Drac always comes up with the “safe overtaking” argument.
1/ how often do you come across situations where you are just behind one vehicle doing significantly less than the speed limit – almost never around here now trucks and cars have the same speed limit.
2/ you just adapt your safety margins to the performance of the car you are driving. IMO you are less likely to misjudge in a slow car than a fast one because the calculations are more critical in a fast car. I’ve driven some very fast and very slow cars and honestly believe risks are lower in the slower car as you are dealing with much longer distances, lower peak speeds and much longer periods of time to judge the bale out point in relation to clear road ahead and whether it’s safe to continue. There’s evidence too. Motorbikes are fast right, really quick so they should be really safe for overtaking according to Drac. Well they represent 30% of overtaking deaths in France despite being only a tiny percentage of road users. They’re not inexperienced either the peak age for a motorcyclist to kill him/herself overtaking is 30.
1) Daily here.
2) of course you do a rapid acceleration makes it easier. Death rate is higher on a motorbike involved in accident you say, I can't think possibly why.
I just don’t understand this mentality. You think that a driver with their eye constantly on the speedo is safe?
JP
The occasional glance at the speedo as you’re doing regular mirror checks isn’t ‘eyes constantly on the speedo’ is it? Are you one of the Spider-Man types I mentioned earlier?
No, I'm just not a car-hating eco-warrior like some on here.
Please do share clear evidence that shows how speed cameras demonstrably decrease accidents.
JP
Effectiveness of speed cameras
There is overwhelming evidence that speed cameras are effective in reducing speeds and preventing crashes and casualties. For example:A four-year national evaluation of more than 4,000 speed camera sites across the UK found a 70% reduction in speeding at fixed sites, a fall of 6% in average speeds and a 42% reduction in deaths and serious injuries [3].
Researchers at Liverpool University developed a mathematical model which proves that speed cameras substantially reduce crashes, even when accounting for random fluctuations in crash levels (known as ‘regression to the mean’) [4].
Analysis of data from 551 fixed speed cameras across England found that fatal and serious collisions dropped by an average of 27% in their vicinity following installation [5].
Annual deaths and serious injuries dropped 68% at all 408 speed camera sites in Scotland, when comparing the three-year average post-installation with the three-year average prior to installation [6].
A review of 35 international studies into the effectiveness of speed cameras found that speed cameras reduce average speeds by 1-15% and serious and fatal crashes by 11-44%
[7].
From Brake
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/15-facts/463-speed-enforcement
Clear enough?
I bet if you limited cars to 70 mph there would be more accidents!
+ it would be a real shame if you coul not buy a car capable of doing 150mph
1/ how often do you come across situations where you are just behind one vehicle doing significantly less than the speed limit – almost never around here now trucks and cars have the same speed limit.
All the ****ing time!
40mph (in cars) in a national with clear lines of sight and good conditions. Braking at the sight of anything oncoming. Braking for every corner. Braking if a fly farts in Marrakesh.
Also, round here HGV's are still restricted to 40mph on single carriageways.
Also, round here HGV’s are still restricted to 40mph on single carriageways.
Yup given our main A road is single carriage way for a majority of the route through Northumberland.
of course you do a rapid acceleration makes it easier
Rapid acceleration means you can use shorter opprotunities, and people do. People calculate as a function of the characteristics of the vehicle. You'll end up overtaking more often and reaching higher speeds in a higher performing vehicle.
I'm not sure I overtook anything faster than a tractor in a the works J4 van - very safe. In the Lotus 7/G4 Escort/R5 GT Turbo/AmG Merc/GpN Samba etc. almost anything could be overtaken in very little distance but I doubt I'd be here now if I'd used the overtaking potential of those cars all the time because you can't predict what other road users are going to do.
Be the guy with the dash cam, patiently driving at a safe distance and spectating as the dicks in performance cars screw up:
I feel sorry for the white van driver, probably the only one in the UK who repsects the 50mph for vans.
Rapid acceleration means you can use shorter opprotunities, and people do. People calculate as a function of the characteristics of the vehicle. You’ll end up overtaking more often and reaching higher speeds in a higher performing vehicle.
Yes, yes it does it also means you can complete your move. Well maybe but that isn't always bad.
Oh look a YouTube video.
you can’t predict what other road users are going to do.
No you can't some pull out in a slow car thinking they can overtake before you reach them.
I don’t necessarily disagree with it but I think it’s nothing more than a sales gimmick. Volvo themselves admit the limit is set way too high to make a difference to the vast majority of people. Whilst people continue to drive cars under their own control then they should be made to take responsibility for their own actions. Anything that further increases the sense of invulnerability felt by car drivers cannot, to my mind, be a good thing.
Driver education, stricter licensing, possibly with higher minimum ages and lower max ages, and proper enforcement would all be more useful imo.
40mph (in cars) in a national with clear lines of sight and good conditions. Braking at the sight of anything oncoming. Braking for every corner. Braking if a fly farts in Marrakesh.
I see these "safe" drivers quite regularly. The ones who sit there at 25mph in a 30, 36mph in a 40 and so on. So fixated on the speed readout that they fail completely to notice cyclists, other drivers, road furniture or layout and they lack any ability to plan more than 5ft in front of the bonnet.
But they reckon they're "safe" because they never speed. The fact that they stand the car on it's nose at every corner or at the first hint of a speed camera doesn't bother them. The fact they overtake cyclists with 6" to spare isn't an issue to them because they're proudly notspeeding. They will however overtake into width restrictions or coming up to traffic lights because they're so busy notspeeding that there's no more mental capacity to drive according to the conditions of the road.
The technology is there for all of this - automated maximum speeds, black box recorders, dashcams, and other things like ANPR at service station forecourts - no insurance or tax = no activation of pump. You could conceivably do the same with fingerprint ID scanner and/or breathalyser on starting the car. Fingerprint of a DQ'd driver = no car start. Yes, there are fairly obvious ways around it and I'm sure there'd be outrage over the nanny state / elfnsafety gorn mad but road safety could be improved dramatically with little actual effort. Unfortunately, it'd be political suicide so crack on killing 5 people a day and we'll just accept that.
Edit - just falls on deaf ears
mikewsmith
Subscriber
Effectiveness of speed cameras
There is overwhelming evidence that speed cameras are effective in reducing speeds and preventing crashes and casualties. For example:A four-year national evaluation of more than 4,000 speed camera sites across the UK found a 70% reduction in speeding at fixed sites, a fall of 6% in average speeds and a 42% reduction in deaths and serious injuries [3].
Researchers at Liverpool University developed a mathematical model which proves that speed cameras substantially reduce crashes, even when accounting for random fluctuations in crash levels (known as ‘regression to the mean’) [4].
Analysis of data from 551 fixed speed cameras across England found that fatal and serious collisions dropped by an average of 27% in their vicinity following installation [5].
Annual deaths and serious injuries dropped 68% at all 408 speed camera sites in Scotland, when comparing the three-year average post-installation with the three-year average prior to installation [6].
A review of 35 international studies into the effectiveness of speed cameras found that speed cameras reduce average speeds by 1-15% and serious and fatal crashes by 11-44%[7].
From Brake
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/15-facts/463-speed-enforcementClear enough?
You're quoting research published by an organisation that is as partisan as they come. You're also selectively quoting data that support your viewpoint and not mentioning instances where accidents in the vicinity of speed cameras increased since their installation (a small, but significant number).
I won't continue to argue with you as it's pointless to conduct a conversation with someone who holds a viewpoint with a relgious level of zeal.
Some of us value our freedom and think that proper driver education and selecting appropriate speed for the conditions is the best way to drive, not to have some sort of nannying big brother presence constantly dictating what we can and cannot do. But hey ho, if that's what you want go and knock yourself out.
JP
es, yes it does it also means you can complete your move.
Not always, sometimes:
Something comes the other way traveling a lot faster than expect, you can't assume everything coming the other way to respect the speed limit when you don't yourself - coz you'll definitley be well over the speed limit in every overtake in a quick car if you're spending as little time as possible on the wrong side of the road.
There will be a tractor that pulls out of a field and looks right - but you're coming from the left. (this happened to a landlord of mine)
A vehicle will move out to go around a horse/cyclist/pedestrian/fallen branch you didn't see because it was hidden by the big vehicle you decided to overtake.
There will be a truck on the wrong side of the road just around the bend you entered a bit quick having just completed your safe overtake.
When overtaking just remember - you're going faster than usual on the wrong side of the road with another (or several) moving vehicles in close proximity. A oeformamce car makes it more likely you'll try the pass and will increase the speed differentials.
Anyhow, I agree with those above who want cars automatically limited to the speed limit. The technology already exists, it just needs to be made obligatory.
Less trafic jams and better trafic flow
less CO2
lower speed collisions
less collisons
almost no overtaking collisions
less oil imports
no incentive to buy unnecessarily powerful and heavy cars
less cars made and sold (no reason to own a second "sports car")
What exactly is this video supposed to prove? Apart from the prat in the white car completely ignored the whole 'mirror, signal, manouver' procedure and ended up causing a crash that could have resulted in fatalities. From the look of it the black car wasn't passing that much quicker so could well have been in the 60mph bracket but certainly not much above it if he was breaking it.
More irrelevant nonsense.
Bollocks to that malarkey ...
One of the reasons I bought my car was due to the fact that it could achieve a high top speed and accelerate quickly ..
Will I travel to its maximum speed ..probably never but it's nice to know it's there ..
Do I use it's acceleration to get me past slower moving vehicles ..yes often..however
I actually drive more sedately in this car because I know what it's capable of ..
Limiting cars to any kind of speed ..we might as well all drive the same 1.0 litre boring little tin box ..
No thanks !
But they reckon they’re “safe” because they never speed. The fact that they stand the car on it’s nose at every corner or at the first hint of a speed camera doesn’t bother them. The fact they overtake cyclists with 6″ to spare isn’t an issue to them because they’re proudly notspeeding.
So you're saying that everyone who sticks to the speed limit is as you describe? A rubbish driver? Or is this just a straw man? Cos clearly no-one's suggesting that all you have to do to drive well is simply drive at the speed limit. That would be absurd.
You’re quoting research published by an organisation that is as partisan as they come. You’re also selectively quoting data that support your viewpoint and not mentioning instances where accidents in the vicinity of speed cameras increased since their installation (a small, but significant number).
I won’t continue to argue with you as it’s pointless to conduct a conversation with someone who holds a viewpoint with a relgious level of zeal.
Why not post links that support your side rather than resorting to comparisons with religious zealots when presented with evidence that doesn’t agree with your current view on the subject? Why’s it a small yet significant number? Are there other factors at play?
That video is brilliant. The white car is tailgating the van, pulls out without checking mirrors, and yet it’s the other car that is already over taking fault 🤔
I bet the white car is driven by mister sensible too who always sticks to the speed limit but clearly as no frckin idea what’s going on around him.
Fair play to dash cam man though, at least he was keeping a sensible distance. Normally people with dashcams drive badly too
Blanket limit of 70 of all vehicles? I hope you don’t ever find yourself in an emergency situation where the emergency services don’t help, but time is a factor. For example, getting to see a dying relative in time. Most of the time speed doesn’t matter, but when it does, it really does.
Actually made me laugh out loud.
Thanks for your contribution to road safely, and your concern for dying relatives at the expense of everyone else’s safety.
On the actual topic, I think my cars limited to about the same as Volvo are saying they are going to do. I don’t find it much if a hardship and in fact in the last 15,000 miles I haven’t noticed it. Plenty of acceleration to get around the constant (individual) quarry lorries around these parts though so I I’m in the good acceleration, limited top speed camp.
However, if people were sensible (they’re not), a speed limit in itself wouldn’t be needed as we’d all drive to conditions (we don’t)
I can see no point in it at all. 112 mph into something solid is going to make you just as dead as 120mph into something solid.
My works Transit is limited to 105mph iirc (probably terrifying) and my own car is limited by gear ratios to 150mph. It makes absolutely no difference to the way I drive either vehicle on public roads. In fact the faster one gets driven slower quite often due to fuel consumption and there’s no real rush as it’s somewhere nice to be whilst I kill the planet.
So you’re saying that everyone who sticks to the speed limit is as you describe? A rubbish driver? Or is this just a straw man? Cos clearly no-one’s suggesting that all you have to do to drive well is simply drive at the speed limit. That would be absurd.
He was referring to my point here:
40mph (in cars) in a national with clear lines of sight and good conditions. Braking at the sight of anything oncoming. Braking for every corner. Braking if a fly farts in Marrakesh.
Which, in turn, was in reply to Edukators question of when anyone ever encounters significantly slower drivers.
The drivers CrazyLegs and I are describing are not folk driving properly within the limits. They are nervous drivers, drivers who can't see properly and shit themselves every time they see something oncoming, drivers who - for reasons best known to themselves - drive at an arbitrary amount below the limit so they can sanctimoniously post on internet forums about how safe a driver they are and just people who actually don't know what the limit is.
Thanks for your contribution to road safely, and your concern for dying relatives at the expense of everyone else’s safety.
Well done you. You rumbled me. Thats exactly what I’m saying. 👍🏻
Some of us value our freedom and think that proper driver education and selecting appropriate speed for the conditions is the best way to drive, not to have some sort of nannying big brother presence constantly dictating what we can and cannot do. But hey ho, if that’s what you want go and knock yourself out.
You are free to break the laws of the land, just as you are free to accept the punishment for that. I assume no evidence as to the dangerous menace this speed enforcement causes?
As someone who likes to 'make progress' I have zero objection to an absolute speed limiter set at over a ton. I can't remember the last time I drove at that speed, it's licence-losing for a reason.
Also, even by STW's 'speed thread' standards, this thread has more bollocks spouted by both sides of the argument than average.
I will just comment on this though,
That being said, I don’t see why cars are designed to go over 70.
I have speakers that go way louder than I'll ever want to push them. The reason being, if they're designed to go higher than they'll handle the volume I want to drive them at comfortably. I don't really want speakers capping out at their maximum volume when listening and on the borderline of struggling.
That guy standing with his hands in his pockets . . . .There's a reason crash test dummies were invented!
There is an answer to dickhead speeding drivers.
Take their cars from them for 2 years but allow them to have a very large motorbike and no need to observe speed limits.
Those that survive that are probably ok.
After all god invented motorbikes to cull idiots.
I have speakers that go way louder than I’ll ever want to push them. The reason being, if they’re designed to go higher than they’ll handle the volume I want to drive them at comfortably. I don’t really want speakers capping out at their maximum volume when listening and on the borderline of struggling.
I can see your point, I am not implying they should all be asthmatic tin boxes. I don't see why it can't be a powerful car limited to 70. I get the acceleration argument, so by all means make it pokey. But if we designed cars to be a just below peak torque at around 70, (ie its top speed potentially could be much higher) it will feel very brisk and spot on to drive.
Electric cars can easily be tuned like this. I can imagine a grunty vehicle that will do 70 anywhere, even up steep hills.
You all got 1 litre Micras ?
No I suspect it's a social conscience and empathy.
I suspect this has come about because in the board room someone put up a slide either boasting about a new model's top speed and an exec asked the obvious question how it fits with the safety ethos, or more likely the next model has slightly worse top speed than previously and this was a way to put a spin on "lack lustre performance". If it was really about safety they'd have capped it lower.
Some of us value our freedom and think that proper driver education and selecting appropriate speed for the conditions is the best way to drive, not to have some sort of nannying big brother presence constantly dictating what we can and cannot do. But hey ho, if that’s what you want go and knock yourself out.
Do you think Train Drivers and Airline Pilots should just be able to make up the rules for themselves too - or is it only when you have your foot on the controls that you think the rules are wrong? If driver eduction and selecting appropriate speed worked then (1) nobody who ever went on a speed awareness course would ever get points in the future; (2) we'd probably have higher speed limits on UK motorways - but given people see the limit as the minimum not the max it would push speeds up. If you want to drive as fast as you can get away with - take up rallying or go to a track day.
...fixed speed cameras across England found that fatal and serious collisions dropped by an average of 27%...
Annual deaths and serious injuries dropped 68% at all 408 speed camera sites in Scotland....
A review of 35 international studies ... found that speed cameras reduce ... serious and fatal crashes by 11-44%
Anyone know why the Scottish performance seems to be not only better than the English but also beyond the range typically seen internationally?
Subscriber
My car only does 93mph.
Gets to 93 reasonably swiftly though assuming I've guessed right 🙂
Some of us enjoy driving still and live in places that don't have bumper to bumper traffic all the time.
I doubt a 112mph would affect me too often, but limiting acceleration would be painful. My daily commute involves safely overtaking a number of slower cars, limited acceleration would be the end of that.
From the look of it the black car wasn’t passing that much quicker so could well have been in the 60mph bracket but certainly not much above it if he was breaking it.
Why speculate when you can work it out, Squirelking?
The lengths of the cars give you the white line length for the portion from the point the grey car appears alongside to the point it hits the white car. Have a look, I reckon at least 9m, what do you think? 12 white lines go by for the car with the web cam and 16 for the grey car in just under 5 seconds, count the lines yourself, use a watch and give me your figures.
That gives an average speed of 48mph (21.6 m/s) for the dashcam car and 64mph for the grey car. The grey car was continuously accelerating so 70mph is a conservative estimate at the point the grey car hits the white car. I assume you're a cyclist so you know what 20mph feels like. The speed differential at the point of inpact was at least 20mph.
You blame the white car, I'll attribute blame more to the grey car as he was speeding and not anticipating an obvious overtaking opportunity for the white car. And before you say the driver of the white car didn't indicate, neither did the grey car driver.
It’s not difficult just stick to the limit and you’ll be safe.
And therein lies the problem.
I've seen many, many drivers over the years who were driving well under the limit and were very far from what I'd call "safe."
But the moint of thelimits is to make the accidents provoked by those very far from what you'd call safe causing too much carnage.
The 30 limit was intended to cut pedestrain deaths. It does but deosn't go far enough hence 20mph limits being introduced. I'm in favour of blanket 20mph in residential areas other than urban clear ways with separate cycle paths and pedestrian barriers.
The 90kmh limit in France was supposed to make a car leaving the road survivable, it's recently been lowered to 80kmh. The UK 50/60mph limits have the same purpose.
The 70 limit is set so cars remain between the barriers in motorway collisions.
A car with a 112 top speed is too fast unless perhaps it's Volvo and Volvo reckon you can have a crossover accident in one of their cars hit an on-coming truck and walk away. Even if you can Volvos share the roads with much more vulnerable road users so I suggest 112 is too fast.
its an interesting debate.
I also read that there are plans to make a black box type facility in each car available to any crash investigators.
perhaps that might stop some people from behaving the way they do?
Speed is not the only factor though in many accidents (clearly is is a significant one in many thought). Perhaps the thought of big brother knowing what speed and inputs were going on when you crashed would make people think twice? _ I doubt it, some seem to have a bad attitude to life!
The lengths of the cars give you the white line length for the portion from the point the grey car appears alongside to the point it hits the white car. Have a look, I reckon at least 9m, what do you think? 12 white lines go by for the car with the web cam and 16 for the grey car in just under 5 seconds, count the lines yourself, use a watch and give me your figures.
I think you’ve watched too much CSI:France
There have already been successful convictions based on speed data from airbag "black boxes" following fatal crashes both in the UK (a Jaguar) and the US (BMWs).
Edit to add:
CSI:France
Never watched it, schoolboy maths is all you need.
You blame the white car, I’ll attribute blame more to the grey car as he was speeding and not anticipating an obvious overtaking opportunity for the white car. And before you say the driver of the white car didn’t indicate, neither did the grey car driver.
At 16 s the lines change from long to shorter. At 18s the grey car fits in the gap between two lines - it looks like an Astra type car to me which is just less than 4m long. Now if you look at the Traffic Signs Regulations page you'll see that the only line with a 4m gap has a 2m line which looks about right to me.
This gives a total length (1 x line + 1 x gap) of 6m...... which makes your calculations look rather out.
If the grey car was going 70 then it would have travelled much further than it did. The white car travelled approximated 48m along the verge - the braking distance for 40mph is 24m (on tarmac in the dry) - and it wasn't braking.
In addition to maths a bit of observation goes a long way.
You indicate to show your intention to manoeuvre - the grey car had already completed his manoeuvre and you have no proof that he didn't indicate prior to overtaking the dashcam car.
If the white car had indicated it would have given the grey car a chance to brake.
I think you ned to look at the vid again Sharkbait, freeze the grey car next to the lines and compare the astra with both gaps and lines. At 17s the gap between the white lines is slightly longer than the car and the line itself is significantly longer than the 2.7m wheelbaseo of the car. It's there for all to see.
an Astra type car to me which is just less than 4m long.
I too reckoned it was an Astra, checked the model on Google images and then the spec: 4.702m for that model.
The grey car was accelerating up to the point of impact as I've already pointed out. It's avarge speed was 64mph and it ws visibly getting faster.
In your link about marking regualations check out diagram 1008.1 . I reckon it's that one in the vid = 6m+3m. The lines change along the road wihich is why I counted only the portion with 9m total spacing.
And therein lies the problem.
I’ve seen many, many drivers over the years who were driving well under the limit and were very far from what I’d call “safe.”
Or safe from getting a speeding fine which is where that conversation was going
I also read that there are plans to make a black box type facility in each car available to any crash investigators.
Sounds perfect, though for a of of people the fitness data in their phone probably gives a good indication
Still reading with interest 🤣🧟♂️
Now I've watched that video. Both cars were tits.
No maths are guesstimates required.
I don't know about others, i don't get much thrill from the top speed of a car, going 120mph in a modern car does not excite me in a straight line, much more thrilling to go 55mph down a hill on a bicycle for me.
For driving i much prefer smaller cars that corner well, rather than those that can go all out at 100mph plus, much more fun for me driving a car round a series of bends than blatting it along in a straight line
Now I’ve watched that video. Both drivers were tits.
FTFY
A few random thoughts rather than attempts at authoritative statements ...
Given that the vehicle with the dash cam was (at least) the minimum distance between it and the white car and that we don't know what sort of vehicle it was, it's possible that the grey car was concealed from the driver of the white car until that car began overtaking. A quick comparison of the the bonnet of the car with the driver as he runs to the crashed vehicle might indicate it's a standard car rather than a large van.
I'd be wary about overtaking multiple vehicles especially where there's a large gap between some of them. The driver of the white car *may* have checked his rear view mirror but not his side mirror and so wouldn't have seen the grey car as it wasn't in the lane immediately behind him.
The driver of the white car didn't move around in the lane before moving out leaving the grey car with few clues as to what might happen.
IMO Majority of the fault lies with the driver of the white car with contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the grey car.
