Average speed cameras work. Are they even on ?

I have no idea where you people get your energy from 🙂

ahwiles – Member

we cannot let people decide their own speed limits.

It’s what every driver does, every time they drive. 😕

sbob – he means legally not just their own vehicle.

Er, how do YOU know when there’s diesel on the road then?

of course he may not (although experience would allow him to understand where it was more likely, and you can sometimes see a telltale rainbow on a wet road) but understanding what the resultant (usually innocuous) slide feels like so as to react appropriately and not panic can only be a good thing. Fwiw, dieselly roundabouts are probably one of the easiest and safest places to experience the cornering limits of a four wheel vehicle. (Just don’t try it on a bike!)

Thank you. Yet another example of ignoring common sense and simple logic in order to justify an unjustifiable position. It’s blatant common sense that speed limits prevent accidents by enforcing standardised driving behaviour, it’s the same principle as everyone driving on the same side of the road. Although to use the warped logic of the anti-limit brigade, this shouldn’t be necessary either as long as everyone has done a course in advanced avoidance of oncoming traffic.

Absolute lunacy – don’t try and stretch the truth. All we are saying is that increasing driver training plays the biggest part in road safety, not rules or speed limits.

Just look at India (or many other countries). There are still plenty of rules of the road, plenty of speed limits in place and mostly the speeds are far slower than the UK yet there are many more accidents. Okay so the poor roads and standards of some vehicles play their part, but the main cause for their huge fatality rate is poor driving and poor driver training.

Are you going to have the balls to do that now?

I wasn’t aware balls were required for arguing with strangers on an internet forum? In fact isn’t that the very purpose of them?

Anyway, at no point have I said that doing an advanced driving course is a bad thing, and I think I may have even said that people who have are indeed better/safer drivers. My point, which was obviously missed, is that even though this is the case, it doesn’t qualify them to ignore speed limits or other road laws, and to suggest otherwise is an exercise in self-justification to gain acceptance for otherwise unjustifiable actions.

ahwiles – Member

it’s a limit, not a target.

I’ve already pointed out why this is incorrect. 🙂

xiphon – Member

sbob – he means legally not just their own vehicle.

ie: ‘well i thought it was safe’ is not a solid legal defence.

Apropos of nothing, this is an interesting read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/9272478/Speed-cameras-20-years-on.html

It’s what every driver does, every time they drive.

No, you decide your speed, but some of us keep to an upper limit for the sake of safety, economy, and predictability.

ahwiles – Member

2000 people are killed every year by motor vehicles, the least we can do is question our national driving behaviour, which clearly sucks.

Although there is always room for improvement, we currently have some of the safest roads in the world.

How did you conclude it was ‘safe’ ?

No major accidents when it was a 70 limit, no junctions, plenty of width, gentle bends. The fact that further up the road it is still a 70 limit despite being worse on all of those factors (including a fatal accident on one of the bends) – and it seems nobody on here would describe me as a loon for doing 57mph on that bit.

it’s the belief that you can interpret speed-limits to suit yourself that leads me to maintain my ‘dangerous loon’ assessment.

Really? So driving at a speed which is safe makes me a dangerous loon, just because of a sign by the side of the road? We’re back to suggesting that those people who don’t use their brains at all when driving are safer, aren’t we?

ahwiles – Member

well done you.
i’m sure you’re an excellent driver, do you mind keeping your exuberance to the track?

🙄
You really haven’t a clue what advanced driving is about, have you?
I guarantee that there will be situations (probably many) where I would be driving more slowly than you, because of my training.
Have a think about that.
Then go and check out your local IAM group.

back to the basics:

it’s easy, and safer to obey speed limits – if you’re ‘safe’ at 60, you’ll* be safer at 50.

at best: we can save a lot of lives, and make the world a nicer place.

at worst: it’s a minor inconvenience.

sbob – Member

You really haven’t a clue what advanced driving is about, have you?

i don’t know, i was replying to a man calling himself ‘rebel’ who is suggesting that speeding can be safe, fun, and up to him – because he’s an ‘advanced’ driver.

no need to get personal.

if you’re ‘safe’ at 60, you’ll* be safer at 50

Shall I send the bloke with the red flag now, or can you wait?

I guarantee that there will be situations (probably many) where I would be driving more slowly than you, because of my training.

Again, you’re completely missing the point of this debate. It’s not a campaign against advanced driving. It’s a simple rejection of the view, and the ridiculous justifications presented to defend it, that being an advanced driver means you should be able to drive faster than the speed limits.

dazh – Member

As I said a couple of pages back. The fact that you may be a safer/better driver at speed is irrelevant. Speed limits are not just about reducing speed and mitigating the severity of crashes, they are also about creating a standard and predictable environment on the roads which helps to prevent crashes. Do you accept this point?

That’s an extremely dangerous path to go down. Do I need to point out why or would you like to have a little think about it?

aracer – Member

Shall I send the bloke with the red flag now, or can you wait?

i’m very patient 🙂

From Cougar’s article

The evidence they reduce accidents seems overwhelming. Since the introduction of speed cameras, deaths on Britain’s roads have halved from 4,229 in 1992 to 1,850 in 2009, the most recent figures. Of course road safety has improved in many other ways, but plenty of individual trials have proved the effectiveness of cameras.

So reduction in speeding due to cameras had an ‘overwhelming’ effect on deaths on the road.

What was that about speed not being a factor?

If you can be safer at 50, you’re not safe at 60 at all.

sbob – Member

That’s an extremely dangerous path to go down. Do I need to point out why or would you like to have a little think about it?

indulge me…

Cougar – Moderator

If you can be safer at 50, you’re not safe at 60 at all.

quite.

indulge me…

More warped logic, coming right up 🙂

molgrips – Member

Regardless of safety, there’s another point.

You can’t trust people to make their own judgement about speed. That’s why we have limits.

That doesn’t remove the need for people to make their own judgement about speed, which they do all the time, without incident. 💡

‘without incident’?

or ‘about 50 incidents a day – 5 of them fatal’

if you could all play nicely without me, i’m off for some lunch.

ahwiles – Member

hang on, are those numbers per mph reduction? – because that’s how i’m reading it – that’s massive!

**** me.

On a road with a 20mph speed, by what percentage decrease in accidents will a 20mph decrease in speed achieve, according to those stats?
😉

That doesn’t remove the need for people to make their own judgement about speed, which they do all the time, without incident.

Without incident? Really? No car crashes then?

Reducto ad absurdium, once again.

aracer – Member

7% according to the stats.

Less than 4%.

per mph…

Waaaaaaaaaaa! I don’t like the stats. Waaaaaaaaaaa.

Rebel12 is you name Matt? Do you like to surf? Are you teh awesum?

Is anyone prepared to admit they just like going fast? Without any of the obfuscation over training and safety.

I like going fast. I keep a lid on it though.

Doesn’t that increase your risk of rotational injury?

Well played Cougar, well played indeed.

😀

The limits of a car’s capabilities change constantly and dramatically due to changes in the road, so I’ll ask you again: how do you know where those limits are?

Can you not see the contradiction within that statement? By your own observation, you cannot know where the limits are, since they are constantly changing.

Maybe it would be safer to try not to drive anywhere near where those limits are likely to be. Unless you really want to, in which case, please take it to a track not the roads my kids might be cycling on.

dazh – Member

Again, you’re completely missing the point of this debate. It’s not a campaign against advanced driving. It’s a simple rejection of the view, and the ridiculous justifications presented to defend it, that being an advanced driver means you should be able to drive faster than the speed limits.

No, you’re missing the many posts made that suggest that advanced drivers are a bunch of speed hungry boy racers.
Go back and read the thread, the posts are still there.

dazh – Member

More warped logic, coming right up

Still waiting to hear your unwarped logic.
Waiting…

ahwiles – Member

‘without incident’?

or ‘about 50 incidents a day – 5 of them fatal’

Yes, without incident.
In your lifetime, the chances are that you will never be involved in a serious accident.
If that wasn’t the case then none of us would use the roads.
You don’t have to take my word for it, look up KSIs per mile travelled and the proof is there for you to see.

unwarped logic: it’s quite a good idea if everyone tries to drive at sort of roughly the same speed. to make lane changing easier, and that sort of thing.

you said that would be ‘extremely dangerous’…

Speed limits are not just about reducing speed and mitigating the severity of crashes, they are also about creating a standard and predictable environment on the roads which helps to prevent crashes.

That’s an extremely dangerous path to go down. Do I need to point out why or would you like to have a little think about it?