Forum menu
[quote=mrchrispy said]CBA to read the last 4 pages but has anyone used the term 'making progress' yet?
Yes chief.
He was just trying to get home, he left the log burner on.
#renosteve maybe you should follow the experts advice and stick to the speed limit!
So you'll be fine when i plow into your on your bike in a 40mph limit doing 40mph, killing you, but don't worry, i wasn't speeding, so that's all fine then......
Or perhaps you'd prefer me to, er, maybe look where i was going, at set my speed appropriate to the current road conditions (which if there are some people riding their bikes might be just 5mph), rather than to some small painted numbers of a sign??
And as a result of learning proper Roadcraft, at 2am, on an empty motorway, in a car that can do 155mph, perhaps, just perhaps i could maybe push the boat out and drive at ooh, say 75mph?
The more we dumb drivers down, the more we fail to put in place suitably severe penalties for truly inappropriate actions (like, oh i don't know, say doing 180mph in a 40mph zone ;-), the more we simply follow (or ignore) speed limits like sheep, we will continue to kill and injure people out of ignorance.
GrahamS - MemberBut for that to happen they would need to increase the speed limit AND fully enforce it. Otherwise the same 50% that default to 80 in 70s will just do 90 in the 80s and nothing else will change.
That's probably not true. The question is, is everyone doing 80 on a motorway doing the limit + 10, or do they just think 80 is a sensible speed. Obviously, some balance of the two. I don't know what the actual result would be but it won't be that simple. And there'd likely be a benefit transferred back to slower roads if it gets people back to respecting limits.
Limits are very contentious, it seems hard to have a grownup conversation about it but I think we can probably all agree, it's not all that simple. At the moment we certainly do have a situation where a huge number of people ignore parts of the law on the road, and where people can make sensible (if not necessarily correct) arguments about that. And once you ignore one law in one place, you get ends of wedges etc.
I think it's entirely possible that increasing some limits would give net safety benefits. I don't know if it would. But what are the odds that the current speed limit is the perfect balance?
Out of interest, how many of those on this thread have driven the TT circuit? I've probably done 30+ laps and 180 anywhere without the roads being closed and marshalled is lunacy.
I have and there are a few places over the mountain where 180 on clear roads on a really fast bike would be ok. My bike wasn't all that fast but I did hit 150mph several times when visiting the IOM.
So you'll be fine when i plow into your on your bike in a 40mph limit doing 40mph, killing you, but don't worry, i wasn't speeding, so that's all fine then......
You've made your point. You need to drive safely - we all appreciate that. No need to keep ramming it home. No-one is advocating focusing on speed AT THE EXPENSE of safe driving. Consistent sensible speed is a part of safe sensible predictable driving - as wrote earlier.
perhaps i could maybe push the boat out and drive at ooh, say 75mph?
Sure, it's safe. As long as you don't fall asleep at the wheel, have a blowout etc. That could happen at 70, of course, but the consequences will be that bit worse at 75.
But even ignoring that (even though it's important) the issue is how to legislate for that.
At least he wasn't towing a caravan....
piedi di formaggio - MemberAt least he wasn't towing a caravan....
The good old "Indicator of invulnerability force-field" in action there.
molgrips
No-one is advocating focusing on speed AT THE EXPENSE of safe driving
Well, with the exception of our entire Government, our Law makers, any politician you could care to mention, pretty much every "road safety" group in the last 20 years, your mate "dave" down the pub, and Edd the duck, but OTHER than them, no, you are right, no-one is focusing on speed at the expense of safe driving.......
😉
That's probably not true. The question is, is everyone doing 80 on a motorway doing the limit + 10, or do they just think 80 is a sensible speed. Obviously, some balance of the two.
Yeah I'd say some balance of the two sounds right.
I think most drivers "know" the arguments that [i]all[/i] speedos over-read and that speed cameras [i]never[/i] trigger below limit + 10%.
So they self-justify that 80 indicated is within a mph or so of the [i]actual[/i] prosecutable limit and they have some wiggle room.
That same effect would happen at an 80mph limit as well.
So one way to counter that is introduce a new higher limit, but enforce it much more strictly (i.e. average speed cameras and on the overhead gantries).
That decriminalises the majority and restores some respect for the limit.
molgrips - MemberSure, it's safe. As long as you don't fall asleep at the wheel, have a blowout etc. That could happen at 70, of course, but the consequences will be that bit worse at 75.
Yup, but that's where it gets interesting because of the possible offsets- I think this comes down to whether you believe there'd be any, and how big they'd be.
It's like cycle helmet compulsion, a bit- there's a good statistical argument that making bike helmets mandatory has an overall negative health benefit because less people get head injuries, but less people ride in the first place. Unintended consequences.
So, if you can increase motorway limits by 10mph, say, and that has the result of convincing a large number of drivers that speed limits make sense and deserve their respect, then it's entirely possible that transfers back to having less people speed in towns where it's probably more important. Or, perhaps not.
GrahamS - MemberI think most drivers "know" the arguments that all speedos over-read and that speed cameras never trigger below limit + 10%.
So they self-justify that 80 indicated is within a mph or so of the actual prosecutable limit and they have some wiggle room.
That same effect would happen at an 80mph limit as well.
Well. Is it so simple? The same thinking could work quite differently for many- drivers could think "80 is a sensible speed for this road, and also, it's within the wiggle room" and so go at 80- that doesn't necessarily mean that they want to go at 90. It's just that they've satisfied all their factors for going at the speed they want to go.
I'll speak for myself here- on an open dry motorway I'm totally happy cruising at 80, like most people I reckon. But it's not the limit or the wriggle room that keeps me to 80 instead if 90, it's just that it feels like an appropriate speed. Decreasing the limit or decreasing the wiggle room could cause me to slow down but increasing either wouldn't cause me to go faster, I think. (perhaps it could, if everyone else went faster, not sure) And I'm not a beautiful and unique snowflake
No doubt some people would go at 90. But how many, is the question.
At least he wasn't towing a caravan....
😯
Clearly the caravan driver's fault (obviously), but I couldn't help think that at this moment:
[img] 
[/img]
It seemed pretty obvious what that dozy wazzock was about to do and the HGV driver could have started slowing down and/or sounding his horn.
I suspect that if he had been on a motorbike, rather than nice in safe in the cab of an HGV, then he'd have been a bit sharper on his brakes regardless of who was in the right.
At least he wasn't towing a caravan....Clearly the caravan driver's fault (obviously), but I couldn't help think that at this moment:
It seemed pretty obvious what that dozy wazzock was about to do and the HGV driver could have started slowing down and/or sounding his horn.
POSTED 1 MINUTE AGO # REPORT-POST
Me too, perfect example of one of those moments when you have two choices. Either engage self preservation, accept the other driver is a hazard but just drop back and let him pull in or, option two, just sit with the same gap, be belligerent and wait for the inevitable to unfold in front of you. I'd go for the former option.
with the exception
Hmm.. Ate they saying that if you slow down that you don't need to bother paying attention? No. Are you suggesting people are automatically inferring that?
FWIW I was referring to the debate on here about road safety. I do agree that the amount of education we receive pre and post test is pitiful, but that's another argument and doesn't lead to arguing for a raise of speed limit.
I would not mind at all if they installed variable limits on open country sections of motorway and raised the limit to 80 when it's quiet. But s for enforcement.. Well.. Tricky really.
(perhaps it could, if everyone else went faster, not sure)
I think that is a pretty key point.
If everyone else is doing 80ish then 80ish feels pretty safe because there is little relative movement and closing speeds are low.
Unless your car is pretty knackered then IME there really isn't that much difference in the feel of driving on a clear open road at 80 compared to 70, or 90 compared to 80. The difference is only apparent when you encounter something else (like a slower vehicle or a hazard in the road).
(Conversely I regularly drive along a stretch of the A1 that is a 50 limit and sticking to the limit there can feel dangerous as you regularly have cars closing on you at 30mph+. Not to mention the nobbers trying to encourage you by driving four inches from your bumper).
GrahamS - MemberI think that is a pretty key point.
If everyone else is doing 80ish then 80ish feels pretty safe because there is little relative movement and closing speeds are low.
Yup But otoh, on an empty motorway 80 still feels pretty much right. Then again, maybe a lot of that comes from past experience and if I just got used to 90, then 90 would feel right. Not sure about that either. Psychology.
It is basically the 85th percentile thing.
our Law makers
And another thing - you want people to pass laws prohibiting inattentive driving? Using phones? Driving carelessly? They already have.
If you've got ideas on how to enforce them economically, I'm all ears as I'm sure they will be too.
The reason they have speed cameras and traps is that that's all they can really do, currently. They don't have a choice but to focus on it. I don't think that means that they think it'll make us all perfectly safe. Most policymakers aren't that stupid, I'm sure.
Using phones?
Don't worry - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32337990 ]that number has fallen 40% since 2010[/url]*
.
*Sneaky Subtext: the number of [i]fines issued[/i] has fallen - possibly due to lack of policing and possibly because offenders who are caught are now offered a course instead.
Anecdotally the number of offenders seems to be on the rise. Perhaps in a couple of years we'll have someone saying that since more than 50% do it then the default is now to be on the phone, so it is daft to criminalise so many people and we should relax that law?
Me too, perfect example of one of those moments when you have two choices. Either engage self preservation, accept the other driver is a hazard but just drop back and let him pull in or, option two, just sit with the same gap, be belligerent and wait for the inevitable to unfold in front of you. I'd go for the former option.
Yep, rational brain working correctly. I'm afraid I would have done the same as the lorry driver though.
And as a result of learning proper Roadcraft, at 2am, on an empty motorway, in a car that can do 155mph, perhaps, just perhaps i could maybe push the boat out and drive at ooh, say 75mph?
/tweaks erect nipples.
Watched the video
One of those driver towing in the wrong lane and trucker just rammed them because he was in a big truck and he could
Both arseholes but the caravans fault I would give that 65- 35 as a claim as the trucker could easily have avoided that but chose not to
One less caravan, no one injured. 😀
So do we all agree he was stupid allegedly driving at 180mph in the location shown in this thread where he should be doing 40 mph?
See its that kind of statement that annoys me. You are just as stupid thinking as long as you are doing 40mph you are ok.
40 mph past a pub is not ok. 180 mph past a pub is ok if you know no one will step out on to the road. 40mph is not ok if you think there is a chance some one will.
I would rather have Guy Martin pass me on a dual carriage way doing twice the speed limit (as he will be concentrating, and is used to doing that speed) than, Molgrips trundling along, saving fuel, taking his time, not concentrating on what he is doing 😆
At least doing 180mph he wouldnt have time to react to the person walking out of the pub. Kill them doing 40mph and I guess you have time to react and slow down just enough to make it hurt for them, and make yourself feel a bit guilty that you could have stopped if you were going slower.
Please tell me that was written as a joke
The last paragraph is incomprehensible.
And as a result of learning proper Roadcraft, at 2am, on an empty motorway, in a car that can do 155mph, perhaps, just perhaps i could maybe push the boat out and drive at ooh, say 75mph?
The LIMIT is 70! God damn it, look up the word "limit"! 😉
There's always going to be people who think 70 is too slow, and others where 70 is clearly too fast (OAPs, new drivers, people towing caravans or heavy loads). The limit has to be somewhere, and I'm sure a bunch of people cleverer than us lot came up with it.
You are just as stupid thinking as long as you are doing 40mph you are ok.
No one thinks this... but you're much, much, much, much, much more ok than at 180.
Of course it's a joke. Hit someone at 180 and you're dead too, so there'll be no guilt to worry about.
Please tell me that was written as a joke
Well partly.
Mrs FD driving home one night from work was the first person at a fatal RTC.
The bloke who killed the lady said he was doing less than the speed limit (30mph), and she beleived him.
The point is its 'safe' so long as you are doing the speed limit or less is incorrect. Safe can be doing 180mph in the right conditions
has he actually admitted to driving at 180mph?
(again CBA reading it all)
I though he said something like he was on the limit.
maybe it kept it in 1st?
Safe can be doing 180mph in the right conditions
I'm struggling to think of the right conditions where it is [i]safer[/i] than going a bit slower than that.
A tsunami maybe. Volcanic eruption. Pack of angry honey badgers on mopeds?
GrahamS - MemberI'm struggling to think of the right conditions where it is safer than going a bit slower than that.
When Guy Martin is right behind you doing 180mph
Pack of angry honey badgers on mopeds
Someone needs to photoshop that up!
as he actually admitted to driving at 180mph?
The link on page 1 tells you he said he was.
maybe he actually thinks he is wolverine and would survive a crash at 180mph
The point is its 'safe' so long as you are doing the speed limit or less is incorrect
Yes, we know, everyone knows this, it's been acknowledged dozens of times. It's almost as if you are clinging to the idea to try and give yourself a position from which to argue.
It is SAFER to be doing the speed limit. Not guaranteed safe, just SAFER. It may not be significantly riskier to be doing over the limit on this deserted motorway at 2am, but that's another issue.
has it been said the this could be Mr Martins application for the Top Gear job?
[img] 
[/img]
^^^
Well done that man! 🙂
I thought the term "leptons" was invented to avoid all this sort of bother?
Now we need Maxtorque powerslding passed them into the trees whilst suffering a blowout on ice.
maybe he actually thinks he is wolverine and would survive a crash at 180mph
Quite possibly.
[img] 
[/img]
Doing 180mph in a 40mph is stupid, but it is not "dangerous" necessarily (as it is the road conditions dictate risk, not the speed limit)
Really?
High speed reduces the possibility to respond in time when necessary. People need time to process information, to decide whether or not to react and, finally to execute a reaction. At high speed the distance covered in this period is longer. At high speeds the distance between starting to brake and a complete stand still is longer as well. The braking distance is proportional to the square of speed (v2). Therefore, the possibility to avoid a collision becomes smaller as speed increases. This is well illustrated at a broad average level by Finch [24].[b]1 km/h increase in speed ? 3% increase in accidents[/b]
if true he was a cock.
End of.
Discuss rights and wrongs for another 26 pages if you like but it seems sideboard kid f@@@ed up and then opened his mouth about it. Maybe he's not the chosen one after all.
I understand that the Canals and Rivers Trust are reviewing his canal boat series in case he went over their limit as well.
boriselbrus - MemberWell aside of all the bickering, this is where it allegedly happened. Does that look appropriate to anyone??? Hardly a deserted dual carriageway is it...
I know it's a few pages back but i've sat on the wall in that church on the right of that pic watching bikes come past at around the 200mph mark. Yeah, yeah, different time, closed roads, etc. Just saying, like! 🙂