SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
You are such a hypocrite SILH. Surely your position should be the HNSP.
The Historically Natural Sitting Position being of course sit up and beg
Speeding in a thirty limit
- Thread starter USER1999
- Start date
The Historically Natural Sitting Position being of course sit up and beg
Foxholer
Blackballed
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'!
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
Money List Winner
That's not the name of the position I thought you meant , but your on a mission again.The Historically Natural Sitting Position being of course sit up and beg
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
The Historically Natural Sitting Position being of course sit up and beg
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
Tour Rookie
Lock the thread now........Sussed it.
[video=youtube;lJ8AsKQIEdw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ8AsKQIEdw[/video]
[video=youtube;lJ8AsKQIEdw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ8AsKQIEdw[/video]
Leftie
Tour Winner
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.
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
Blackballed
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!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
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
Challenge Tour Pro
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.
"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
Tour Winner
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
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
Money List Winner
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
Challenge Tour Pro
I believe you've just proved my point, Ethan.
Leftie
Tour Winner
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
Money List Winner
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
Major Champion
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
Money List Winner
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
Journeyman Pro
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
Blackballed
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!
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!
Last edited:
Ethan
Money List Winner
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
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
I keep reading this phrase "driving slowly".
Out of interest what do people classify as "slow"...?
Out of interest what do people classify as "slow"...?
