Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
yep everytime, let them sit and get bored
fair point, but do they actually change that undesirable behaviour? Or does it just teach them to slow for cameras and carry on driving poorly? A cultural shift towards ride in ones standard of driving is what is needed.
I agree completely. In the meantime technology can help
Every car should have a taser connected to the drivers seat and it should be activated by a satnav, triggering a shock in the drivers genital area when the speed limit zones in the onboard gps database are exceeded by the vehicles speed, also proximity indicators that detect cyclists within 3 feet when the car is traveling at 10mph or greater should automatically trigger a tazering.
I'm sure STW's hive mind can come up with some more.
"[i]fair point, but do they actually change that undesirable behaviour? Or does it just teach them to slow for cameras and carry on driving poorly? A cultural shift towards ride in ones standard of driving is what is needed. [/i]"
Agreed. But I take pleasure from these people being stung for a pocketful of cash. More than that, though, I find the degree to which people subsequently complain about being stung makes for a tremendously useful Pillock Barometer 🙂
Indeed it was, surprised it wasn't in there earlier to be honest.
it was an open goal
I think I got my toe on it.
triggering a shock in the drivers genital area
are we talking about speeders or flashers?
How do you feel about red-light cameras? Some of them will check your speed too.
Damn good idea, and for the record, I'm not completely averse to speed cameras either. I just don't like the way that speed cameras seem to have erroded the enforcement of good driving standards generally. Maybe you're right, not the political will or money to have intelligent enforcement of our roads, but I think that that is a crying shame.
You say
I hope the careless eejit that crashes into me is driving under the (arbitrary speed limit)
Fair point, but as a pedestrian I'd rather get nearly hit by a driver who was driving moderately over the speed limit but was paying full attention to the road and hazards present and therefor was in a possition to stop or avoid me as I stepped out into the road without looking, than be hit bu a dopey driver tootling along at 25mph whilst texting on his phone, who didn't even brake because the first time he saw me was as I dissappeared over his roof.
EDIT; I meant pride not ride, DD, flippin iPhone. And I don't know how, but speed cameras and ignoring other bad driving is not how. We should look on the older generation maybe, there was more pride back then. Also I for one would support regular recertification for driving licences, GASAFE (ne Corgi) engineers have to, and the stuff they work with is a lot less deadly (statistically speaking) than the humble car...
I think I got my toe on it.
smut!
"[i]a dopey driver tootling along at 25mph whilst texting on his phone, who didn't even brake because the first time he saw me was as I dissappeared over his roof[/i]"
Tangential point, but I see more and more people using phones in cars these days. It seems to be getting close to daily that I see someone drifting off the road and swerving back on and, surprise, they've got some gadget they're fiddling with.
Really needs to be cracked down on.
Would you.rather the dopey driver was going 35 or 25?
Fair point, but as a pedestrian I'd rather get nearly hit by a driver who was driving moderately over the speed limit but was paying full attention to the road and hazards present and therefor was in a possition to stop or avoid me as I stepped out into the road without looking, than be hit bu a dopey driver tootling along at 25mph whilst texting on his phone, who didn't even brake because the first time he saw me was as I dissappeared over his roof.
But the careless eejit will still be careless...that's my point. mccruiskeen had a good plan for improving driving standards. What's yours? Because of the careless eejit, we have to have limits. You can't simply say that we should all be allowed to drive at whatever speed we want, [i]as long as we're careful[/i] because the careless eejit that thinks he's not careless at all, because that's the very nature of carelessness will then drive faster than normal and kill someone instead of injuring them.
So how do we increase the carefulness of careless eejits?
Do you flash other drivers when you see a speed camera van?
Well I would but I'd end up crashing trying to pull my trollies down and showing my arse to oncoming vehicles.
a moot point I think, both very likely to be fatal. The only reason that thirty is considered survivable is because they are taking into account reaction and braking time of an alert driver, so a [i]much[/i] lower impact speed, if an impact at all.Would you.rather the dopey driver was going 35 or 25?
Tangential point, but I see more and more people using phones in cars these days.
Very true! It seems that after an initial no tolerance period, the bizzies have given up on this...or as I suspect more strongly, everyone thinks he or she can get away with it now after the indignant atmosphere that accompanied the legislation.
Not a moot point at all. Slower speed. More time for all involved to react. Fact.
"[i]Not a moot point at all. Slower speed. More time for all involved to react. Fact.[/i]"
The example was a driver not seeing a pedestrian who in turn didn't see the driver. Reactions are, in that specific example, indeed moot.
It's a moot point if I'm still dead, if you ask me. Which you did I think?
Yes of course I do, doesn't everyone who isn't a sociopathic ****er?
"[i]Yes of course I speed, doesn't everyone who is a sociopathic ****? [/i]"
FTFY 😉
pottsathome - MemberYeah i flash mainly at other vans but that s just a brotherhood thing. I need to ask this for all the people saying they never do flash and i hope they all get caught. Do you never ever ever speed or maybe chance a red light or answer a quick call or even nip down the shop without a seatbelt. Maybe you are all saints but i doubt it
Brotherhood of what - ignorant idiots with no appreciation of the potential of their actions or inactions?
And no to all of your apparently rhetorical questions. 'Answer a quick call'?' WTF is that important? If that makes me a 'high horse' person Brycy, so be it. Given that this is a cycling forum I, erm, actually ride a bike most of the time rather than drive.
They catch people ... who [s]are driving so fast that they can't slow down even to the speed limit as they[/s] come round a corner and see a copper with a hairdryer or a massive fluorescent van who's already nabbed them before they've had a chance to slow down (for less than the speed limit used to be on that bit of road, before they reduced it for no obvious or valid reason).
FTFY
Never flash to warn.
More traffic police, fewer cameras please.
speed cameras...target one...aspect of (?) bad driving...No substitute for good, observant and fair traffic coppers, which have steadily decreased in numbers since the advent of cameras...
More traffic police paid for by more traffic cameras, then? Or, to put it another way, how much extra tax did you want to pay for more traffic police?
Of course KSIs are random by their nature
KSIs are random by their nature? So someone is just as likely to be killed or seriously injured [url= http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=walworth+road,+london&ll=51.49332,-0.099652&spn=0.000957,0.002411&hnear=Walworth+Rd,+London,+United+Kingdom&gl=au&t=m&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.493278,-0.099523&panoid=CDmNQ0NXt4qH86OOI-yZ9Q&cbp=12,288.53,,0,12.01 ]here[/url] as [url= http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=ben+nevis,+scotland&hl=en&ll=56.560182,-4.735143&spn=0.006775,0.01929&sll=51.493278,-0.099523&sspn=0.000964,0.002411&vpsrc=6&gl=au&hnear=Ben+Nevis&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=56.560182,-4.735143&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-48048518 ]here[/url]? That seems a little unlikely. Perhaps I've misunderstood something? It wouldn't be the first time.
They're rarely on corners.
"[i]before they've had a chance to slow down[/i]"
Nah - tush and pish. You get a perfectly good chance to slow down when you approach the big white sign with the red circle and the number in it.
KSIs are random by their nature? So someone is just as likely to be killed or seriously injured here as here? That seems a little unlikely. Perhaps I've misunderstood something? It wouldn't be the first time.
It was a different end of the discussion - I'm interested more in when a number of KSIs at a stretch of road becomes a significant enough statistic to justify a speed camera. It seems that in 2002 it was changed to 4 but aracer reckons that has since changed and that there was even a radius around that stretch where there had been 4 KSIs where you could plonk a camera wherever you wanted. (I find this second part hard to believe but lack the interest anymore to google it). I didn't bother clicking on your links because I've lost interest in the thread.
EDIT: I meant "random" in that we cannot predict when they will happen - we can estimate the number over any given time from historical data, but not when. As we all know, accidents (for want of a better word) occur on stretches of road where the probability of them occurring might be very low and they sometimes never occur (or very infrequently) where the probability might be very high.
What it comes down to (i.e. the statistical argument) is that one person will use the maths to justify speed cameras, while someone else will use it to show that they have no effect on the likelihood of anymore KSIs occurring.
I'm in the camp of them being necessary as long as people continue to drive like tossers. Nothiwithstanding, that everybody on STW is at a level that the AIM could only dream of. 🙂
Aracer, How does regression to the mean explain lower speeds in this context?
Aracer, How does regression to the mean explain lower speeds in this context?
Best of Luck with an answer to that question.
You might get a FTFY though. 🙂
Have to agree with the people who said general shit driving may be worse than just speeding. I mean, I'm not a great driver but at least I can indicate and keep it between the lines, which is more than a lot of folk.
I'm usually [i]flying[/i] along and I can still manage it!
But the careless eejit will still be careless...that's my point. mccruiskeen had a good plan for improving driving standards. What's yours? Because of the careless eejit, we have to have limits. You can't simply say that we should all be allowed to drive at whatever speed we want, as long as we're careful because the careless eejit that thinks he's not careless at all, because that's the very nature of carelessness will then drive faster than normal and kill someone instead of injuring them.
DD, see my edit, sorry. I completely agree with the eejit hypothesis, for what it's worth, I always drive like every other road user is. Having to legislate for the lowest common denominator is why we need speed limits. Which I'm certainly not arguing against. How would I change the careless driver culture? For what it's worth, I'd make the driving test harder, introduce compulsory recertification every two or three years and make having a driving licence something to be proud of, rather than a god given right. At recerts people would have to demonstrate a high level of anticipation and planning in their driving, and if at any point on the road someone demonstrated a failure of anticipation or planning, their licence would be removed pending a retest. Fringe benifits, quieter roads, and a regained pride in the not to be underestimated skill required to drive a motor vehicle safely restored.
But there would be no public support because most of them would struggle to keep their licenses...
EDIT;
I'm in the camp of them being necessary as long as people continue to drive like tossers. Nothiwithstanding, that everybody on STW is at a level that the AIM could only dream of.
See I completely agree, [i]except[/i] that I don't think speed cameras make any difference to people driving like tossers at all. The only sort that could possibly have an effect would be some sky et style all seeing traffic speed monitoring system that could punish for any speed infringement, no matter where or when. And even then, people would still drive like tossers, but maybe more often within the speed limit.
Yes - Because I try not to be a **** everyday
oh, and I suppose everyone with a license on here has never drifted over the speed limit in their life?
EDIT: I meant "random" in that we cannot predict when they will happen - we can estimate the number over any given time from historical data, but not when. As we all know, accidents (for want of a better word) occur on stretches of road where the probability of them occurring might be very low and they sometimes never occur (or very infrequently) where the probability might be very high.
Stochastic then. Yes
In short, yes. 😛
EDIT: I think. 😕 Tired. Bed.
I was just trying to explain the context of my comment to konabunny.
Aracer, How does regression to the mean explain lower speeds in this context?
You're asking me how the factor which explains one thing explains something completely unrelated, which I've made no claim for it explaining?
What do you think explains the lower speeds at camera sites?
Well, i 'm sure aracer will be along soon to disabuse us of our misconceptions around inferential statistics
Ok, i apologise, i had made some assumptions relating speed to accidents. but do explain how regression to the mean explains the reduction in number of accidents, without statistics?
What do you think explains the lower speeds at camera sites?
Erm.. People slowing down?
do explain how regression to the mean explains the reduction in number of accidents.
I thought you were the statistician? Given the requirement for a number of accidents in a time period before a camera is put in place...
Edit: I see your edit about not using stats - how am I supposed to explain a statistical issue without using stats?
Erm.. People slowing down?
I was hoping for a slightly more in depth analysis than that from you!
I thought you were the statistician? Given the requirement for a number of accidents in a time period before a camera is put in place...
No, not me. But even if it were, don't let that stop you.
No, not me.
Yet you presented at ICOTS? 😯
Edit: I see your edit about not using stats - how am I supposed to explain a statistical issue without using stats?
Ok, use stats if you really need to.
No, not me.
Yet you presented at ICOTS?
Yes
So what did you present at a scientific conference about teaching stats that didn't require you to be a statistician then?
konabunny - Member
My quote:
More traffic police, fewer cameras please.
KB's response:
More traffic police paid for by more traffic cameras, then? Or, to put it another way, how much extra tax did you want to pay for more traffic police?
Er, non thanks. I'd like to pay the same proportion of tax to fund a decent traffic police presence as I did 20 years ago.
Didn't seem to be a problem then.
How about we take all the money that's being paid to private, profiteering speed camera 'partnerships' and put decent, intelligent and experienced traffic officers back on the road?
No, not me. But even if it were, don't let that stop you.
Well I'm sure if you can understand Utts you can cope with the concept of regression to the mean - GIYF.
As a habitual, constant speeder for around a decade, I've got no problem with the things tbh- other than the really well hidden ones, it's just a bad observation tax.
As for flashing oncoming drivers- is your first thought, when someone flashes you, "Uh oh- a speed camera?" Mine isn't. It's "Are you flashing me or some other guy? Do I know you? Do you think you know me? Are my headlights on? Are my headlights off? Is my car on fire? Are you flashing me out of anger? Should I pull out? Is my bike falling off the roofrack? and so on"
Unless you flash morse code "Watch out there's a speed camera" in which case, I'll be all over it.
.-- .- - -.-. .... --- ..- -  - .... . .-. . .----. ... .- ... .--. . . -..  -.-. .- -- . .-. .-
How about we take all the money that's being paid to private, profiteering speed camera 'partnerships' and put decent, intelligent and experienced traffic officers back on the road?
So we're agreed that speed cameras aren't about revenue raising, then?
and put [u]decent, intelligent[/u] and experienced traffic officers back on the road?
I see a flaw in your plan.
[img] http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2152 [/img]
I've never warned anyone and never will.
The average cams on the M60 catch 470 idiots a month. That I find hilarious.
Ok, if you don't know that's fine.
They would be 'scammeras' if they tricked you i.e. caught you driving under the limit and fiddled with their calibration.
If you drive over the limit your a big boy/girl and know the many risks of doing this so can't complain.
I too drive over the speed limit so if I was ever 'caught' it'd be a fair cop TBH.
Its not rocket science. Theres a camera van on a stretch of Snake Pass. Many people go for a 'hoon' down there however a family returning from a day at Fairholmes don't really want to have a head on with someone overtaking cars at great speed either do they?
The schizophrenia of STW
On another thread running at the same time as this many poster thought it right that a fare dodger on a train got assaulted, however catching people speeding is wrong?
Thousands killed on the roads every year but its OK to help people avoid being caught speeding?
No one dies as a result of fare dodging but its OK to assault a fare dodger?
TJ+1
Shut up TSY, TJ is talking nonsense again.
Stealing bikes is bad but how many people on here dabble in Coke or smoke weed?
Weed lines the pockets of ****less growers/criminals etc etc.
Selective liberal morality.
They would be 'scammeras' if they tricked you i.e. caught you driving under the limit and fiddled with their calibration.
Interesting story about that; I used to work at a small haulage firm, and we were sent an NIP for one of our lorries for 37 in a 30 zone. The driver disputed it and it did seem unlikely as the site was only about 50 yards from a t junction that the waggon would have pulled out from. We checked the tachograph, and the vehicle hadn't been over 30mph for the entire journey in question. A copy of the tacho was sent to the safety camera partnership and they dropped the matter like a hot potato, without actually admitting an error. A bloke from the car garage next door was also done on the same day, and wrote to them referring to our driver, but still ended up paying up, and taking the points.
v8ninety - MemberAh, KSIs. Killed OR seriously injured. I've attended a few of those that have been used to justify speed camera placement in my home town. Firstly, seriously injured? My arse. Precautionary trip to hospital usually.
The classification of injuries as used in the [url= http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/reported-road-casualties-gb-main-results-2010.html ]DfT Reported Road Casualties[/url] is defined in [url= http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/s20instructionsforthecom5094.pdf ]STATS20: Instructions for the Completion of Road Accident Reports (PDF)[/url] Section 3.9 of Annex 3 where it states:
Examples of 'Serious' injury are:
• Fracture
• Internal injury
• Severe cuts
• Crushing
• Burns (excluding friction burns)
• Concussion
• Severe general shock requiring hospital treatment
• Detention in hospital as an in-patient, either immediately or later
• Injuries to casualties who die 30 or more days after the accident from injuries sustained in that accident.
A [i]"Precautionary trip to hospital"[/i] should not be recorded as Serious Injury.
A "Precautionary trip to hospital" should not be recorded as Serious Injury.
Nevertheless...
I suspect they may use;
Severe general shock requiring hospital treatment
See, shock has a specific medical definition relating to compromise of the circulatory system through various factors, something that is almost universally misunderstood by the lay person. 'Severe general shock' [i]if used correctly[/i] would be extremely grave, but I suspect the category is used as a catch all for everyone who is a 'bit shaken up' and generally not safe to be left at the side of a road to arrange recovery and a lift home. Certainly not what I'd call seriously injured, anyway.
I suspect the category is used as a catch all for everyone who is a 'bit shaken up'
Wouldn't that fall into the final category which says:
[i]"(Persons who are merely shaken and who have no other injury should not be included unless they receive or appear to need medical treatment)."[/i]
I would say yes, but who's checking? The only quantifiable difference between those two categories without lengthy checking of the pt notes, is the trip to hospital. Of course a reasonable person not directly involved with the management of RTCs would assume that people in the second category would not be conveyed by emergency ambulance to an emergency department, wouldn't they?
But sadly, that is not the case.
Fair point. I suspect the police writing the STATS19 report [i]should[/i] get the notes checked, but I'd accept they may not always be that methodical, especially when they have [i]proper[/i] police work to do.
Couple of bullshit arguments appeared on here so thought I'd comment.
"I'd rather someone was speeding but concentrating than within the limit and not concentrating" speeding and lack of concentration are not mutually exclusive, indeed speeding can quite often be due to lack of concentration. See deadly's other stuff about careless driver not being careful shocker!
"Those for speed cameras have never broken the limit then?" Quite possibly, if I do ever speed and get caught, fined/points whatever, then I won't be bitching and moaning about it on here.
And of course proper police presence on the road would be nice aswell as speed cameras, does it have to be either or?
V8ninety most of your issues appear to be with the system being twisted/misused rather than the system itself (incorrect stats, dodgy speed cameras). Just saying like.
V8ninety most of your issues appear to be with the system being twisted/misused rather than the system itself
And very hypothetical, unsubstantiated arguments too.
if I do ever speed and get caught, fined/points whatever, then I won't be bitching and moaning about it on here.
No-one was.
proper police presence on the road would be nice aswell as speed cameras, does it have to be either or?
If we had the former, why would we need the latter?
Why is it that speeding such an acceptable crime?
It is so prevalent on my commute that you get aggro if you don't speed and it can be quite dangerous.
If it wasn't such an eyesore then I'd be quite happy with average speed cameras on EVERY major road.
Ok, if you don't know that's fine.
I know perfectly well, thanks. I thought you might do too. If you google "regression to the mean" (GIYF - Google Is Your Friend - since I apparently have to spell everything out to you as you're being deliberately thick), the first hit mentions speed cameras - I even gave a link earlier on this thread which took you there.
Or is this just an attempt to get me back because I asked previously asked for evidence you were unable (or as it later turned out in one case, just unwilling) to provide, even in a link? Well I've given you the link - click away.
I'm still wondering what you can possibly present at a conference on teaching stats without being a statistician (or having a pretty good understanding of the subject at the very least), but you've become strangely coy.
Why is it that speeding such an acceptable crime?
For a start, in the strictest sens it's not a crime - you don't get a criminal record for committing traffic offences.
Also because it's just so easy to push that pedal a little harder - there's no solid line you have to cross, unlike for instance stealing from a shop. That and the arbitrariness. I'd argue that the overhyping of speed as a road safety issue (see 1/3 of accidents claim, when the real figure is more like 7%), and the setting of speed limits that many people think inappropriate (eg 70 on motorways and 50 limits on roads which used to be 70, never have been accident blackspots and perfectly safe at 70 - guess where I've been nabbed...) has done a good job of discrediting the anti-speeding rhetoric.
Why is it that speeding such an acceptable crime?
Because rightly or wrongly there is a belief that current limits are often inappropriate and don't take into account conditional variations.
Should limits be the same for a modern ABS-equipped car as for a Ford Anglia with drum brakes? Should a single carriageway past a school have the same limit at 3pm as it does at 3am? Is it safe for me to do 70 on a motorway in freezing fog during rush hour? Is it dangerous for me be be doing 75 on an empty motorway?
Speed limits are necessary because we don't adequately educate people to judge conditions sensibly (and because even if we did, some people would drive inappropriately regardless). The problem is that the figures set are fairly arbitrary 'one size fits all' limits.
I'd be quite happy with average speed cameras on EVERY major road.
I'd have no problem with that so long as they were variable limit roads with the current restrictions clearly posted, opening the roads up when it's safe to drive faster and slowing them down as conditions require.
Also because it's just so easy to push that pedal a little harder - there's no solid line you have to cross, unlike for instance stealing from a shop.
Perhaps cars should be (forcibly) fitted with some kind of sensor to read local speed limits and prevent the car from exceeding them (allowing for "boosts" of up to 30 seconds to "accelerate out of trouble").
Or they could even just automatically turn off the radio and making an annoying noise while you are speeding.
That would establish a solid line. Reckon anyone would vote for it?
Me neither.
50 limits on roads which used to be 70
I think that is the issue on my commute. Dual carriageway, but signed as 50 due to multiple junctions and a few accidents.
Actually driving at 50 frequently results in cars driving two inches form my arse and flashing their lights. I think that limit has actually made it more dangerous (though perhaps lessened the consequences).
(allowing for "boosts" of up to 30 seconds to "accelerate out of trouble").
Why make the distinction? Speed cameras don't.
Why make the distinction?
Because that is the #1 argument people offer when you mention limiters.
Speed cameras don't.
Average ones do.
cougar - what you forget is the effect of the car hitting something. at 25 mph a person who is hit by a car survives - at 35 mph they do not, How many thousands of deaths?
Car drivers kill thousands of people a year. Legislate and enforce the rules more not less
Because that is the #1 argument people offer when you mention limiters.
And with good reason.
Average ones do.
So, it's acceptable to speed, so long as you drive under the speed limit for a bit as well just to make up for it?
Good reason? what good reason.
at 25 mph a person who is hit by a car survives - at 35 mph they do not
How's that apply to motorways then?
Legislate and enforce the rules more not less
Sure. But let's get the rules sensible and appropriate first, eh?
Good reason? what good reason.
There are times when the most efficient way of avoiding an accident is to accelerate. Having an artificial limiter on a car would prevent this.
I know the 'correct' way is to slow / stop in all circumstances, but that's not always the best course of action.
Really? In what circumstances would accelerating to above the speed limit be safer?
This is a good approach: [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-freeride-god-had-dug-holes-in-my-trails ]http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-freeride-god-had-dug-holes-in-my-trails[/url]
So, it's acceptable to speed, so long as you drive under the speed limit for a bit as well just to make up for it?
No, but it is a reasonable compromise and neatly mitigates all the nonsense about [i]"I can't possibly watch my speed all the time"[/i] as well as the more sensible stuff about sometimes needing to accelerate out of trouble.
In what circumstances would accelerating to above the speed limit be safer?
I think it's fair to say it does happen TJ. It may not be common, but it's not a good idea to remove it as an option completely.
I know perfectly well, thanks. I thought you might do too. If you google "regression to the mean" (GIYF - Google Is Your Friend - since I apparently have to spell everything out to you as you're being deliberately thick), the first hit mentions speed cameras - I even gave a link earlier on this thread which took you there.
I'll look.
edit - OK, i looked at the wikipedia link, all I see there is the same statement you made, with some additional info
However, statisticians have pointed out that, [i]although there is a net benefit in lives saved,[/i] failure to take into account the effects of regression to the mean results in the beneficial effects being overstated.
which makes your 'fix' even more difficult to understand and I still don't understand how regression to the mean accounts for the apparent reduction in accidents. So, please, do explain. I mean really, I'm not getting back at you for some imagined slight. I can see that you were one of the people arguing the Utts point, but I hope I don't disappoint when I say I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it.
Or is this just an attempt to get me back because I asked previously asked for evidence you were unable (or as it later turned out in one case, just unwilling) to provide, even in a link? Well I've given you the link - click away.
Get back at you for what??
I'm still wondering what you can possibly present at a conference on teaching stats without being a statistician (or having a pretty good understanding of the subject at the very least), but you've become strangely coy.
Not coy, just didn't see how it was relevant and didn't want to take this thread of topic. I do have a pretty good understanding of the subject but could not clearly see how it applied in this situation which is why i asked you to explain. Then you went coy.
GrahamS"In what circumstances would accelerating to above the speed limit be safer? "
I think it's fair to say it does happen TJ. It may not be common, but it's not a good idea to remove it as an option completely.
Ok - describe the circumstances then - the only one I can think of is when you have already made a misjudgement are are heading for a closing gap - and even then braking would stop you in time unless you were a complete numpty and didn't realise the gap was closing until too late
People claim this but I have never heard a plausible example for it
Ok - describe the circumstances then
How about being in lane two of a motorway, travelling at 70mph, passing an HGV travelling at 56mph, traffic in lane three passing at 75/80mph. As you draw level with the tractor unit's rear wheels, with about 40 foot of trailer behind you in lane one, the HGV driver makes a fairly sudden evasive manuevre into your lane, obviously not having seen you. Do you;
A) Brake hard and hope you drop behind the 40 foot trailer before its on top of you and that the driver behind is paying attention,
B) Check your mirrors/blindspot and quickly manuevre into lane three, so long as it turns out that there is space, or,
C)Boot it and squeeze up towards the right hand side of your lane, whilst checking mirrors and blindspot for options and escape routes, and swearing.
Last week, I chose C), but good luck with the others, they might work for you...