Bollocks, you’re just making excuses for poor observation.
No. It's obviously harder to assess the speed of a moving car than the simple fact there's a car there. You have to look at it for longer. Most people will just see a car and assume it's doing a sensible speed, think they have time, and pull out anyway.
If you're saying that everyone should observe better, and therefore be a better driver, then that's agreeing with my point. By allowing a much greater variance in speed, you're making everyone's job driving more difficult. Given how poor most people are, do you think we should be making driving more difficult and stressful, or easier and more relaxing?
I don't see how you can be arguing against behaving predictably doing a dangerous task?
If you’re on the road then no-one makes anyone do anything other than yourself. To suggest otherwise is a denial of responsibility with a side order of victim blaming.
By driving faster than expected you are making other people's safety margins smaller. You are interacting with everyone else on the road, you're not independent. Your actions have consequences for other people.
This is a stone’s throw from “they just appeared out of nowhere” after you’ve just mowed down a cyclist, is “well, I wasn’t expecting them to be there” a valid defence?
It's nothing to do with that. It's nothing to do with the law and the rules. It's about how we interact as humans and as drivers. I could run flat-out around Asda but I don't, cos it's obviously highly anti-social. So why do the same on the roads? People who drive fast don't see the anti-social side of it because they aren't the victims. When they meet someone else driving just as fast they generally shout and complain without realising they are also part of the problem.
I do 130k miles a year, i see plenty of ‘not very good’ driving, well below, at, or a little above, the speed limit. (I rarely see people speeding by a massive amount nowadays)
One of the problems with the ‘speed is dangerous’ message is that you are also (sort of) telling people that if they’re within the posted limit then they are automatically safe, experienced drivers know this isn’t necessarily the case of course.
Re: the A9, i drive between glasgow and Inverness regularly, imo (and many other professional drivers say the same) the ave speed cameras have made this a far nicer drive, while adding less than ten minutes to the total time it takes.
Speed limiters are a handy tool to make driving long distances a little easier.
I remember a vastly experienced manager telling me “most accidents are caused by distraction” I believe he’s correct.
Imo, driving is actually pretty easy, as long as the only thing you’re doing is ‘Driving’
There are times when 20 in a 30 would be dangerous (school kicking out time being an obvious example)
Why is 20 in a 30 dangerous, going past a school?....
Re: the A9, i drive between glasgow and Inverness regularly, imo (and many other professional drivers say the same) the ave speed cameras have made this a far nicer drive, while adding less than ten minutes to the total time it takes.
Absolutely this +1
It’s clearly not the whole story but it is a part of it and a part of it that can easily be controlled via speed limiters. Tackling drivers who dangerously overtake and the like is a lot harder but that doesn’t mean you should do the easy stuff.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t.
Why is 20 in a 30 dangerous, going past a school?
Because it's pissing with sleet, dark and there are kids jumping out from behind parked cars.
Obv
should you have been driving in a manner where you were considering that that might be an eventuality?
Yes.
Edited. Rule 1.
I can't believe there's any doubt about the improved driving on the A9 since the ASCs were installed. I live in Aviemore so use the A9 almost daily. Despite it being massively busier there is simply less poor driving. What we are currently left with is mostly bad junction design and intermittent dual carraigeway. The dualling program will (Green/SNP coalition willing!!) fix the latter and will remove many of the bad junctions.
I've said before that I'd be happy to have ASCs installed everywhere (especially as most of them are only installed to handle front number plates, making motorbikes exempt 😉 )
100 in a 70 is safe (motorway in the early hours provided you’re not tired).
Untill it's not safe.
Deer, broken down/crashed cars, spilt loads. All coming up a lot faster than dipped headlights and potentially sleep deprived brain can handle.
Arguably you should be driving more conservatively at night as you can only see what's in your headlights, which in the days of halogen bulbs at least we're aligned to hit the ground at the highway codes 30mph stopping distance.
It's also survivor bias. You can make the argument that any rational person can see an empty motorway is safe at 40% over the speed limit. But the person who found out it wasn't probably didn't survive to post a warning.
One of the problems with the ‘speed is dangerous’ message is that you are also (sort of) telling people that if they’re within the posted limit then they are automatically safe
I'm not convinced by that argument.
Our van (Peugeot Partner) has a speed limiter. I've not used it but with vans having a 50mph limit away from dual carriageways/motorways it could be useful to avoid drifting up to the 60mph limit especially on the A65 where the speed camera vans tend to move about a bit.
As for "making progress", in a car I'd get from home to J36 on the M6 via the A65 in an hour,+/- a couple of minutes. In the van it's about 5 minutes slower. Not really worth the hassle. Coming back this evening a guy was really keen to get past me, he did so just after Ingleton. By Gargrave he was still only three cars ahead of me.
It is very simple. Speed limit is 30, car is limited to max of 30. Not sure how anyone can have a problem with that. Who cares if accidents are not always speed related, the limit is 30 so that is the maximum you should be doing.
I have a problem with it as the idiots who seem to have no appreciation that bikes can travel at close to or above the speed limit will still try and overtake. I'd rather they can accelerate past at above the limit rather than pull into the side of me having tried to crawl past.
One of the problems with the ‘speed is dangerous’ message is that you are also (sort of) telling people that if they’re within the posted limit then they are automatically safe
I’m not convinced by that argument.
One thing it is.....is a terrible arguement for going above the speed limit.....
I’d rather they can accelerate past at above the limit rather than pull into the side of me having tried to crawl past.
As far as I know with these systems you can always override them by hitting the accelerator, so that shouldn't change
edit: a quick look at the legislation seems to suggest that manufacturers can pick one of 4 different systems
" Therefore, it is provided in the draft Delegated Regulation that vehicle manufacturers can choose one of the following four feedback methodologies to base their ISA systems on:
(1) the haptic feedback system which relies on the pedal restoring force:
–Driver’s foot will be gently pushed back in case of over-speed. It will help to reduce driving speed and can be overridden by the driver.
(2) the speed control system which relies on engine management:
–Automatic reduction of the propulsion power independent of the position of drive’s feet on the pedal, but that can also be overridden by the driver easily.
(3) the cascaded acoustic warning:
–1st step: flash an optical signal
–2nd step: after several seconds, if no reaction from the driver, the acoustic warning
will be activated
–If the driver ignores this combined feedback, both warnings will be timed-out.
(4) the cascaded vibration warning
–1st step: flash an optical signal
–2nd step: after several seconds, if no reaction from the driver, pedal will vibrate
–If the driver ignores this combined feedback, both warnings will be timed-out.
Despite the functional differences, ISA systems based on each of those four options are
considered equally safe and effective. "
Actually, this from the end of that draft legislation is a little scarier maybe:
1. Vehicle manufacturers shall provide the approval authorities with the following
information:
(a) ratios of the time driven or the distances that are travelled with the intelligent speed assistance systems switched on and switched off;
(b) ratios of the time driven or the distances that are travelled with the perceived speed limits being observed and being overridden, respectively;
(c) the average time elapsed between the switch-on and the switch-off of the intelligent peed assistance system by the driver, when applicable;
(d) The information referred to in the first subparagraph for the cascaded acoustic warning function, the cascaded vibrating warning function and the haptic feedback function shall be provided separately from the information for the speed control function.
2. The approval authorities shall aggregate the information received in accordance with paragraph 1 and provide it to the Commission on 7 July 2024 and every 6 months thereafter.
It's not just about safety.
The faster you are going the louder your car is and the more fuel it burns.
In some areas speed limits are set to reduce noise and air pollution.
My Mum lives about half a mile from the M2. It's noisy enough to be intrusive if you sit in the garden. For a few months there were road works with a 50mph limit. The difference in noise was staggering.
My car uses about 30% more fuel at 80mph than it does at 65mph.
If you care about the environment then slow down (or take public transport), you'll only get there about 8 seconds later anyway.
You have to remember that the severity of accidents increase hugely with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 20 mph they probably are only bruised, hit them at 30 mph they will be injured probably broken bones, hit them at 40 mph they will be lucky to survive
Braking and reaction distances go up as well
I’m not convinced by that argument
@molgrips
Perhaps i can rephrase, ‘one of the problems with the “speed is automatically dangerous”
May have been better.
Just for clarity, I’m not advocating speeding in any way, I’ve seen plenty of accidents in my time, some of them were caused by speeding.
f you care about the environment then slow down (or take public transport), you’ll only get there about 8 seconds later anyway.
Yeah, 8 seconds late and have to mix with the great unhosed.
1. Vehicle manufacturers shall provide the approval authorities with the following
information:
(a) ratios of the time driven or the distances that are travelled with the intelligent speed assistance systems switched on and switched off;
(b) ratios of the time driven or the distances that are travelled with the perceived speed limits being observed and being overridden, respectively;
(c) the average time elapsed between the switch-on and the switch-off of the intelligent peed assistance system by the driver, when applicable;
(d) The information referred to in the first subparagraph for the cascaded acoustic warning function, the cascaded vibrating warning function and the haptic feedback function shall be provided separately from the information for the speed control function.2. The approval authorities shall aggregate the information received in accordance with paragraph 1 and provide it to the Commission on 7 July 2024 and every 6 months thereafter.
This is very positive to hear! Coupled with Volvo's push of imminent implementing inward facing anti-distraction cameras, things could start getting much safer and less aggressive on roads well within the next decade
When the driving gods of STW assemble, 'tis quite incredible.
This is very positive to hear! Coupled with Volvo’s push of imminent implementing inward facing anti-distraction cameras, things could start getting much safer and less aggressive on roads well within the next decade
Or Volvo's market share rapidly declines based on the attitude against infringing their civil liberties
Nobeerinthefridge
When the driving gods of STW assemble, ’tis quite incredible.
Awesome is the word. ****ing awesome.
The A9 thing taught me a real lesson on this stuff. Going steady at the speed limit costs no significant extra time and is a lot less stressful
Just for clarity, I’m not advocating speeding in any way, I’ve seen plenty of accidents in my time, some of them were caused by speeding.
Whilst speeding was not the cause, speed was. If all cars drove at 5 mph how many accidents would there be compared to if all cars drove around at 100 mph. Clearly a compromise as driving around at 5 mph would be ridiculous but it makes the point that speed is a factor in pretty much every accident even when not going above a stated maximum for that road.
1. I've attended, investigated or reviewed thousands of RTCs. Inappropriate speed was a factor in the vast majority of them. More often than not, inappropriate speed is well above rather than within the posted limit. For various reasons, STATS19 Forms don't always accurately reflect this. Regardless of other factors such as impairment, impatience, illness, road/weather/traffic conditions, misjudgment, environment, or vehicle design / flaws, simple physics dictates that higher speed = more distance covered before a driver reacts. Less time to react = a greater likelihood of an impact occurring and that impact being more severe than if the vehicle was carrying less momentum.
2. Roads are public places, not personal race tracks. They have speed limits dictated by their design layout, sight lines, user type etc. These are arrived at using well established processes and governed by law for the greater good of all road users, not just motorists.
3. There is no such thing as an empty road, just more or less activity. The most serious of collisions tend to occur at quieter times and on rural roads. Over confidence through youth, peer pressure, impairment and high performance vehicles, all resulting in higher speeds, often feature in rural KSIs.
4. We're all very fallible and easily seduced by the concept of us being good drivers. Most drivers don't undertake driver training beyond their DVLA Cat B test. A tiny proportion of those who do undertake additional training will actually be trained to safely exceed posted limits. Nonetheless, most people not trained to drive at speed think it's okay for them to do so. Quite a happy delusion until the bad thing happens.
5. Limiters render the concept of 'making progress' pointless. Everyone is forced to treat the public road network for it's intended purpose, to drive within posted limits from A to B. Speaking as someone who has delivered many death messages due to drivers 'making progress', I can't wait for these things to become law.
Thanks for that post downshep, it's quite hard to argue with.
it’s quite hard to argue with.
Are you new here? (-:
They have speed limits dictated by their design layout, sight lines, user type etc. These are arrived at using well established processes
Are they? Is this process documented in public anywhere? It'd be an interesting read.
My understanding was that the process was to stick (30) on a pole if there were houses about, stick (/) on a pole if there wasn't, and then revise down reactively when there's collisions. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Thanks for that post downshep, it’s quite hard to argue with.
Agree, although people will while using more and more bizarre outlying scenarios...
Cougar – you do realise your two examples are at odds with each other.
Namely both situations don’t happen if the car going along the road isnt traveling faster than they should be in the location
Isn't that what I wrote?
I appreciate that there's little consolation in being "right" when you're hospitalised or worse, and also that expecting 100% perfect driving from any human is a pipe dream. But drivers should be driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions and be able to stop in the distance they can see.
There's a new zebra crossing been placed in the town centre here and the local community Facebook group has gone Full Gammon about how dangerous it is. But the fact eluding these self-entitled quarterwits is, there could be children / dogs / cyclists / a skip / the TARDIS / gazelles / a hundredweight of mangos in the road regardless of whether there's a bit of white paint on the tarmac or not. If you can't stop in time to avoid a drive-by fruiting then you're either going too fast or not paying sufficient attention.
Are they? Is this process documented in public anywhere? It’d be an interesting read.
I guess it's covered in the subject of town planning in which you can do a degree.
My understanding was that the process was to stick (30) on a pole if there were houses about, stick (/) on a pole if there wasn’t, and then revise down reactively when there’s collisions. I’d love to be proven wrong.
Where did you gain that understanding? Pistonheads?
But drivers should be driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions and be able to stop in the distance they can see.
AND you also should behave in a way predictable to other road users. You aren't alone out there.
I’m not sure downshep understands how STW usually works.
Coming here with informed opinions, knowing what you are talking about…
AND you also should behave in a way predictable to other road users. You aren’t alone out there.
That's a hugely good point. When you are about to cross a road and see a car coming you subconsciously estimate the time based on previous experience. If that person is travelling at what they think is safe but haven't seen you because they aren't looking that far ahead or saccadic masking then you are screwed
I’m personally looking forward to these being introduced and in time wider technology enforcement of fast (ie too fast for the location and circumstance) and frankly crap driving.
I live on the outskirts of a big city on a main road, 30mph limit on a shallow bend. Two primary schools within a two minute walk. But as we’re the last houses before open countryside (albeit with a 40mph limit), the road is basically a racetrack heading in to and out of the Peak District. My house and neighbours combined have had our cars crashed in to a total of seven times so far this year and it’s frankly just depressing sitting in the front room watching cockwombles flooring it every day.
Somewhat perversely the council have put a pedestrian crossing in further down the road where a child was killed and painted double reds outside one of the schools and told me that they should slow drivers down. Cobblers.
Anyway, rant over, I can’t wait for a large number of drivers who don’t look beyond 5m of their front number plate to be dragged off the road.
It's staggering how many people on a cycling forum are willing to argue for antisocial driving. Bring on the restrictive technology.
It’s staggering how many people on a cycling forum are willing to argue for antisocial driving.
I do fins this quite astonishing on here the anti cyclist pro car attitude. Try suggesting we should join the rest of europe in having presumed liability for car drivers who drive into cyclists
do fins this quite astonishing on here the anti cyclist pro car attitude
It's not that mental when you consider that the majority on here believe the roads are too dangerous but in the same breath like to make progress on the way to the trail centre #irony
I do fins this quite astonishing on here the anti cyclist pro car attitude.
It's not specifically an anti-cyclist attitude. You're extrapolating that presumably because you want to argue about it, either consciously or not.
I think there are people who perhaps can only see driving issues from the behind the wheel perspective, and cycling issues from the in the saddle perspective; but it's pretty common for humans generally to be unable to join two different perspectices together, it happens in all areas but commonly in motoring. For example, people complaining about the traffic whilst sitting in traffic in their cars.
Anti road safety then .
+/- same thing just encompasses a wider group of vulnerable users.
For a huge number of folk who ride bikes, there is no more overlap between car driving and bike riding than there is between car driving and canoe paddling or skiing. They seem them as two quite distinct activities that take place in different environments.
Most people don't do things that they consider unsafe though. The problem is that they don't consider driving fast to be unsafe, despite the above.
Another key benefit to speed limits is that it's habit forming. If you always drive at 70 on motorways it becomes normal and you don't get impatient. If you think you can go faster whenever you want you start to look for opportunities to do so and you resent not being able to. And being impatient is a bad thing when driving.
I know this because I've been through it myself. But I realised that it's anti-social, more dangerous, and worse for the environment. So I stopped.
In a canoe on the river Tarn the other day I saw and was in as many collisions as in a lifetime of driving. In ski resorts you'll see the people skiing agressively getting into stereotypically aggressive driver cars and driving badly, just like an MTB trail center. Different activities but the same behaviour and attitudes from the same quite small number of people. And some of them post here. 🙂
Just my 2p, but I think that the more vociferously someone objects to a compulsory speed limiter the more likely they are to actually need it.
I know this because I’ve been through it myself. But I realised that it’s anti-social, more dangerous, and worse for the environment. So I stopped.
You seem quite happy to redline your Merc though 😉
I'd be perfectly happy if technology was put in place to limit vehicles to the speed limit for the road. It's not going to magically stop all accidents but would reduce them and reduce the severity of many too as well as having positive environmental benefits.
Edit
Oh, and if it's possible to override the technology have all instances where this happen centrally recorded. Do it x number of times, get a driving ban and be made to take your test again. Have some kind of biometric analysis in the car so there is no doubt who was driving at the time.
I knew someone would brinf that Merc thread up.
The thing is that if we're wrong and driving as fast as you see fit isn't dangerous, some people will be literally a few minutes slower at their destination. If we're right and it does cause accidents, then lives will be saved.
Where did you gain that understanding? Pistonheads?
And yet, I've wholly provided as much evidence to back up my understanding as you have yours.
I do fins this quite astonishing on here the anti cyclist pro car attitude.
For clarity,
I'm not anti- anything here (and I'm baffled as to why you think anyone is in this thread). I'm pro- any form of transport, in no particular order I'm variously a road cyclist, a mountain biker, a car driver, a pedestrian, a hiker. I'm a lapsed motorcyclist and a lapsed rock climber. I've piloted a helicopter. I've jumped out of aeroplanes. I haven't yet ridden a horse but I'd love to give it a go.
When I was young and stupid I drove everywhere like I'd stolen it, but these days I very rarely break speed limits. Doesn't mean I agree with them though, some seem ridiculously low and some seem ridiculously high. Which is why I asked the question, and I was then of course astonished to find that whilst plenty were quick to tell me I was wrong, no-one could actually answer it. Guess I must be new here too.
