[Closed] Average speed cameras work. Are they even on ?

is [s]speeding[/s] failing to look properly or failing to judge other person’s path or speed only selfish when you kill someone?

FTFY

Some speed limits are however just silly. 70mph on a motorway??

So are you not a selfish prick if you deliberately break that?

So are you not a selfish prick if you deliberately break that?

One can believe that a limit is silly but still feel responsible enough to drive within it.

aracer - Member

Some speed limits are however just silly. 70mph on a motorway??

So are you not a selfish prick if you deliberately break that?

My theory behind that was car safety is getting better. The human body is not getting any better at being crashed into. So therefore if when that limit was imposed a risk assessment was done and they arrived at the conclusion that 70 was a good limit. If that same risk assessment was done today i am sure the figure would be either much higher or the risk much lower.

I was people would quote all relevant parts.... maybe i souldent of called you speeders selfish pricks. sorry

Which would appear to make you a far higher insurance risk than driving at 57mph in a 50 does.

Which ignores any of a multitude of different factors which might make one premium lower than another.

Which ignores any of a multitude of different factors which might make one premium lower than another.

Yes - but it appears doing 57mph in a 50 doesn't make any difference at all to the insurance risk, whilst awhiles' factors do.

One can believe that a limit is silly but still feel responsible enough to drive within it.

I thought we were discussing road safety rather than obedience to the law? I have restrained myself from asking whether people did their archery practice on a Sunday.

57mph in a 50

I've lost count of the amount of times you've written that now. Maybe it's time to let it go.

So therefore if when that limit was imposed a risk assessment was done and they arrived at the conclusion that 70 was a good limit. If that same risk assessment was done today i am sure the figure would be either much higher or the risk much lower.

Cars were worse back then, but there was far less traffic on the roads. Consensus seems to be that the increase in car safety is balanced out by the number of cars. Not to mention the number of people who are now capable of blasting through the speed limit with a twitch of the right foot.

My theory behind that was car safety is getting better. The human body is not getting any better at being crashed into. So therefore if when that limit was imposed a risk assessment was done and they arrived at the conclusion that 70 was a good limit. [b]If that same risk assessment was done today i am sure the figure would be either much higher or the risk much lower.[/b]

Sorry, but the opposite is true due to increased traffic flow.
The number of vehicles likely to be involved in any accident is far greater. This leads to an increased chance of higher casualties, and also a larger number of vehicle journeys being disrupted by the clear up operation after the incident.
COBA shows it's bad for the economy, so future speed limits will be lower.

Despite all the wonderful work that automotive and mechanical engineers are doing to produce faster and safer cars to sell, road speed limits will always be dependant on the design speed of the roads they drive on as specified by civil engineers and transport planners.
And there is some wonderful work ongoing involving increased overall traffic flow achieved by decreased (or variable) maximum speeds.

molgrips - Member

So therefore if when that limit was imposed a risk assessment was done and they arrived at the conclusion that 70 was a good limit. If that same risk assessment was done today i am sure the figure would be either much higher or the risk much lower.

Cars were worse back then, but there was far less traffic on the roads. Consensus seems to be that the increase in car safety is balanced out by the number of cars. Not to mention the number of people who are now capable of blasting through the speed limit with a twitch of the right foot.

Correct, the figure should now be higher. The average stopping distance of a car from 70mph in the mid 60's when the 70mph limit was introduced was 75m. Today it's around 37m - less than half the distance.

Cars are also so much safer - hell very few people even wore seat belts in the 60's. There is more traffic on the roads but the road surfaces, conditions, signage and everything else is so much better than it was back then. So is the level of driver training - a driving test in the 60's was a very basic affair.

I'd say that the ideal speed limit on the motorway should be around the 90mph mark at quiet times of the day, reverting to less if its busy or the conditions are bad (controlled by signs on overhead gantry's), with a minimum speed limit of around 55mph in place at all times. Most people already seem to do between 80-90 anyway and yet motorways are still by a long way our safest roads mile for mile.

I just want to pick up on the speed limit being a target not a limit, that's wrong. In the driving test you are supposed to drive near the limit but that doesn't make it not a limit. Go do the test and drive just over the limit most of the time, you'd fail because it's a limit not a target.

chvck - Member

I just want to pick up on the speed limit being a target not a limit, that's wrong. In the driving test you are supposed to drive near the limit but that doesn't make it not a limit. Go do the test and drive just over the limit most of the time, you'd fail because it's a limit not a target.

In good conditions you could view the speed limit as a target speed. It's essential that people get a move on if they can so that the traffic actually flows. Plenty of people fail their driving tests for not driving at speeds approaching the speed limit when conditions allow.

It's completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a 60 limit when conditions would easily allow 60+ Either pull over and let people pass, or go and get some more training to make you a confident driver. Sadly these people often seem just as oblivious to the large queue that's built up behind them as they do to their own driving shortcomings.

[quote=Rebel12]It's completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a [u]60 limit[/u] when conditions would easily allow [b]60+[/b]

And equally it might be considered selfish (in a dangerous way) to drive 60 PLUS in a 60 limit.

So perhaps [b]you need more training[/b], in particular about observation of road signs and the highway code?

t's completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a 60 limit when conditions would easily allow 60+

What about lorries? They're also a lot longer than a car, should they keep pulling over?

It's essential that people get a move on if they can so that the traffic actually flows.

What makes traffic flow better is most people travelling at the same speed. The faster people go, the more braking is required so the more the speed changes. When queues of cars brake it slows everyone down far more than when just one car on its own brakes.

That's the principle behind variable speed limits.

I'm amazed how there's only a few people on this thread who have actually admitted to speeding? Guess there's either a lot of people hiding something on here or maybe STW really is the holy grail of slow and steady motoring.

I have speeded (sped?) in the past, and yes I was a selfish prick. Today however, after growing up a bit and maturing, and realising that my previous behaviour was not just selfish but also self-defeating and pointless, I drive pretty much at the speed limits. In fact, shock horror, a huge amount of the time I drive well below the speed limits, 25 is typical in built up 30 zones, 50 on NSL, and 60-70 on the motorway. It saves me lots of money, lots of stress, and costs me very little time.

It is amazing how much calmer it is to drive normally rather than imagining every trip is vanishing point.

It is amazing how much calmer it is to drive normally rather than imagining every trip is vanishing point.

Unless you're a IAM qualified speedster, in which case if they drive at the speed limit it's so boring they risk falling asleep 🙂

rebel12 - Member

It's completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a 60 limit when conditions would easily allow 60+

('morning all 🙂 )

why?

didn't your advanced training teach you to expect to get stuck behind horses/milk floats/bikes/trucks/cattle/classic cars/cars running a space-saver/old people/etc. and not to get stressed out when you do?

especially when your training had a slant towards fast-driving - surely getting 'held up' is inevitable?

and wouldn't a 30mph speed differential allow you to overtake pretty sharpish? - especially if the roads are so straight and clear an all.

(it is nice when people pull over, i do it myself - it's a nice habit i made an effort to adopt when i lived in NZ, where literally EVERYONE does it, it's amazing)

ahwiles - Member

rebel12 - Member

It's completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a 60 limit when conditions would easily allow 60+

('morning all )

why?

didn't your advanced training teach you to expect to get stuck behind horses/milk floats/bikes/trucks/cattle/classic cars/cars running a space-saver/etc. and not to get stressed out when you do?

Yes but those vehicles can't go any faster can they so that's fine. A modern car on the otherhand can easily achieve NSL in clear conditions. Totally different.

xiphon - Member

Rebel12 » It's completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a 60 limit when conditions would easily allow 60+

And equally it might be considered selfish (in a dangerous way) to drive 60 PLUS in a 60 limit.

Why is it selfish? So long as it's safe to do so and I'm considerate of other road users it's not selfish at all.

Anyway I think this thread has gone on long enough. It's almost impossible to try and educate those that do not want to learn.

What makes traffic flow better is most people travelling at the same speed. The faster people go, the more braking is required so the more the speed changes.

Giving yourself a decent braking distance rather than driving up the arse of the car in front would have the same effect. You get these phantom 'standing wave' traffic jams when someone brakes, and the vehicle behind is too close and brakes harder, and so on. Sadly, we haven't yet invented Increase Your Braking Distance cameras.

I do speed occasionally, but I definitely do not do it habitually. Cruise goes on at 70mph on the motorway. And then people can't believe I get 60mpg from the Passat...

(it is nice when people pull over, i do it myself - it's a nice habit i made an effort to adopt when i lived in NZ)

When driving slowly you mean? I frequently pull over in the caravan. And how much motorway is on the journey is a factor in where we choose to go.

Giving yourself a decent braking distance rather than driving up the arse of the car in front would have the same effect.

It still happens, even if there is adequate braking distance, it's just not as bad.

rebel12 - Member

Totally different.

maybe, maybe not.

and what training were you given to deal with the insufferable stress when it happens?

molgrips - Member
When driving slowly you mean?

yep, i'm a slow driver, i can grow a 'tail' quite quickly.

my first car was a mini with drum brakes, i've had my fun/terror, i've found all the cars i've had since reassuringly boring.

Anyway I think this thread has gone on long enough. It's almost impossible to try and educate those that do not want to learn.

Taking your cricket bat home? Seriously though, have you considered at all the possibility that people don't want to be 'educated' because you might actually be wrong? Like I said at the beginning of all this, the silly justifications and logic-warping arguments do nothing to promote your cause, they just mark you out as someone who isn't willing to accept that they're wrong and be up front about it.

Then it's not 'adequate'. I'm not talking about the "two second rule", you need more than that to absorb the speed fluctuations.

Why on earth would people not want to be better educated? I don't think I want to share living space with those people.

Then it's not 'adequate'. I'm not talking about the "two second rule", you need more than that to absorb the speed fluctuations

Thing is, you don't realise how much someone in front has slowed down if they are a long way off. So you end up needing to brake harder than if you were closer. It ends up about the same I'd think.

And besides, when it's busy there just isn't the room. If you want to see how people CAN co-operate well in extreme traffic situations, try the M4 on a Friday afternoon between Reading and Swindon. Almost all the lorries have gone, and usually it's a raft of traffic all doing 50-60mph, fairly close, but still moving. The sheer volume of traffic still flowing often amazes me.

Giving yourself a decent braking distance rather than driving up the arse of the car in front would have the same effect. You get these phantom 'standing wave' traffic jams when someone brakes, and the vehicle behind is too close and brakes harder, and so on. Sadly, we haven't yet invented Increase Your Braking Distance cameras.

What we need is this:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12215915 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12215915[/url]

Somehow I doubt though that the motoring lobby will be supportive of this type of thing.

Cougar - Moderator
Why on earth would people not want to be better educated? I don't think I want to share living space with those people.

And you get to hang out with some awesome folk on our real ale evenings.

Somehow I doubt though that the motoring lobby will be supportive of this type of thing.

I thought they were supportive of it? After all, most of us just want our motorway journeys over with unless we are on holiday or something.

And you get to hang out with some awesome folk on our real ale evenings.

Do you get trained how to drive home after six pints of of Old Growler?

I thought they were supportive of it? After all, most of us just want our motorway journeys over with unless we are on holiday or something.

Dunno. I'm happy to be corrected. I'd be interested to know the position of the likes of rebel12 and sbob on this though. There's huge potential for technology to make driving both safer and faster but it would mean drivers abdicating control to computers which I assume many wouldn't be happy to do.

My parents have the Focus which parks itself...it's pretty amazing to watch. I've been on a plane that landed under autopilot and would have no problem with either road trains or automated vehicles.

My parents have the Focus which parks itself...it's pretty amazing to watch

The scary thing about that is how fast it turns the wheel. It can apparently get itself into spaces that are quite hard to get out of manually!

Boy racers, fast cars...... caravans, real ale ...
I think I see both sides of this discussion 😉
Please can we all be a bit more considerate on the public roads ? 😉
Ta
Great thread btw ...

I've had a self parking car since 2006 🙂

Dunno. I'm happy to be corrected. I'd be interested to know the position of the likes of rebel12 and sbob on this though. There's huge potential for technology to make driving both safer and faster but it would mean drivers abdicating control to computers which I assume many wouldn't be happy to do.

Well I like to "make progress" along interesting roads, however I would happily let an onboard computer deal with motorway journeys and general commuting duties. The computer can do a better job than me so let it get on with it.

I'd love to have a car that drove itself. Driving is often pretty dull, especially on motorways.

molgrips - Member
I've had a self parking car since 2006

dazh - Member

I thought they were supportive of it? After all, most of us just want our motorway journeys over with unless we are on holiday or something.

Dunno. I'm happy to be corrected. I'd be interested to know the position of the likes of rebel12 and sbob on this though. There's huge potential for technology to make driving both safer and faster but it would mean drivers abdicating control to computers which I assume many wouldn't be happy to do.

I enjoy driving (even on a motorway) so I can't say I'd be overly keen for such a thing.

Self park, auto this and auto that is pure laziness and it means that the a driver may never need to learn proper car control. Electric handbrakes are pathetic - technology for technologies sake. Soon we might all end up sat vegetating in a box 24/7 surrounded by screens and technology doing everything for us. That's no life so far as I'm concerned.

Some level of risk is good - it helps us learn things and develop as humans. If we remove risk and skill from everything we do then life would be pretty sterile and pretty dull. Maybe that's the way some people want to go perhaps?

Having said that then I think though that this technology is inevitable eventually and so I'd probably have no choice but to adapt. You never know it could be nice to go out for a few pints after a long ride, press the 'HOME' button on the car and then sleep things off before you get home. That's not a bad compromise I suppose?

Self park, auto this and auto that is pure laziness

Lol. Washing machines, cars, computers, power tools.. all laziness...

Not entirely. Not only do I have more space in my centre console, but it also does safety related things like if I am in drive and I open the door, it puts the handbrake on. My wife's aunt saw an old woman being dragged down the road and ultimately crushed to death because she'd gone to get out of the car when it was still in drive.

That's no life so far as I'm concerned.

You may feel that cars are an extension of your personality, others just consider them utility transport. You must respect that. You will still be able to buy cars in the future with manual everything, because there will still be a market for it. It's NOT ok to denigrate a point of view simply because you hold a different one.

I'd be happy for my car to drive me somewhere - I'd be going to do something useful and fun when I got there, so accusations of it being 'no life' aren't really fair. To me, thinking your driving is your life is no kind of life.

 

What you need there is a thing called a "taxi."

Some level of risk is good - it helps us learn things and develop as humans. If we remove risk and skill from everything we do then life would be pretty sterile and pretty dull.

i agree, and there are still plenty of opportunities for us to manage risk; rock climbing/mountain biking/sailing/wheelchair rugby/rough pubs/etc.

Electric handbrakes are pathetic - technology for technologies sake.

Not entirely. Not only do I have more space in my centre console, but it also does safety related things like if I am in drive and I open the door, it puts the handbrake on. My wife's aunt saw an old woman being dragged down the road and ultimately crushed to death because she'd gone to get out of the car when it was still in drive.

And that's where the difference lies Molegrips. You would prefer to have the space inside the car for an extra cupholder. I would prefer the extra control that a manual handbrakes gives in severe winter conditions or in an emergency.

I suppose it's a bit like comparing someone who rides a normal bike with someone who's happy with an electrically assisted bike. Neither is right or wrong, and they both serve a purpose - it's just that I'm someone who would prefer to pedal.

As a side note, a work mate's electric handbrake didn't work fully and after leaving it her Landrover rolled backwards outside her house, crushing the bumper and bonnet of the car behind. Technology isn't infallible just the same was as humans are not either. Lucky there had not been a child in the way on that occasion.

I think that the old woman in your post deserves a Darwin award perhaps?