said:



			You should. The circumstances are important and provide the context for whether there will be a prosecution, and if so, for what.
		
Click to expand...

I woudl expect imo that the copper would ensure that a ticket was given if that was someones defence for speeding


----------



## Ethan (Jan 26, 2014)

PhilTheFragger said:



			if its clear on the Mway,  I set the cruise control to 80, if its congested I dont use CC and keep up with the flow

*does that make me a bad person?*

If I have a blowout im screwed whether im doing 70 or 80
		
Click to expand...

Of course not. Nor does it for almost everyone else also doing 80mph. 

Playing a bagful of Orkas on a Stewart trolley says a lot about you, though.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I woudl expect imo that the copper would ensure that a ticket was given if that was someones defence for speeding
		
Click to expand...

You might be surprised that some traffic police would also use Common sense.


----------



## Robobum (Jan 26, 2014)

Dear Phil

Do you remember berating DelC for sucking the life out of a thread?

Think on.............:thup


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			You might be surprised that some traffic police would also use Common sense.
		
Click to expand...

ill ask later :thup:


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			ill ask later :thup:
		
Click to expand...

I forgot that you know people


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 26, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			You might be surprised that some traffic police would also use Common sense.
		
Click to expand...

I know that the ones on the A12 between Colchester and Ipswich do use it or at least used to. About 5 years ago I used to drive down to London on a Friday afternoon and then home late on Sunday night. For 5 weeks in a row I got stopped for speeding between 11-30pm and midnight coming home on the Sunday. Not hammering it along excessively but doing around 80-85mph on the dual carriageway. On each occasion I just held my hands up and apologised saying that I was just wanting to get home and as the road was empty obviously hadn't noticed my speed creeping up. I got let off with a warning each time along the lines of "Well as it's late and there's no-one else around I'll let you off but don't let me catch you again". Fortunately I never got stopped by the same one twice.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			I know that the ones on the A12 between Colchester and Ipswich do use it or at least used to. About 5 years ago I used to drive down to London on a Friday afternoon and then home late on Sunday night. For 5 weeks in a row I got stopped for speeding between 11-30pm and midnight coming home on the Sunday. Not hammering it along excessively but doing around 80-85mph on the dual carriageway. On each occasion I just held my hands up and apologised saying that I was just wanting to get home and as the road was empty obviously hadn't noticed my speed creeping up. I got let off with a warning each time along the lines of "Well as it's late and there's no-one else around I'll let you off but don't let me catch you again". Fortunately I never got stopped by the same one twice.
		
Click to expand...

When I got pulled over for not wearing my seatbelt I lied & said I was actually wearing it. The police officer took me into his car & showed me a clear pic of me not wearing it. He said if I'd just held my hands up & said it was a genuine mistake he'd have let me off with a warning. I ended up with a small fine.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 26, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			Not sure if it's going to work but you could try this one...........






Click to expand...

 I can't open/ get the picture.


----------



## chris661 (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			im not sure whats funny

Lets be honest here but people are deciding themselves when they believe conditions are "suitable" to go past the speed limit

Im sorry but its not up to them to decide. Its not up to them think "ah feck it - roads seems ok ill just motor on past 70 and do 85 - should be ok " . That isnt their choice to make.

You can laugh all you want 

But i would hope that people making that choice would get caught and handed the appropiate punishment.
		
Click to expand...

Funny? Your pathetic attempt to tell everybody how to live their lives. I am almost sure you were banging on about personal responsibility on another thread but on this one it doesn't suit your argument. You have the temerity to tell anybody that breaks the speed limit that puppy dogs die  and the world stops turning but have been caught speeding yourself. 

If anybody asks you a question hat doesn't suit your agenda/argument you just ignore them, it really is quite sad. Anyway you enjoy the view from your high horse as I won't be seen it anymore. 

Cheery bye


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2014)

chris661 said:



			Funny? Your pathetic attempt to tell everybody how to live their lives. I am almost sure you were banging on about personal responsibility on another thread but on this one it doesn't suit your argument. You have the temerity to tell anybody that breaks the speed limit that puppy dogs die  and the world stops turning but have been caught speeding yourself. 

If anybody asks you a question hat doesn't suit your agenda/argument you just ignore them, it really is quite sad. Anyway you enjoy the view from your high horse as I won't be seen it anymore. 

Cheery bye
		
Click to expand...

Puppy dogs ? Nah - I said children :thup:

You live your life how you wish but be aware at times your choices will effect other people

The road is full of people - if people were more aware of everyone else the possibly the roads might be a safer place 

Yes I have broken the speed limit - didn't ignore that question , yes I have been caught speeding - I don't believe at any time I said I didn't 

Have a good evening :thup:


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 26, 2014)

Pin-seeker said:



			When I got pulled over for not wearing my seatbelt I lied & said I was actually wearing it. The police officer took me into his car & showed me a clear pic of me not wearing it. He said if I'd just held my hands up & said it was a genuine mistake he'd have let me off with a warning. I ended up with a small fine.
		
Click to expand...

Lucky not to get another 6 points:rofl:


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

NWJocko said:



			When I first moved down here I was still working in Edinburgh so used to drive up early (4.30/5am) for the week.

One time I was going along at 70 or maybe just under with a completely empty road and the police stopped and breathalised me! Apparently one sign of a drunk driver is that they drive right at the speed limit when the police would expect them to be speeding!!
		
Click to expand...

I used to make that run too - 2007/8 or so. I used to set off from my place (Egham area) at about 01:00 and try to get to Tebay/Westmoreland for early breakfast and a rest. Averaged 70 once!


----------



## Pin-seeker (Jan 26, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			Lucky not to get another 6 points:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Pahahaha I'd av been annoyed if I'd seen the officer that issued the fine /giving 6points doing the same (not wearing a seat belt) the next day


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			....
A little girl about 100 yards in front of me ran out into the road chasing her dog - she was 7 

She got hit by a car doing 30mph - the driver reacted and skidded but still hit her , we all tried our best at the scene but it was clear she had a head injury as well as legs being broken

Unfortunately the little girl passed away - it was my mates little girl.

I had to go to the coroners as witness and listened to all the reports 

*The driver wasn't breaking the speed limit but they worked out that he hit the car at 24 mph 
*
And that she died of a brain trauma because the force of the collision through her onto the floor where she hit her head.
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			...
If you have a blowout at 69 and plough into someone then you at least know you were driving within the laws of this country.
		
Click to expand...

There's something scarily hypocritically contradictory about these 2 posts!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 26, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The road is full of people - if people were more aware of everyone else the possibly the roads might be a safer place
		
Click to expand...

Prophetic , all seeing, Yoda reborn!


----------



## NWJocko (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I used to make that run too - 2007/8 or so. I used to set off from my place (Egham area) at about 01:00 and try to get to Tebay/Westmoreland for early breakfast and a rest. Averaged 70 once! 

Click to expand...

Must have been doing something else to only be going 70, used to make "swift" time on that trip as there was only a couple of lorries on the M6/74. 

The A road across to Edinburgh was good fun in the wee fast car I had at the time.

Common sense applied and all was fine, just find it ironic with all the bleating on here that the only time I was stopped was when I was on or even under the speed limit as the police thought it was suspicious! If I'd been doing 80 they wouldn't have bothered their backsides.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

NWJocko said:



			Must have been doing something else to only be going 70, used to make "swift" time on that trip as there was only a couple of lorries on the M6/74. 

The A road across to Edinburgh was good fun in the wee fast car I had at the time.

Common sense applied and all was fine, just find it ironic with all the bleating on here that the only time I was stopped was when I was on or even under the speed limit as the police thought it was suspicious! If I'd been doing 80 they wouldn't have bothered their backsides.
		
Click to expand...

I said *Averaged* 70!  And on (just) less than a tank of Diesel too.

A702 was my turn-off. Pleasant light early in the morning. Coulter could be dodgy if not alert! Preference was to stop at the Services for Coffee and a Cookie to change from Motorway to A-Road mind-set.


----------



## NWJocko (Jan 26, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I said *Averaged* 70!  And on (just) less than a tank of Diesel too.

A702 was my turn-off. Pleasant light early in the morning. Coulter could be dodgy if not alert! Preference was to stop at the Services for Coffee and a Cookie to change from Motorway to A-Road mind-set.
		
Click to expand...

A702 was the way I went, the Moffat road was a more scenic drive but that way quicker.

Never stopped at Abingdon unless nature was calling, if police set up cameras on the Dolphinton straight they'd fill the coffers on a weekly basis!


----------



## guest100718 (Jan 26, 2014)

My daughter asked what it meant when the traffic light went orange. I told her it was the signal to floor it and get through before it goes red.. She asked her mother later who gaver her the same reply.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 26, 2014)

guest100718 said:



			My daughter asked what it meant when the traffic light went orange. I told her it was the signal to floor it and get through before it goes red.. She asked her mother later who gaver her the same reply.
		
Click to expand...

The fact that after your reply she then asked her mother say quite a bit!


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 27, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			You miss my point.

Simply reducing speed limits does not reduce speeds significantly. 

If everybody drove in a 'safe manner' there'd be no need to do anything, but as they don't...
Traffic Calming measures work best - at least in the 30 or 40mph type areas.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't miss your point. If you read what i wrote I did say about 6 different factors that contribute towards RTA's. Point I was trying to point out is some of them just can't be dealt with and some are just being ignored.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 27, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I'm waiting for the time when... you enter your destination and the car transports you there - without the necessity of a 'driver'! Conceptually simple; practically challenging! But that's what Engineers love!
		
Click to expand...

It's coming! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25861214

No surprise Google is involved! Another Antitrust candidate? Google has plenty on the go already - just Google 'Google antitrust'!


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 27, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I didn't miss your point. If you read what i wrote I did say about 6 different factors that contribute towards RTA's. Point I was trying to point out is some of them just can't be dealt with and some are just being ignored.
		
Click to expand...

I think you did and still have, though it may only be a wording thing - or I may not be getting my message across well (as LPP can't seem to see the difference either). 

Your 6 factors may be close, but you don't mention 'speed' without it being associated with 'limit', My assertion is that 'speed' is the important thing and 'limit' is a tool, but otherwise irrelevant. And in this reply, I'll only deal with the speed factor - as that's what is promarily relevant to this thread. 

I'll try a different tack.

Would it matter what the limit was if the speeds were (reduced to) the appropriate level? No.

Does simply placing a limit on an area reduce the speed significantly?  No!

Do traffic calming measures reduce the speed in that area significantly? Yes!

The key to making the sorts of areas being discussed safe is to reduce the speed, not to simply stick up ineffective signs!

And there are a number of areas already (as you pointed out earlier) where the traffic calming is in place and is effective, even though the 'limit' is unchanged - still 30. These self-policing areas are the most effective at reducing the speeds in the vulnerable areas!

I'm not saying having/reducing limits doesn't work elsewhere. with Variable Speed Zones on motorways, putting up 'signs' of the limit does indeed have a significant effect on the speeds.


----------



## guest100718 (Jan 27, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			The fact that after your reply she then asked her mother say quite a bit!
		
Click to expand...

yes i drive everywhere at 100mph and if the roads are busy i drive on the pavement.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 27, 2014)

Gosh... Tried reading thru' from where I left off... But have given up as thread seems to have gone a bit pear shaped...

I doff my cap to LiverpoolPhil though seems to have enticed majority of the mods coven away from their cauldron to provide a response to one statement or another... Don't think that happens very often....

Judging by this thread feel NigelF is missing a trick by not adding high speed motoring in residential areas to his manifesto... Seems to go hand in hand with his support of hand gun ownership....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

Don't tell me LP is still trying to say that there is no excuse for exceeding a speed limit - whilst he seems to be surrounded by drivers who regularly exceed the speed limit without killing anyone.  But because they are all considerate and careful drivers that's OK to do so.  

Besides (and I bet we've been in _comparison land _in a BIG way on this one) - speeding isn't the main or only reason for accidents, deaths and injuries on the roads - so unless you legislate for all these other causes then you shouldn't be so hard on speeding drivers or legislate further or implement restrictions on speed and speeding.

See - as soon as you get into _comparison land_ you are lost and will end up going around in circles (as I have found).  Those that see speeding as OK *in their judgement* will find lots of other reasons why they should be allowed to speed, and why further restrictions are silly, unfair and indeed 'a bad thing' - and all because - by comparison - speeding is no worse or riskier than...


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 27, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			I think you did and still have, though it may only be a wording thing - or I may not be getting my message across well (as LPP can't seem to see the difference either). 

Your 6 factors may be close, but you don't mention 'speed' without it being associated with 'limit', My assertion is that 'speed' is the important thing and 'limit' is a tool, but otherwise irrelevant. And in this reply, I'll only deal with the speed factor - as that's what is promarily relevant to this thread. 

I'll try a different tack.

Would it matter what the limit was if the speeds were (reduced to) the appropriate level? No.

Does simply placing a limit on an area reduce the speed significantly?  No!

Do traffic calming measures reduce the speed in that area significantly? Yes!

The key to making the sorts of areas being discussed safe is to reduce the speed, not to simply stick up ineffective signs!

And there are a number of areas already (as you pointed out earlier) where the traffic calming is in place and is effective, even though the 'limit' is unchanged - still 30. These self-policing areas are the most effective at reducing the speeds in the vulnerable areas!

I'm not saying having/reducing limits doesn't work elsewhere. with Variable Speed Zones on motorways, putting up 'signs' of the limit does indeed have a significant effect on the speeds.
		
Click to expand...

I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet, even if we are singing in a different key.............

When I said about the 6 things in my post I probably did not make it clear that traffic calming measures need to be used in conjunction with dropping the speed limits in urban areas. People will always ignore speed limits but like you have said putting in traffic calming measures is what slows them down. One thing on it's own will not have an impact, but when you combine them then that does have an overall impact IMO.

I'm not getting on my high horse because I am as guilty as most of driving down the M1 at 90MPH and treating A-class roads like a race track. But one thing I always mind is my speed in urban areas, a lot of the time I find myself driving under the limit, much to the annoyance of other drivers.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

btw - courts told my Mrs that doing 40mph in a 30mph area is viewed by courts as being a *much* more serious offence than doing 100mph on a motorway.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			btw - courts told my Mrs that doing 40mph in a 30mph area is viewed by courts as being a *much* more serious offence than doing 100mph on a motorway.
		
Click to expand...

I have heard that also before. they see you driving at 40 in a 30 as a danger to children and you will kill someone doing those speeds if you hit them. 100MPH on a motorway, if your in a pile up at 70 your going to lucky to walk away anyway.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I have heard that also before. they see you driving at 40 in a 30 as a danger to children and you will kill someone doing those speeds if you hit them. 100MPH on a motorway, if your in a pile up at 70 your going to lucky to walk away anyway.
		
Click to expand...

She got a Â£375 fine (with costs) and 4pts (rather than 3).  Could have been Â£1000+ fine.  The road was empty and not many folks about.  But it was the principle of speeding at 40mph in a 30mph zone that she was clobbered on - regardless of how safe she felt it was or low risk to others.  Just don't do it she was told - it is potentially too easily a killer.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			She got a Â£375 fine (with costs) and 4pts (rather than 3).  Could have been Â£1000+ fine.  The road was empty and not many folks about.  But it was the principle of speeding at 40mph in a 30mph zone that she was clobbered on - regardless of how safe she felt it was or low risk to others.  Just don't do it she was told - it is potentially too easily a killer.
		
Click to expand...

I was doing 36MPH and got 3 points and a speed awareness course


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I was doing 36MPH and got 3 points and a speed awareness course
		
Click to expand...

So did she - the previous time


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 27, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I was doing 36MPH and got 3 points and a speed awareness course
		
Click to expand...

Im hoping iI just get the speed awareness course. I could do with out the points on my license.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 27, 2014)

I was caught doing 96mph on the A11. Didn't get the choice of a speed awareness course. Had to go to court and got Â£280 fine and 4 points. Was told that if I'd been doing 95mph it would have been 3 points and Â£60 fine. So now I make sure I never go above 94mph.


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 27, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			I was caught doing 96mph on the A11. Didn't get the choice of a speed awareness course. Had to go to court and got Â£280 fine and 4 points. Was told that if I'd been doing 95mph it would have been 3 points and Â£60 fine. So now I make sure I never go above 94mph.
		
Click to expand...

According to the letter I have from plod, to get 3 points you would have to be doing less than 86. The fine is now Â£100 too.


----------



## Kellfire (Jan 27, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			So now I make sure I never go above 94mph.
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant, well done, you're a real trooper for only doing that speed.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 27, 2014)

murphthemog said:



			According to the letter I have from plod, to get 3 points you would have to be doing less than 86. The fine is now Â£100 too.
		
Click to expand...

I was told that by the magistrate but it was 6 years ago so things may well have changed. She also said I was lucky I was caught in Norfolk because in Suffolk at that time I would have been banned different police forces could set their own limits.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 27, 2014)

Kellfire said:



			Brilliant, well done, you're a real trooper for only doing that speed.
		
Click to expand...

That was a joke. Apologies for forgetting the smiley. It's very rare for me to go above 80 when I'm on my own now and with the kids in the car it's like driving miss daisy.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 27, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet, even if we are singing in a different key.............
		
Click to expand...

Then you'd be wrong!

A completely different style perhaps - think Clapton's 2 Laylas!



MadAdey said:



			When I said about the 6 things in my post I probably did not make it clear that traffic calming measures need to be used in conjunction with dropping the speed limits in urban areas. People will always ignore speed limits but like you have said putting in traffic calming measures is what slows them down. One thing on it's own will not have an impact, but when you combine them then that does have an overall impact IMO.
		
Click to expand...

My assertion is that Traffic Calming on its own can and does work. I see it successfully implemented on several roads I travel frequently - 1 several times a day!

However, I would not be surprised if we start seeing a frequent, if not obvious, instances of reduced limit followed by the TC measures, because it has become much easier (legislation changed) for councils to reduce a limit (and quicker and cheaper) before TCs are installed. And I wouldn't imagine the limit would revert once the TCs are in place either.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

Speeding in a thirty limit is the new HNSP?  Who knows how long this piece of string is


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 27, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			I was told that by the magistrate but it was 6 years ago so things may well have changed. She also said I was lucky I was caught in Norfolk because in Suffolk at that time I would have been banned different police forces could set their own limits.
		
Click to expand...

 You were getting folked both ways.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

btw - funny that you can use 'folked' in this context as we all know exactly what you mean - and you couldn't use asterisks in place of letters 'ol'.  Maybe you will get an infraction though - watch out watch out - mods about


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			btw - funny that you can use 'folked' in this context as we all know exactly what you mean - and you couldn't use asterisks in place of letters 'ol'.  Maybe you will get an infraction though - watch out watch out - mods about 

Click to expand...

I played folk music on and off for years so I've been well folked , I won't mention my short time in country  music, old pop, talk about snitches, and clipes  na na na na na.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			I played folk music on and off for years so I've been well folked , I won't mention my short time in country  music, old pop, talk about snitches, and clipes  na na na na na.

Click to expand...

Taking folk - did you watch the programme about Tom and Jack.  Now That's What I Call - erm - White Heather Club folk.  Braw 

(must get hold of and give a spin to my mum's copy of 'Nobody's Child' - mind you it got them from Â£8-10s a week to Â£50,000 a year - though don't think either got done for speeding or driving whilst high on quaaludes)


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Taking folk - did you watch the programme about Tom and Jack.  Now That's What I Call - erm - White Heather Club folk.  Braw 

(must get hold of and give a spin to my mum's copy of 'Nobody's Child')
		
Click to expand...

I remember that was the most depressing song sang at parties back in the swinging sixties, I did work with Tom and Jack back in the good old days, and before you ask I wasn't a painter.:cheers :If you know the first line of the song it does say he was SLOWLY passing a orphans home.:rofl:


----------



## Golfmmad (Jan 27, 2014)

At last, I've got to the end of this thread - it's taken me 2 evenings to get through.

I must take my hat off to Liverpoolphil, for sticking to his guns whilst taking all the flak on here.

I agree with everything you have said Phil and can't understand some of the responses you've had. 

Has everyone forgotten those two well used words when talking of "Road Safety"?

SPEED KILLS!

:thup:


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 27, 2014)

Golfmmad said:



			SPEED KILLS!

:thup:
		
Click to expand...

NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!! Inappropriate speed CAN kill. As I've said previously, 90mph on a dry, deserted motorway is probably not inappropriate but 27mph on a wet or icy road close to a school is not right.

I don't think anyone on this thread would suggest that you should drive through a built up area as if your tail is on fire but it's about using common sense for what is appropriate for the road and conditions.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 27, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!! Inappropriate speed CAN kill. As I've said previously, 90mph on a dry, deserted motorway is probably not inappropriate but 27mph on a wet or icy road close to a school is not right.

I don't think anyone on this thread would suggest that you should drive through a built up area as if your tail is on fire but it's about using common sense for what is appropriate for the road and conditions.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on. :thup:


----------



## triple_bogey (Jan 27, 2014)

Golfmmad said:



			At last, I've got to the end of this thread - it's taken me 2 evenings to get through.

I must take my hat off to Liverpoolphil, for sticking to his guns whilst taking all the flak on here.

I agree with everything you have said Phil and can't understand some of the responses you've had. 

Has everyone forgotten those two well used words when talking of "Road Safety"?

*SPEED KILLS!*

:thup:
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Golfmmad (Jan 27, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!! Inappropriate speed CAN kill. As I've said previously, 90mph on a dry, deserted motorway is probably not inappropriate but 27mph on a wet or icy road close to a school is not right.

I don't think anyone on this thread would suggest that you should drive through a built up area as if your tail is on fire but it's about using common sense for what is appropriate for the road and conditions.
		
Click to expand...

I would say that driving at 90mph on any road, whatever the conditions, is more risky than driving on a wet or icy road at 27mph.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 27, 2014)

Golfmmad said:



			I would say that driving at 90mph on any road, whatever the conditions, is more risky than driving on a wet or icy road at 27mph.
		
Click to expand...

Really? So you would be happier with me driving past the school where your kids go (if you have any) at 27mph on an icy day rather than driving at 90mph on a dry 3 lane motorway with no other cars in sight? What would happen if I hit black ice outside the school and ended up on the pavement at 25mph rather than if I'd been doing less than 20mph and had stopped short of the pavement? 

The speed limit is supposed to be guidance and you should still drive according to the conditions. Admittedly you shouldn't be going 90mph on the motorway but equally just because it's legal doesn't mean you should be doing 27mph on icy roads in a built up area or near a school.


----------



## Golfmmad (Jan 27, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			Really? So you would be happier with me driving past the school where your kids go (if you have any) at 27mph on an icy day rather than driving at 90mph on a dry 3 lane motorway with no other cars in sight? What would happen if I hit black ice outside the school and ended up on the pavement at 25mph rather than if I'd been doing less than 20mph and had stopped short of the pavement? 

The speed limit is supposed to be guidance and you should still drive according to the conditions. Admittedly you shouldn't be going 90mph on the motorway but equally just because it's legal doesn't mean you should be doing 27mph on icy roads in a built up area or near a school.
		
Click to expand...

Of course not, and that's not what I meant. I'm just emphasising the point of excessive speed and the need for drivers to slow down.

One of the main reasons why I disagree with the call to increase the speed limit on motorways is because people do not leave a safe enough distance from the car in front. As well as driving without dipped headlights in poor visibility.
I dread to think of the consequences!


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 27, 2014)

Golfmmad said:



			One of the main reasons why I disagree with the call to increase the speed limit on motorways is because people do not leave a safe enough distance from the car in front.
		
Click to expand...

But that isn't a speed issue, it's poor driving.  I previously stated on this thread that I will generally do 80 - 85 on the motorway dependent on conditions, I don't do that speed driving up someone's chuff.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 27, 2014)

Golfmmad said:



			Of course not, and that's not what I meant. I'm just emphasising the point of excessive speed and the need for drivers to slow down.

One of the main reasons why I disagree with the call to increase the speed limit on motorways is because people do not leave a safe enough distance from the car in front. As well as driving without dipped headlights in poor visibility.
I dread to think of the consequences!
		
Click to expand...

Which is why we need to get away from the fascination with speed cameras in this country and get more police patrol cars out on the roads to stop those people. I'm sure we've all seen drivers breaking as they approach a camera and then accelerating again after it. The only way to stop all speeding would be to have average speed cameras on every motorway or A road in the country which would make it impossible to speed without getting caught. But in my opinion it would be much better to get more police out on the roads clamping down on drivers tailgating, not using fog lights when needed, driving dangerously and other stupid driving.


----------



## Golfmmad (Jan 27, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			But that isn't a speed issue, it's poor driving.  I previously stated on this thread that I will generally do 80 - 85 on the motorway dependent on conditions, I don't do that speed driving up someone's chuff.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it certainly is poor driving and is related to speed in as much as, if the limit was increased those same people would still take the risk, but at a faster speed. And you don't have to drive up someones "Chuff" as you put it.  for it not  to be too close.

To be safer on all roads, some drivers need to slow down - simple as that.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 27, 2014)

Whilst, on the whole, I agree with needing more Police out there, the numbers you would need to make an effective deterrent to speeding is vast.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 27, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			But that isn't a speed issue, it's poor driving.  I previously stated on this thread that I will generally do 80 - 85 on the motorway dependent on conditions, I don't do that speed driving up someone's chuff.
		
Click to expand...

Motorways have the facility using cameras and gantry signs to change the speed limits according to the traffic and road conditions.
 The limit could be raised 80/90 when appropriate conditions prevailed, if the law allowed it.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 27, 2014)

Golfmmad said:



			Yes it certainly is poor driving and is related to speed in as much as, if the limit was increased those same people would still take the risk, but at a faster speed. And you don't have to drive up someones "Chuff" as you put it.  for it not  to be too close.

To be safer on all roads, some drivers need to slow down - simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware of what safe distances are without your patronising tone.  The speed limit is 70, people tailgate at 50, people tailgate at 80, it has nothing to do with speed alone but rather inappropriate speed.


----------



## Golfmmad (Jan 27, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			I'm fully aware of what safe distances are without your patronising tone.  The speed limit is 70, people tailgate at 50, people tailgate at 80, it has nothing to do with speed alone but rather inappropriate speed.
		
Click to expand...

I had no intention of patronising you at all - sorry if you saw it that way.

If that's what you think then I have no further interest in this thread.


----------



## harpo_72 (Jan 27, 2014)

Honestly speaking I don't think speed is the be all and end all regarding road safety. I think speed is misused and blamed because its the easy way out. I agree that in urban areas 30mph and heavily urban areas 20mph. I think also the weather really dictates speed. 
I think speed cameras are just deterents and lazy policing. There are some serious driving issues that need to be sorted out and cameras don't do that, it requires proper active policing. I think the guy who is travelling under the limit with a tail of traffic behind him should be fined, simply because he is causing someone to do something silly ( harsh but fair ... ), lorries that take a mile to overtake or change lanes without respecting other motorists should be fined etc... And motorcyclists should have the speed limit actively enforced or limiters on bikes should be mandatory. Cyclists need to go on vehicle awareness courses, they should learn about their fragility and what traffic lights mean, the damage they can do to pedestrians ..... Generally cyclists need sorting out they are a disaster.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 27, 2014)

harpo_72 said:



			Honestly speaking I don't think speed is the be all and end all regarding road safety. I think speed is misused and blamed because its the easy way out. I agree that in urban areas 30mph and heavily urban areas 20mph. I think also the weather really dictates speed. 
I think speed cameras are just deterents and lazy policing. There are some serious driving issues that need to be sorted out and cameras don't do that, it requires proper active policing. I think the guy who is travelling under the limit with a tail of traffic behind him should be fined, simply because he is causing someone to do something silly ( harsh but fair ... ), lorries that take a mile to overtake or change lanes without respecting other motorists should be fined etc... And motorcyclists should have the speed limit actively enforced or limiters on bikes should be mandatory. Cyclists need to go on vehicle awareness courses, they should learn about their fragility and what traffic lights mean, the damage they can do to pedestrians ..... Generally cyclists need sorting out they are a disaster.
		
Click to expand...

I agree , but I think we should get our tin hats on - incoming argh.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 27, 2014)

harpo_72 said:



			Honestly speaking I don't think speed is the be all and end all regarding road safety. I think speed is misused and blamed because its the easy way out. I agree that in urban areas 30mph and heavily urban areas 20mph. I think also the weather really dictates speed. 
I think speed cameras are just deterents and lazy policing. There are some serious driving issues that need to be sorted out and cameras don't do that, it requires proper active policing. I think the guy who is travelling under the limit with a tail of traffic behind him should be fined, simply because he is causing someone to do something silly ( harsh but fair ... ), lorries that take a mile to overtake or change lanes without respecting other motorists should be fined etc... And motorcyclists should have the speed limit actively enforced or limiters on bikes should be mandatory. Cyclists need to go on vehicle awareness courses, they should learn about their fragility and what traffic lights mean, the damage they can do to pedestrians ..... Generally cyclists need sorting out they are a disaster.
		
Click to expand...

I can't find anything in that to argue with


----------



## Ethan (Jan 27, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			I agree , but I think we should get our tin hats on - incoming argh.
		
Click to expand...

I agree too. Mostly.

Speed is focussed on because it is measurable but is therefore given undue emphasis. The same happens to other things which are measurable such as waiting times in Emergency Departments. Much easier to measure something than make a more rounded assessment.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

harpo_72 said:



			Honestly speaking I don't think speed is the be all and end all regarding road safety.
		
Click to expand...

a bit like trying to keep down the chance/risk that someone will have a drink during a trip - being the be all and end all regarding road safety - but that's another (but in the end not dissimilar) discussion...

Glad I never got into this one and just let LP fight the corner - I just couldn't face another HNSP so soon after the m/way boozer


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			a bit like trying to keep down the chance/risk that someone will have a drink during a trip - being the be all and end all regarding road safety - but that's another (but in the end not dissimilar) discussion....
		
Click to expand...

Once more but in English please.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			a bit like trying to keep down the chance/risk that someone will have a drink during a trip - being the be all and end all regarding road safety - but that's another (but in the end not dissimilar) discussion....
		
Click to expand...

What's your POSITION  on bikes.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			What's your POSITION  on bikes.

Click to expand...

Currently I sit up and beg.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			Once more but in English please.
		
Click to expand...

OK - what I meant to say was...Speeding doesn't increase the risk of accidents in a way similar to how having a pint or two at a m/way service station doesn't increase the risk of accidents.  

Because I discover as flawed the basic logic that suggests speed and drinking both increase the risk of accidents regardless of scenario.  So it's OK to speed - and it's OK to encourage drivers to drink.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Currently I sit up and beg.
		
Click to expand...

You are such a hypocrite SILH. Surely your position should be the HNSP.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 27, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			You are such a hypocrite SILH. Surely your position should be the HNSP. 

Click to expand...

The Historically Natural Sitting Position being of course _sit up and beg_


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 27, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			The only way to stop all speeding would be to have average speed cameras on every motorway or A road in the country which would make it impossible to speed without getting caught.
		
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't! 4 miles at 60 followed by 3 miles at 90 averages 70, but almost half of that was above the limit!  

A series of Standing Cameras would prevent speeding, but is uneconomic/impractical - and the ongoing accidents would probably destroy myth of 'speed is all'!



ColchesterFC said:



			...not using fog lights when needed
		
Click to expand...

I find it far more frustrating when fog lights are used when NOT necessary! And left on after the hazard has gone! I've mellowed slightly on that attitude (overuse) as it does tend to make people increase the gap, if only to escape the glare of the fog lights! In the 25 years I've been here, I've only been in 1 lot of fog where fog lights have really been necessary - as opposed to handy - but that was very scary! If you can see the rear lights of the dozen or more guys ahead, then fogs aren't necessary!


----------



## williamalex1 (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The Historically Natural Sitting Position being of course _sit up and beg_ 

Click to expand...

That's not the name of the position I thought you meant , but your on a mission again.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 27, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The Historically Natural Sitting Position being of course _sit up and beg_ 

Click to expand...

I will remember that next time a PP or FC is teeing off. I will be in the correct position and will be sitting up and begging throughout their swing.


----------



## triple_bogey (Jan 27, 2014)

Lock the thread now........Sussed it.
[video=youtube;lJ8AsKQIEdw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ8AsKQIEdw[/video]


----------



## Leftie (Jan 27, 2014)

The OP was about the 30mph limit and I will restrict my comments to that although they may have validity at higher speeds.

Maybe a bit radical but how about doing away with the speedo in the car?  Just *educate* drivers to drive according to the conditions. (Tongue in cheek a bit but a serious point being made IMHO).

Reviewing my driving around town over the last couple of days, I find that I rarely look at the speedo.  I'm far more focused on the road, parked cars, pedestrians, etc.  It's only when I see a camera or police car/speed trap that I take my focus away from safe driving and start worrying about whether I am above/below the limit.  This is when there may be a risk - when my focus is away from the road ahead and what is happening around me.. OK so I'm an old f@rt with over 50 years of driving experience but I have learnt in that time that there are many, many idiots out there who have absolutely no concept about driving according to the conditions.

Yes, I will put my hands up and admit to 3 points over 20 years ago for 43 in a 30.  Lights off parked up police car in a side road.  My bad, conditions were such that I thought (correctly) that there would be no-one to run/pull out in front of me.  

Apparently there has been someone on this thread bleating on about reducing the speed limit in built up areas to 20mph.  (Oh, if only I could drive that fast in town .)  From one of the many links posted here it is clear that the recommendations for this are in areas where the *average* speed is already *no more than* 24 mph (if I have read that correctly).  So, make a limit of 20 mph where the current average speed is 24 mph.  Looking at yet another link, the difference in deaths between the two different speeds is statistically insignificant.  I'm not being insensitive about any death or injury btw.

The best way to reduce deaths and injuries to pedestrians and cyclists is to keep the bu33ers *off our roads*.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 28, 2014)

Leftie said:



			Apparently there has been someone on this thread bleating on about reducing the speed limit in built up areas to 20mph.  (Oh, if only I could drive that fast in town .)  From one of the many links posted here it is clear that the recommendations for this are in areas where the *average* speed is already *no more than* 24 mph (if I have read that correctly).  So, make a limit of 20 mph where the current average speed is 24 mph.  *Looking at yet another link, the difference in deaths between the two different speeds is statistically insignificant.*

Click to expand...

Yes, basically they are saying that it should be in existing 30mph zones - or at least what should be! If the average speed is 24 or less, there's probably a good reason for it, even if the limit is 40!

Can you provide that link - the one referenced in bold. I'd challenge that for a couple of reasons.
1. This report http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/highway/info/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf shows likelihood of fatality at impact speed of 20mph to be 2.5% but at 30mph to be 8% - though it referred to another study indicating 20%. I can't believe it's statistically insignificant between 20 and 24, then rockets up between 25 and 30 - though it seems an X-squared slope. So I'd challenge 'statistically insignificant'!
2. It's also not really about the average speed or limit, but impact speed. If the speed is reduced to 20 in the first place, by whatever method, then impact speed will certainly not be greater than that (hopefully eliminated, but certainly reduced to less than 20mph, so <<2.5% fatality


----------



## Whee (Jan 28, 2014)

Well that has been an interesting read.

"people driving slowly with a line of traffic behind them are the ones causing accidents"

Interesting logic. 

If somebody decides to attempt an overtaking manoeuvre that isn't entirely safe - then they should take full responsibility for their decision, and any consequences. Sitting there in court, answering your charge of dangerous driving, the line of "the car in front had been plodding along under the speed limit for 3 miles, traffic was backed up for ages" isn't going to cut the mustard as an excuse.

That's where a change of attitude is required.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 28, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			OK - what I meant to say was...Speeding doesn't increase the risk of accidents in a way similar to how having a pint or two at a m/way service station doesn't increase the risk of accidents.  

Because I discover as flawed the basic logic that suggests speed and drinking both increase the risk of accidents regardless of scenario.  So it's OK to speed - and it's OK to encourage drivers to drink.
		
Click to expand...

That smacks of petulant sulking because the whole forum didn't come out and join in a mass condemnation of the M40 pub on your thread.  I don't recall anyone in that thread suggesting that having a couple of pints and then going back on the motorway was ok.  I do recall that the consensus of many was that it wouldn't necessarily encourage drivers to have a drink, I agree.

Driving at a speed consistent with conditions, even if that exceeds the speed limit slightly, is not anymore inherently dangerous.  Unless of course you are in the 70mph is always safe, 71mph is always dangerous school of thought.  Joined up thought is often useful and worth considering.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 28, 2014)

There is a village on the A77 that is a natural 30mph stretch.
I always drive it at just under 30mph.
Why?
Because I know that it is a popular spot for the traffic police cameras, it is also the obvious thing to do.
As I drive through it is amazing how few drivers observe the limit and you can sense their angst as they sit six foot behind your rear bumper.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 28, 2014)

Whee said:



			Well that has been an interesting read.

"people driving slowly with a line of traffic behind them are the ones causing accidents"

Interesting logic. 

If somebody decides to attempt an overtaking manoeuvre that isn't entirely safe - then they should take full responsibility for their decision, and any consequences. Sitting there in court, answering your charge of dangerous driving, the line of "the car in front had been plodding along under the speed limit for 3 miles, traffic was backed up for ages" isn't going to cut the mustard as an excuse.

That's where a change of attitude is required.
		
Click to expand...

It isn't logic, although it is perfectly logical and rational, it is more to do with common sense, although sense isn't as common as it used to be. 

If you have any large accumulation of traffic (slow car, accident, roadworks, plague of locusts), then when the blockage is released, the chances of accidents is increased as the waiting traffic resumes their desired speed or tries to make up time. Whether the explanations for those accidents are plausible in court or not isn't really the point and is more akin to a discussion on exactly how long after the horse has bolted can the stable door be closed.


----------



## Whee (Jan 28, 2014)

Ethan said:



			It isn't logic, although it is perfectly logical and rational, it is more to do with common sense, although sense isn't as common as it used to be. 

If you have any large accumulation of traffic (slow car, accident, roadworks, plague of locusts), then when the blockage is released, the chances of accidents is increased as the waiting traffic resumes their desired speed or tries to make up time. Whether the explanations for those accidents are plausible in court or not isn't really the point and is more akin to a discussion on exactly how long after the horse has bolted can the stable door be closed.
		
Click to expand...

I believe you've just proved my point, Ethan.


----------



## Leftie (Jan 28, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Can you provide that link - the one referenced in bold. I'd challenge that for a couple of reasons.
		
Click to expand...


Doh!!    My bad Foxy.  That was the article and graph I looked at and didn't have my glasses on - thought it was MPH.  

Do those producing all these reports deliberately try to confuse and obscure?  Take that first page extract for instance.  Para 3 gives shock figures for the fatality risk from 2.5% at 20 mph to 20% at 30 mph.  This was taken from a paper presented at a conference in Gothenburg in 1979. This is immediately followed by a graph showing the fatality risks from approx 1.9% at 20 mph to 7.8% at 30 mph (adjusted for kph/mph conversion differences) .  Article May 2009.

By including the 30 year old study , the waters are muddied.

One thing I did notice was that although giving figures for all pedestrians fatally injured, the graph was for adults only.  Obviously part of modern car design is to reduce the severity of front impact to pedestrians.  I can see that bumper and bonnet heights would tend to throw an adult up onto the bonnet but what happens with small people?  Thrown sideways or downwards?  There again, young ones tend to bounce, unlike oldies like me.

Re the other point, same link you provided,  page 2 para 6, page 3 para 5.

Just as an aside, a conclusion from the Bristol 20 mph pilot ......"Given the relatively low numbers of casualties in each of the two areas, it was not possible to draw conclusions about the effect of 20mph limits on injuries from the data available".


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 28, 2014)

Whee said:



			Well that has been an interesting read.

"people driving slowly with a line of traffic behind them are the ones causing accidents"

Interesting logic. 

If somebody decides to attempt an overtaking manoeuvre that isn't entirely safe - then they should take full responsibility for their decision, and any consequences. Sitting there in court, answering your charge of dangerous driving, the line of "the car in front had been plodding along under the speed limit for 3 miles, traffic was backed up for ages" isn't going to cut the mustard as an excuse.

That's where a change of attitude is required.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that it is the drivers decision, but when someone plods along at 30 in a 60 zone, then that is going to make people start doing silly things, right or wrong, but that is what happens. I nearly hit someone head on back in the summer because I tried a silly overtaking manoeuvre, that was caused by someone plodding along well under the limit. It was my choice to do it, but had they been driving at he speed limit or there abouts then I would not have done it.

So imagine this scenario. You have an important meeting to get to. You know it only take about 40-45 mins to get there in normal traffic and about 5 mins for parking. So you leave 90 mins in advance. You now get stuck because someone is driving along at well below the speed limit. You pass a garage that you know is about halfway to your destination, but it has taken you over 30 mins to get there. You start to get worried you will be late, so naturally you are going to look for any chance possible to get past.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 28, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I agree that it is the drivers decision, but when someone plods along at 30 in a 60 zone, then that is going to make people start doing silly things, right or wrong...
		
Click to expand...

If I may be pedantic on this - nobody 'makes' a driver do *anything *in such situations - whatever the driver does is through his or her own choice.

This morning I drove along the 30mph stretch of road that HID got done on for doing 40mph.  It was a wide and pretty straight 2miles stretch of A-road.  The road was basically empty and I didn't see a soul on foot.  I could also see that there were no speed traps and so I could easily have done 40mph - but why bother.  It is designated a 30mph stretch and it was easy to drive along it at 30mph - no cars in front and the one 50yds+ behind was also tootling along at 30mph.  I could have driven at 40mph and saved myself maybe 2minutes on my journey - big deal.  I stuck within the legal speed limit and would have been able to react accordingly if anything unexpected had happened from a side road etc.


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 28, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If I may be pedantic on this - nobody 'makes' a driver do *anything *in such situations - whatever the driver does is through his or her own choice.

This morning I drove along the 30mph stretch of road that HID got done on for doing 40mph.  It was a wide and pretty straight 2miles stretch of A-road.  The road was basically empty and I didn't see a soul on foot.  I could also see that there were no speed traps and so I could easily have done 40mph - but why bother.  It is designated a 30mph stretch and it was easy to drive along it at 30mph - no cars in front and the one 50yds+ behind was also tootling along at 30mph.  I could have driven at 40mph and saved myself maybe 2minutes on my journey - big deal.  I stuck within the legal speed limit and would have been able to react accordingly if anything unexpected had happened from a side road etc.
		
Click to expand...

SILH, read my post I did say it is the drivers decision and what you did driving at 30MPH is fine. But would you have done that if it was a 60 limit? Or if you was in more of a rush you would have probably driven at 40. I do not drive at warp factor 5 (well, not all the time), as I do not see the point, I prefer to leave a little bit earlier. But sometimes you are in a rush for whatever reason. Problem with that is it can leads to you wanting to drive faster or taking chances you would not normally take.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jan 28, 2014)

Whee said:



			I believe you've just proved my point, Ethan.
		
Click to expand...

Whee, why can't they both be charged with dangerous driving? I think going slowly, and causing a backlog of drivers (significantly more cars in a smaller space, more likelihood of an incident) is inappropriate, as is speeding in the incorrect circumstances.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 28, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If I may be pedantic on this - nobody 'makes' a driver do *anything *in such situations - whatever the driver does is through his or her own choice.

This morning I drove along the 30mph stretch of road that HID got done on for doing 40mph.  It was a wide and pretty straight 2miles stretch of A-road.  The road was basically empty and I didn't see a soul on foot.  I could also see that there were no speed traps and so I could easily have done 40mph - but why bother.  It is designated a 30mph stretch and it was easy to drive along it at 30mph - no cars in front and the one 50yds+ behind was also tootling along at 30mph.  I could have driven at 40mph and saved myself maybe 2minutes on my journey - big deal.  I stuck within the legal speed limit and would have been able to react accordingly if anything unexpected had happened from a side road etc.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing pedantic about it. That's one of the key issues with Traffic Management. And the 'Art' of good TM is to convince the motorist to 'do the right thing' in various circumstances/conditions.

That's why simply setting a 20mph limit is ineffective (unconvincing) where Traffic Calming measures (fear of consequences, same as - but with different consequences - Average Speed Cameras) does!



CheltenhamHacker said:



			Whee, why can't they both be charged with dangerous driving? I think going slowly, and causing a backlog of drivers (significantly more cars in a smaller space, more likelihood of an incident) is inappropriate, as is speeding in the incorrect circumstances.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe the Slow Driver could be charged with Dangerous Driving, but certainly Careless/Inconsiderate Driving, which is a separate offence - and also covers Tailgate-ing and several other similar, like, I believe, leaving Fogs on! The heinous crime of drenching pedestrians by driving through puddles (that I've been a victim of a few times) comes under 'Due Care and Attention' I think!


----------



## Ethan (Jan 28, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If I may be pedantic on this - nobody 'makes' a driver do *anything *in such situations - whatever the driver does is through his or her own choice.

This morning I drove along the 30mph stretch of road that HID got done on for doing 40mph.  It was a wide and pretty straight 2miles stretch of A-road.  The road was basically empty and I didn't see a soul on foot.  I could also see that there were no speed traps and so I could easily have done 40mph - but why bother.  It is designated a 30mph stretch and it was easy to drive along it at 30mph - no cars in front and the one 50yds+ behind was also tootling along at 30mph.  I could have driven at 40mph and saved myself maybe 2minutes on my journey - big deal.  I stuck within the legal speed limit and would have been able to react accordingly if anything unexpected had happened from a side road etc.
		
Click to expand...

It isn't pedantic, but the philosophical difference between YOU causing an accident and you creating the circumstances where it is foreseeable that someone else causes an accident is a zero sum game and still leaves an accident.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 28, 2014)

I keep reading this phrase "driving slowly".
Out of interest what do people classify as "slow"...?


----------



## Birchy (Jan 28, 2014)

Imurg said:



			I keep reading this phrase "driving slowly".
Out of interest what do people classify as "slow"...?
		
Click to expand...

1mph under the speed limit


----------



## MadAdey (Jan 28, 2014)

Imurg said:



			I keep reading this phrase "driving slowly".
Out of interest what do people classify as "slow"...?
		
Click to expand...

Through built up areas I would say people can drive as slow as they want, if they feel safer doing so. When it comes to open 60MPH A-class roads then as long as the conditions are good there really is no reason why they can't go 50MPH minimum. Motorways you should be driving at 60MPH as IMO if you do not feel safe driving at those speeds then you should not be on one. It always puzzles me when lorries have to pull out of the far left lane and spend 1 mile trying to get around cars going at 50 which then means people have to start pulling into the inside lane causing the traffic flow to back up.


----------



## teetime72 (Jan 28, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Through built up areas I would say people can drive as slow as they want, if they feel safer doing so. When it comes to open 60MPH A-class roads then as long as the conditions are good there really is no reason why they can't go 50MPH minimum. Motorways you should be driving at 60MPH as IMO if you do not feel safe driving at those speeds then you should not be on one. It always puzzles me when lorries have to pull out of the far left lane and spend 1 mile trying to get around cars going at 50 which then means people have to start pulling into the inside lane causing the traffic flow to back up.
		
Click to expand...

I was informed many years ago by my driving instructor that, when taking the test,
if you drive at 30 in a 60mph area you will fail the test (inconsiderate driving)


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jan 28, 2014)

This reminds me of a quote I heard a couple of years back, no idea where from:

"Anyone travelling slower than you is an idiot, anyone going faster than you is a maniac"

Not far off summing this thread up!


----------



## Imurg (Jan 28, 2014)

teetime72 said:



			I was informed many years ago by my driving instructor that, when taking the test,
if you drive at 30 in a 60mph area you will fail the test (inconsiderate driving)
		
Click to expand...

True..


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 28, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			people have to start pulling into the inside lane causing the traffic flow to back up.
		
Click to expand...

Er. Shouldn't they be in the inside lane anyway? The others are 'Overtaking' lanes!  

Of course, the Outside one is reserved, currently for Beemers and Audis!


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 28, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			SILH, read my post I did say it is the drivers decision and what you did driving at 30MPH is fine.
		
Click to expand...




teetime72 said:



			I was informed many years ago by my driving instructor that, when taking the test,
if you drive at 30 in a 60mph area you will fail the test (inconsiderate driving)
		
Click to expand...

Driving too slowly = failing to make progress = careless driving. It can be construed as an offence.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 28, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Of course, the Outside one is reserved, currently for Beemers and Audis! 

Click to expand...

I have noticed that when driving in the South of England.
I have also noticed that they seem to be constantly undertaken by 70 mph drivers in the 'slow' lane.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 28, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have noticed that when driving in the South of England.
I have also noticed that they seem to be constantly undertaken by 70 mph drivers in the 'slow' lane.
		
Click to expand...

The 4 lane motorways seem to be the worst.  As there's no 'middle lane' any more it seems to confuse the middle lane hoggers, so they play safe and go in the 3rd lane just in case they need to overtake someone in the next 5 miles.  Often leaving the 2 inside lanes empty apart from lorries.


----------



## harpo_72 (Jan 28, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			Driving too slowly = failing to make progress = careless driving. It can be construed as an offence.
		
Click to expand...

I find it deeply offensive ... If your scared of your car stay at home. You know the drivers I am talking about.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 28, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have noticed that when driving in the South of England.
I have also noticed that they seem to be constantly undertaken by 70 mph drivers in the 'slow' lane.
		
Click to expand...

In Scotland, 'Thou shalt not Undertake (me)' and 'Thou shalt not move over to let someone overtake' seem to be some folk's 11th and 12th Commandments. 

There are some other Driving cultural differences too, some better, others poorer from my experience. Southerners tend to let people into traffic better, probably because they know they are going to need the same courtesy themselves pretty soon! Scots obey Orange/Red lights better!

Any idea how the Edinbugh (now there's an anti-car Council!) Trams are performing?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 28, 2014)

Totally disagree with the Southerners letting folk into traffic bit. Bolted eyes staring forwards mainly, 7 inches from the car in front.
I have nearly always found the west coast Scots offer far more courtesy. Worst drivers IMO are around Leeds, Brighton and Swindon. Someone once commented that the London cabbies come down to Swindon every now and again to sharpen up their cutting in skills.

The Edinburgh Trams have done a couple of dummy runs, they should be starting any year now.


----------



## stevie_r (Jan 28, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			The 4 lane motorways seem to be the worst.  As there's no 'middle lane' any more it seems to confuse the middle lane hoggers, so they play safe and go in the 3rd lane just in case they need to overtake someone in the next 5 miles.  Often leaving the 2 inside lanes empty apart from lorries.
		
Click to expand...

I'd take the confusion of four lanes over the predominantly dual carriageway M8 any day of the week (it only connects Scotlands premier city with the capital).  It's quite hilly in places and is therefore ideal for lorry drivers to overtake other lorries, uphill, whilst doing 0.3 of a mph faster.


----------



## Smiffy (Jan 29, 2014)

Could I just point out that the things that stop you in a car are called "brakes" and not "breaks".
Thank you


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 29, 2014)

Smiffy said:



			Could I just point out that the things that stop you in a car are called "brakes" and not "breaks".
Thank you


Click to expand...

How careless of you Smiffy...You obviously haven't read/absorbed the thread properly

I did that several hundred posts ago - in Post 114!



Foxholer said:



			I should hope so too. I'm just trying to imagine bits falling off/apart as cars approach a camera! Of course, the 'breaking' could be caused by a speeding driver not *braking* and colliding with them!

Click to expand...

And if 'Traffic Calming' measures aren't obeyed/negotiated 'breaking' is quite appropriate.

Past tense of 'brake' is, of course 'braked' not 'broke' which has yet another (colloquial) meaning! Don't you just love the English language!


----------



## bobmac (Jan 29, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			And if 'Traffic Calming' measures *aren't* obeyed/negotiated 'breaking' is quite appropriate.

Past tense of 'brake' is, of course 'braked' not 'broke' which has yet another (colloquial) meaning! Don't you just love the English language!
		
Click to expand...

Well corrected sir


----------



## Snelly (Jan 29, 2014)

I never go over 30mph when that is the speed limit and am often significantly slower than that in the rural area where I live. 

That said, I love going fast and break the speed limit every single day on any roads where the national speed limits apply.   So do most people I ever get in the car with as a passenger actually.   

Speed, acceleration, sweeping bends, extreme cornering forces with the radio blasting and so on are all really enjoyable, fantastic experiences. I really enjoy it.  It is great.   Same when I had sports bikes.  130mph+ was an absolutely brilliant feeling. 

In fact, a significant proportion of the responses on this thread bear no relation to my experience of driving in England is like.     I am regularly in traffic jams at 85mph or more for the majority of long journeys.

I am looking at what car to get next and the primary considerations will be does it have four seats and how fast is it?  Vroooooom!


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 29, 2014)

bobmac said:



			Well corrected sir
		
Click to expand...


Only took 3 goes (?) to get it right - 2 edits! Pretty normal for me!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 29, 2014)

stevie_r said:



			...M8...it only connects Scotlands premier city with the capital
		
Click to expand...

:thup: correctamundo - so they've got an old barracks building on top of a rock - so has Dumbarton


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 29, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			:thup: correctamundo - so they've got an old barracks building on top of a rock - so has Dumbarton 

Click to expand...

Premier for what though! Some things to be proud of, others not. There's a certain level where things work better and more conveniently as a big Toon rather than a City. For others a City works best!

Agree about the M8 though. wouldn't want to have to use that too often!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 29, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Premier for what though! Some things to be proud of, others not. There's a certain level where things work better and more conveniently as a big Toon rather than a City. For others a City works best!

Agree about the M8 though. wouldn't want to have to use that too often!
		
Click to expand...

I did North Berwick to Prestwick in exactly 2 hours last weekend, don't think I went over the speed limit once.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 29, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I did North Berwick to Prestwick in exactly 2 hours last weekend, don't think I went over the speed limit once.
		
Click to expand...

Tried it at 7:30 on a Monday? Or 16:30 on a Friday? No chance of exceeding the speed limit then either!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 29, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Tried it at 7:30 on a Monday? Or 16:30 on a Friday? No chance of exceeding the speed limit then either! 

Click to expand...

Yup, slowest journey was 4 hours.


----------

