d) stand on the loud pedal to get out of harm’s way?
In 99.99% of cases (made up statistic warning) you wouldn't even realise until you'd actually been hit. Even if you notice them before the impact, the response time from Seeing-Reasoning-Reacting-Trying to accelerate-Waiting for the engine to sling you into hyperdrive would mean you'd also have been hit. And you'd now have your foot mashed to the floor. In a car that isn't pointing in the direction you want to go.
Best thing is to be more observant before the event.
thats an easy one. Mandatory retesting every few years. Ramp up fines for traffic offenses significantly and use this to pay for more traffic police. Allow random breath testing, reduce the number of points needed for a ban. More traffic cameras. More enforcement of parking laws, More checks on vehicles
Yeah I'd support that, not sure it would actually skim off the worst 20% but all sensible ideas. Unfortunately you've still got far more chance of getting speed limiters made mandatory than getting a government to implement that package of measures...
In 99.99% of cases (made up statistic warning) you wouldn’t even realise until you’d actually been hit.
Perhaps, but I've had it happen. Driving through a lights-controlled crossroad in Manchester, a driver coming from my left ran a red light.
Best thing is to be more observant before the event.
We are all of course perfect drivers the moment we pass our tests, which is why this thread hasn't run to eight pages.
The take-away I, erm, took away from that event was I never blindly trust a green light any more, I always check.
Thats the problem - the car lobby is so strong any attempts to curtail them is political suicide. The dutch managed it in the 70s by creating a moral panic about kids deaths on city streets but its hard to see an equivalent in the UK now.
A few roads around me that are small residential roads that are used as rat runs have been closed off - the noise folk make about it screaming how unfair it is they have to drive 300mfurther. Its actually really positive improving the environment and tonight there are literally hundreds of people out there enjoying it traffic free right now but to the car drivers its armageddon
We already have a huge issue in that car driving is seen as a right but many folk cannot afford it so we have huge numbers of unsafe and uninsured cars on the roads - but any clampdown? "war on the motorist"
If railways, planes and busses killed and injured so many folk there would be outcry
The take-away I, erm, took away from that event was I never blindly trust a green light any more, I always check.
As you always should - look both ways even if a green light. I was taught that in the 70s
All this toss about “drivers will become lazy with too much help, they need to be alert and awesome like me”
all this toss that is someone else’s opinion. And just as valid as some of the the toss that is your opinion.
I am going to say pretty much zero meaning speed is a big aspect in serious accidents.
Of course it is, if the vehicles aren’t moving, they can’t have accidents. There are frequently serious accidents where only one vehicle is involved, and it doesn’t even have to be speeding. I actually witnessed one on the M4 on Thursday. The big hazard signs lit up showing reduced speed, lane blocked, vehicle on its side, and everyone ended up stopped about a mile and a bit short of the A34 junction. The air ambulance turned up, the westbound carriageway stopped, then it started, then it stopped, then started again, there were lots of emergency vehicles going past in both directions. Eventually, after nearly an hour, we all started moving again, and it turned out to be a truck carrying a 15’ container had somehow hit the sign for the A34 and was on the other side of the nearside Armco barrier, with the front end very badly damaged and the screen completely destroyed. No other vehicles appeared to be involved. Trucks like that are restricted in their maximum speed, I believe to 60mph. The air ambulance headed off towards Oxford, probably the John Radcliffe hospital.
So, please explain how a 70mph restriction would have prevented an accident like that, on a fine, dry, sunny morning. Answers on a postcard, please.
So, please explain how a 70mph restriction would have prevented an accident like that, on a fine, dry, sunny morning. Answers on a postcard, please.
Given your very long list of assumptions and no evidence that speed wasn't involved it's only fair to add a few more.
70mph limit means less speeding offences, freeing up roads police to monitor other behaviours, driver gets pulled over a few miles before the crash for being on his phone and it never happens.
So, please explain how a 70mph restriction would have prevented an accident like that, on a fine, dry, sunny morning. Answers on a postcard, please.
Nobody is saying that it will stop all incidents, just that it would prevent a significant number, with little downside.
Nobody is saying that it will stop all incidents, just that it would prevent a significant number, with little downside.
But it wouldn’t though as the majority of accidents happen at low speed in residential areas.
Its very warped that a lot of people think it’s better to save one or two lives on fast roads rather than 100’s on slow roads
Rather than sticking fingers in ears to the real problem, we should have tests every 5 years an automatic bans for those that fail. That would get rid of most of the stay at 70mph brigade who are quite happy to sit at 65 mph on the motorway without a care in the world, and think because they do 35mph in a residential area they are upstanding citizens
Rather than sticking fingers in ears to the real problem, we should have tests every 5 years an automatic bans for those that fail. That would get rid of most of the stay at 70mph brigade who are quite happy to sit at 65 mph on the motorway without a care in the world, and think because they do 35mph in a residential area they are upstanding citizens
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
Not against the idea as loads of people would fail meaning less cars on the road but it wouldn't make any difference to my driving just as doing my test 40 years ago didn't as I drove like a 17 year old **** within a day of passing and thinking back to how I drove is quite scary.
But it wouldn’t though as the majority of accidents happen at low speed in residential areas.
Yes - and the severity AND incidence of those accidents would decrease if no one could speed in town ie automatic speed limiters set to local speed limits
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
there is no real evidence because we have nothing to compare it with - but those bad drivers would fail surely - or at least a % of them.
there is no real evidence because we have nothing to compare it with – but those bad drivers would fail surely – or at least a % of them.
you’re assuming bad driving is a failing rather than a choice.
I don’t think people who drive recklessly or carelessly- especially in relation to speed - do so because they don’t know how to drive carefully and considerately. They know exactly what the rules are and how to apply them They do so as an expression of contempt for others. They’d all be capable of pretending not to have that contempt for half an hour every few years,
Perhaps not - but following to close, not indicating etc etc become habits - so it might break those habits or they would fail. Also those with failing eyesight and reflexes would fail. also those with cars in poor condition would fail
driving tests of course should also be much harder IMO
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
True but we do have evidence that the 70mph limit isn’t the issue
True but we do have evidence that the 70mph limit isn’t the issue
Really? Explain please
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
Not against the idea as loads of people would fail meaning less cars on the road but it wouldn’t make any difference to my driving just as doing my test 40 years ago didn’t as I drove like a 17 year old **** within a day of passing and thinking back to how I drove is quite scary.
I’ve said this several times on threads like these. As part of my job, I drive Mobile Elevated Work Platforms on almost a daily basis for a large part of the year, within a secure locked compound with only other trained staff on the site. I have to be retested every 5years to keep my licence to drive them. If I was seen driving one like a prick after testing, I’d have my arse handed to me “you only had your test last year!” Regular retesting would either improve general driving standards, or could be used as reasoning for tougher punishments if and when people are caught driving contrary to Rule 1. which when we’ll published would force other drivers to be better for fear of big fines/long bans.
Retesting also checks that people have actually paid attention to Highway Code changes and understand them as so many clearly don't.
Start with business drivers, if we can have unauthorised coffee machines in the office banned under PSSR regs then we can surely check that the people who drive during their duties are safe and competent, everything else gets similar refresher training!
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
One thing to consider here is, things change. How many people here, including those whining about "driving gods," passed their test 30 years ago and haven't looked at The Highway Code since? New rules were brought in in the last 12 months or so regarding the hierarchy of road users, I bet most drivers out there don't even know they exist let alone understand what they are.
I did (yes yes) a speed awareness course a good few years ago, I'd recommend one if you need a stark insight into how much there is an education issue.
Really? Explain please
Google "85th percentile" perhaps?
Start with business drivers, if we can have unauthorised coffee machines in the office banned under PSSR regs then we can surely check that the people who drive during their duties are safe and competent, everything else gets similar refresher training!
Good thought, not sure about the practicalities. I assume taxi drivers could be obliged to do an HC retest every five years or so via the licensing authorities but what about parcels/couriers (who probably also need licensing but who currently aren't AFAIK)?
So, please explain how a 70mph restriction would have prevented an accident like that,
It wouldn't. It's not a magic wand. No-one ever said it would prevent every crash.
Good thought, not sure about the practicalities. I assume taxi drivers could be obliged to do an HC retest every five years or so via the licensing authorities but what about parcels/couriers (who probably also need licensing but who currently aren’t AFAIK)?
Do you think HSE care about practicalities when implementing PSSR regs in a place of work?
It would be up to the employer to implement and prove, especially if any drivers can have their records pulled by HSE for any reason (especially if involved in an accident).
We have to do a company driver assessment every year or so, it's a joke tbh. List accidents and infringements since last time, age, frequency of driving on company business and other 'risks' to score the person. Not once does continuous training get a look-in but if you don't do your contaminated area dressing/undressing refresher then they'll freeze your site pass regardless of if you ever go near a C2/3 area!
Like I said, start with business drivers; begin with "professional drivers" in larger vehicle classes down to smaller, then the self-employed, then company car drivers and finally every other chimp on the road. It would require investment and funding but what doesn't?
stay at 70mph brigade who are quite happy to sit at 65 mph on the motorway without a care in the world, and think because they do 35mph in a residential area they are upstanding citizens
you mean 40 mph everywhere, or whatever speed is comfortable then accelerate if some ‘maniac’ has the audacity to overtake them.
One of the reasons I’m against the 70mph limiter is, as I often do cruise @70, I’ll pass a car doing around 65, they’ll then accelerate, subconsciously or not. More than a few times I’ve passed cars and found them to have accelerated up the inside when I’m about to pull across. In a van with large blind spots it’s a pain in the arse/dangerous. Without a limiter I can blip past then pull in.
stay at 70mph brigade who are quite happy to sit at 65 mph on the motorway without a care in the world,
Not me. I care a lot about what I do and how it affects everyone else. That's why I tend not to speed.
One of the reasons I’m against the 70mph limiter is, as I often do cruise @70, I’ll pass a car doing around 65, they’ll then accelerate, subconsciously or not. More than a few times I’ve passed cars and found them to have accelerated up the inside when I’m about to pull across. In a van with large blind spots it’s a pain in the arse/dangerous. Without a limiter I can blip past then pull in.
And a limiter would stop this from happening
Because that scenario never happens with lorries.
they are limited to 56 mph ususally
In Jamso scenario they would not be able accelerate to above 70 to undertake him as he came past
@squirrelking I’d always assumed that LGV a drivers had regular assessments?
I do think anyone who drives like a tw*t in a van vinyl’d up in their employer’s livery needs to give their head a wobble mind you.
And a limiter would stop this from happening
Have a think about that.
Car A is passing car B. Car B matches the speed of car A.
Car B is now travelling at the exact same speed alongside and slightly to the rear car A.
Car A pulls in, thinking it had passed car B .
Yes I did - thats not how you explained it in the first place
More than a few times I’ve passed cars and found them to have accelerated up the inside when I’m about to pull across.
So you have passed them at 70 mph - to get back alongside you they would have to exceed 70 mph
you’re assuming bad driving is a failing rather than a choice.
Exactly, most people could drive properly if they had to, i.e. they had an examiner sat next to them and they would lose their license if they failed.
Seems like a very expensive and bureaucratic idea to test every 5 years when there is zero evidence of it having the desired effect. Propose it to the government, they love that sort of shit.
So long as it's just cars that are limited & not motorbikes 😉
Retests are hypothetical at best anyway. We barely have the infrastructure to test the learners we already have. Think about it, out of the gate you'd have to retest every driver on the road today who passed before 2018. That's tens of millions.
Some countries manage it IIRC.
Yet no country in the world, as far as I know (despite what Brexity types might say) have felt the need to mandate speed limiters on private cars.
I’d always assumed that LGV a drivers had regular assessments?
So did I which was why I assumed some sort of system for regular retests already exists.
Retests are hypothetical at best anyway. We barely have the infrastructure to test the learners we already have. Think about it, out of the gate you’d have to retest every driver on the road today who passed before 2018. That’s tens of millions.
Yup, which was why I suggested phasing it in. You have to stay in ticket for most competencies at work so why not driving? Mandatory retests after accidents or points accrued? You invest and recruit so that you can phase it in with everyone else renewing their licence (paper licences are scrap now, yes?).
I'm not deluding myself that we are anywhere near ready to do this either practically or mentally but it would sure as hell weed out a lot of people who shouldn't be on the road with or without additional training.
Can you imagine sticking to 70mph on the M50? 😂
Can you imagine sticking to 70mph on the M50?
I'm not sure I've ever driven on the M50 but I generally do 50mph on motorways unless conditions dictate otherwise.
Conditions on the m50 are usually those that you could double 70mph and it’d still be perfectly safe.
Conditions on the m50 are usually those that you could double 70mph and it’d still be perfectly safe
I'd stick to 50, saves huge amounts of petrol.
I’m not sure I’ve ever driven on the M50 but I generally do 50mph on motorways unless conditions dictate otherwise
truck driver or causing truck drivers to overtake?
I’m not sure I’ve ever driven on the M50 but I generally do 50mph on motorways unless conditions dictate otherwise.
Lorry drivers must love you. And everyone else for that matter, your rolling roadblock is single-handedly forcing all the regular traffic doing the speed limit into one lane of a three lane motorway.
