A lot of ifs, but what do you base this on?

Common sense? (-:

It’s my personal opinion is all. What are you suggesting I’m wrong about, and what do you base that on?

My experience is extensive though

I have a little.

and of more value than yours.

Possibly, but how can you be so sure?

The second thing is that I don’t actually care for your opinion on the matter either.

Why should you? I was just looking for some rationale behind the idea that increased speed would not affect the incidence of collisions, as this seems counterintuitive to me. I was hoping to gain some further understanding; your experience appears enough to convince you – my intention was not to irritate anyone.

It’s my personal opinion is all. What are you suggesting I’m wrong about, and what do you base that on?

I wouldn’t question the need for extra space and attention. But surely the faster you go, your reaction times will be the same, friction forces will be the same but centripetal forces increased, time until you reach a hazard after going around a corner etc reduced, braking distances increased. In my limited experience people drive as if nothing will go wrong- thankfully speed limits and the Highway Code reduce the likelihood that things will go wrong, but they always will and the faster people travel the more likely it is collisions etc will happen.

.i might have been wiped out by someone doing less than the limit but changing lanes without looking

Hmm.. so in this case – whose fault would the resulting accident be?

What if the car driver was looking for a nearby with say, a closing speed of 10mph, and didn’t see the distant bike doing 120mph and closing at 50mph?

Driverless cars will solve the problem long before a political/legislative solution can be found.

Cougar – I suspect most speeding revenue comes from mobile vans not fixed cameras. In theory those could capture mobile phone, seatbelt, tax, insurance, safe distance and even defective light offences. As I understand it the reason they don’t is they only get to keep and reinvest speeding fines. Of course the public hate the idea that fines are revenue machines – but given the cost of KSI and fatalities on society, I’m not sure we need to recycle them money directly into enforcement vans; it’s just a case of understanding economics.

scotroutes – Member

We could increase speeding fines ten-fold. That should generate some extra income.

It would be nice if the police would actually prosecute drivers for causing accidents.
Twice I’ve had cars pile into the back of me, writing my car off in the process because by their own admission they simply weren’t looking at the road ahead and nothing was done to punish the driver.

In theory those could capture mobile phone, seatbelt, tax, insurance, safe distance and even defective light offences. As I understand it the reason they don’t is they only get to keep and reinvest speeding fines

I doubt the images are good enough quality for prosecuting mobile phones. First it’s got to be clear that the driver is holding something then it has to be clear that it’s a phone, then it’s got to be clear the phone is being used. Still images probably not enough.

For example

The court heard from PC Elaine Turner who was in a police van with two colleagues at the time of the alleged incident.

PC Turner claimed she saw Sarwar driving his car towards their van.

Asked if she noticed anything about the driver she said: “He had a mobile phone at his right ear.”

The constable they turned the van around and went to speak to Sarwar, who had pulled into a lay by.

In evidence Sarwar told the court that he didn’t answer the phone until he had pulled over.

J P John Lawless ruled that there was an “insufficiency of corroborative evidence” and returned a not proven verdict.

http://www.heraldscotland.comnews13135807.Labour_MP_cleared_of_using_phone_at_wheel/

Or the case of comedian Jimmy Carr who was charged with using a mobile phone whilst driving when he had in fact been using the phone to record a joke.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/6350399/Jimmy-Carr-cleared-of-using-mobile-while-driving.html

I wouldn’t question the need for extra space and attention. But surely the faster you go, your reaction times will be the same, friction forces will be the same but centripetal forces increased, time until you reach a hazard after going around a corner etc reduced, braking distances increased.

Correct, of course. But if you don’t account for that then you’re no longer driving to the conditions. Increased speed requires increased braking distances, and if you’re going round a corner at a speed which doesn’t allow for surprises you can’t anticipate or react to in time to then you’re going too fast.

I’m not advocating driving everywhere at mach 1, rather that if you’re driving at a speed appropriate to the traffic and conditions and are aware of your surroundings then you won’t have a collision. If you do hit something, you weren’t doing one of those things.

Driving in excess of a one-size-fits-all posted limit isn’t necessarily dangerous (though it can be and of course it’s breaking the law), driving in excess of what’s appropriate for the conditions is. If you drive at 50 in a 60 one one day, and then they reduce the limit and you drive the same road at 50 in a 40 the next, were you safe one day and dangerous the next? In and of itself, of course not – the only thing that’s changed is your speed differential with other road users, and we’re back to “driving to the conditions” again.

(Point of note, I used to drive everywhere like my head was on fire; these days I rarely break the posted limit. Motorways are about the only time I do, and even then it’s not by much – indicated 80-85 so probably around 75mph in actuality.)

But Cougar, you’re arguing for personal responsibility. And given how ****-witted most people are when it comes to driving, I can’t possibly agree with that principle.

molgrips – Member

But Cougar, you’re arguing for personal responsibility. And given how ****-witted most people are when it comes to driving, I can’t possibly agree with that principle.

And yet millions of people manage to drive without incident every day.
We need to increase the levels of personal responsibility and adjust driver attitudes with it, not molly coddle drivers into a false sense of safety.

ETA: and get more of you bastards off the roads, stop being so selfish and lazy. Even walking home at 23:30 last night, the fumes from traffic were ‘orrible. 👿

molly coddle drivers into a false sense of safety.

I don’t think speed limits do that.

molgrips – Member

I don’t think speed limits do that.

In combination with the amount of enforcement, I believe it does.

We’ll prosecute a driver for travelling 4mph over an arbitrary limit without incident, yet we won’t prosecute a driver who is so inattentive that they actually cause a collision.
What sort of message do you think that gives people?

My OH is learning to ride a bike (well, a beast of a scooter) at the moment. I’ve told her, the single most important skill on the roads is awareness. If you’re looking around you, scanning, seeking, thinking ahead, anticipating what potential erratic stupidity might occur next, reading the road conditions, looking ahead, then anything else is gravy. If everyone did this, we wouldn’t have collisions.

The problem is that we’re not in an ideal world. Almost 50% of the population are of below average intelligence. So we have to design roads to work both for competent drivers and for shitwits.

Wise words and equally applicable to the Grayling thread.

But Cougar, you’re arguing for personal responsibility. And given how ****-witted most people are when it comes to driving, I can’t possibly agree with that principle.

You’re arguing against people taking responsibility for their actions? Wow.

The solution there is to get the shitwits off the road. Advanced test to be passed two years after the basic one, and retests every ten years, maybe? Driving is a privilege not a right, if you can’t drive in a straight line without hitting something and need signs to tell you not to drive at 60mph past a school, take the ****ing bus.

We’ll prosecute a driver for travelling 4mph over an arbitrary limit without incident, yet we won’t prosecute a driver who is so inattentive that they actually cause a collision.
What sort of message do you think that gives people?

Amen to that.

@Cougar I hear what you are saying and have a little sympathy with your position but far too many drivers have an overconfident view of their driving ability (IMHO). I am not convinced they all drive as well as you appear to [there was a member on here recently, I think he was a spy 😉 who did not fill me with confidence in his driving]. Accidents do occur, surely a large number of these by people mis-judging something fundamental. Also, aside from the extra risks, being the delicate flower that I am, I would rather cycle on roads beside people driving at 40 mph than say 60 mph. I find the extra noise also unpleasant – but heh ho, I have no say in the way things are.

Then again if I did, I’d change all the speed limits to km/h – no need for new signs

far too many drivers have an overconfident view of their driving ability (IMHO)

I imagine that describes pretty much every driver, TBF.

Biggest primary cause of KSIs is inattention.
Speeding is primary cause in approx 4%.
The vast majority of accidents happen within the limit.
Worth a think.
And before molgrips jumps in to point out that speed will make any accident worse, think about what a small % of accidents that would affect.

And before molgrips jumps in to point out that speed will make any accident worse, think about what a small % of accidents that would affect.

The ones most likely to have a serious outcome?

Speeding is primary cause in approx 4%.

And in how many does more speed make the consequences worse?

(All of them)

And in how many does more speed make the consequences worse?

I wonder if there are any stats to show the number of accidents avoided because of speed. You know the ones where a muppet would have t-boned you on a roundabout but a heavy does of right foot has got you out of trouble. Or being able to accelerate on the motorway has got you away from the muppet who would have hit you in their mirrorless lane change.
Just thinking aloud.

poly – Member

The ones most likely to have a serious outcome?

A tiny fraction of the ones that have a serious outcome (KSIs).
I thought my point was clear…

molgrips – Member

And in how many does more speed make the consequences worse?

(All of them)

So… we… shouldn’t… drive…?

NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT!!! 😀
GET ORFFF MOI ROADS!!!

I wonder if there are any stats to show the number of accidents avoided because of speed. You know the ones where a muppet would have t-boned you on a roundabout but a heavy does of right foot has got you out of trouble. Or being able to accelerate on the motorway has got you away from the muppet who would have hit you in their mirrorless lane change.

Almost never, in my experience.

However I have avoided many many accidents because my speed was conservative and I was able to slow down in time.

But that’s driving to the conditions, which everyone is in favour of. The difference is that the people who like driving fast think that all drivers are sensible and responsible enough to make a good choice on their own.

I’ve no idea where on earth they get that idea from tbh. It’s almost as if they are scrabbling around for justification for their own desires…

For what it’s worth, I like driving fast. But I don’t do it.

Almost never, in my experience.

However I have avoided many many accidents because my speed was conservative and I was able to slow down in time.
Well I think it’s less than a couple of weeks since the muppet in the wrong lane on the roundabout tried to hit me. I was driving with the flow, there was a truck behind me which would have been a bit nasty if I had braked, leaving the only option of caning it. The prick who nearly hit me wasn’t driving with excessive speed either.
I feel that it’s idiots who have accidents and not necessarily faster drivers.
Make of that what you will.

We’ll prosecute a driver for travelling 4mph over an arbitrary limit without incident, yet we won’t prosecute a driver who is so inattentive that they actually cause a collision.

Do you think that’s a deliberate decision?

It’s not. The reason is that speed is easy to measure, but attentiveness is not. We have a rule that says you must not go faster than the limit. This is very obviously needed, because otherwise people would drive much too fast with impunity.

We can’t prosecute people for simply not paying attention – thats impossible. When accidents are caused, then they go to court, and they go through a completely different process with different results. It’s how the justice system works, unfortunately. It is NOT a conscious decision to prioritise speed over paying attention. That’s absurd.

We prosecute people for going 4mph over a speed limit (which is not arbitrary, by the way) because it’s easy. But it’s equally easy to stay under the speed limit. You, and others, are simply pissing and moaning because you are impatient and want to drive faster.

It is absoultely 100% definitively safer to go slower, because there is less energy involed. It’s also more pleasant for everyone else on the road, and uses up fewer natural resources and generates less pollution. This is irrefutable. But of course, too slow and it’ll take too long to get places. So we strike a balance, and attempt to enforce consitstent behaviour. We have to work this way, we have no other choice.

You don’t have a leg to stand on I’m afraid. Your main argument seems to be that either the police care more about speed than whether or not you are paying attention; or that by having speed limits it somehow encourages people not to pay attemtion. I can’t accept either of those two arguments. Paying attention is something people do, or don’t do, independent of how fast they feel comfortable driving.

I feel that it’s idiots who have accidents and not necessarily faster drivers.

I agree with that. Let me be clear – I am not saying that speed is the main cause of accidents, and that slow drivers are always safer drivers.

Roll on driverless cars.

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It’s not like they’re subtly camouflaged!

And before molgrips jumps in to point out that speed will make any accident worse, think about what a small % of accidents that would affect.

Every one involving a pedestrian or cyclist.

Roll on driverless cars.

Pointless unless everyone is in them, and whilst not implausible that won’t happen in your kids’ lifetime.

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It’s not like they’re subtly camouflaged!

Not necessarily.
They are quite subtle in their camouflage as they tend to look like many Highway Maintenance vehicles with all those chevrons and that.
As a driver I will register a parked vehicle, whether it is a going to affect me directly or not. I have yet to hit one so I’m comfortable with my observational skills. But I am not going to waste time trying to differentiate between a maintenance vehicle or a secret plod revenue generator, just whether I think it’s parked or about to pull out.
That’s always a threat as they park in the most ridiculous (dangerous) places too, so probably add to the dangers of the road. 🙄

But I am not going to waste time trying to differentiate between a maintenance vehicle or a secret plod revenue generator

Me neither. I just stick to the speed limits. Never realised how good of a driver I must be to be able to do this 🙂

I treat everyone else on the road as an incompetent fool who hasn’t seen me nor anyone else. And when riding motorbikes also assume they’ll run into me just for the hell of it.

So far it’s enabled me to survive +35 years of driving cars, riding motorbikes and bikes and walking pretty much unscathed – and that includes tens of thousands of miles at way above the NSL/motorway speed limits and the best part of hundred thousand miles riding big motorbikes (mainly commuting in/around the home counties).

Me neither. I just stick to the speed limits. Never realised how good of a driver I must be to be able to do this

No, you’ve just got a caravan. ‘Nuff said. 😛

deleted

scotroutes – Member

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It’s not like they’re subtly camouflaged!

100% true Scotroutes – or you were going so fast you couldn’t slow down in time.

My two speeding tickets this year were on a trunk road that is mainly NSL but I was on a 50 mph section that I missed the signs for – so got done for 60 in a 50 by a fixed camera that I saw but thought I was OK. Inattention. the other one was on a dual carriageway section as I booted it past a line of trucks. didn’t see the camera ( mobile) soon enough to slow enough. too much speed and poor observation 87 in a 70

too much speed and poor observation 87 in a 70

Surely that’s not inattention? – it’s just breaking the NSL.

NOpe – I could and should have seen the camera earlier. Of course the best way not to get speeding tickets is not to speed

But you were doing 87.

I’m an increasely non approved way I tend to make progress but if I get caught I’m the one to blame it’s my choice.
Yes I get fed up stuck behind the retard doing 40 in a 60 and I will pass them and speed to do so but when I get a ticket I can’t blame the bumbling idiot it’s was my choice.

As for limit changes on my regular trips some come down but some have also risen

Retard is not a cool word orangeboy.
Anyways.

NOpe – I could and should have seen the camera earlier. Of course the best way not to get speeding tickets is not to speed

That and scotroutes raises an interesting point. At speed one will focus on different areas of the road.
I earned my 3 points (or driver awareness course) on a dual carriageway, coming over a crest, onto a roundabout (where one is naturally looking to the right) on an industrial estate.
Driving at the prescribed 40mph one would and indeed should have taken in all the sights, including the motorway highway maintenance patrol vehicle parked on the left. But at 47mph, neither man nor beast were in danger, nor children, nor baby robins. An errant puppy might have, though.
These vehicles are clearly placed in areas to make the most money, irrespective of the threat to life.