Nice.
I don’t think this is true because you can use your cookies to see what peoples FB ID’s were etc etc, surely you can find out exactly who I am in seconds. If I was a previous banned you would know.
Anyway it’s your forum. If annoying a mod in your first week puts you under suspicion that is bad form.

Driver education would help – understanding how horrific accidents can be.
Don’t they do this on speed awareness courses, do you get to forced to look at horrible pictures?

I can’t see any of our suggestions happening no matter what, people need gradual change.

Yeah thats true.
We have a mega entitled driving culture. Imagine if cars were just invented yesterday. To be legal every road would have to be separated from pedestrians by huge protective barriers, cars would have limiters, auto shut off if they came too close etc etc.
In fact it would never happen.
It amazes me stood at the side of the road watching a mum holding her kids hand whilst a huge bus comes past, the rotating wheel inches from them.. Typical industrial health and safety people would be having kittens.

Remember the tory govt in the 90’s brought in a fuel tax scheme which increased every year to try to get people to drive less, the opposite has happened. We all love driving and are prepared to pay for it. I can’t see the “nudge” stuff happening.

Yeah not cheap.
I’d be happy with a limiter, not invasive like a tracker, but just something radio activated as you enter a 50/40/30/20 zone. Like the F1 pits? Could we do that?

Do you need pursuit cars to increase enforcement? Surely cops with lasers and high visibility and someone to flag the speeders down further up the road. I always reckon pursuits are just as dangerous as speeding in the first place.

Yeah the trackers will show where you were and how fast you were going. That will help bigly.

Thanks for the pointer. I had seen that earlier and commented on it. However he is still being a bit trollish. If I cold think of the perfect deliberate misunderstanding responses to any of the arguments I have put forward, then his would be it.

I very much suspect that you aren’t, but that’s another story.

Really? Why? Spit it out.

Dude I am a bit new here, are you the resident troll?
It is almost like you are wilfully misinterpreting everything I say.
I never said that it was a head on at combined speeds,
What if it is far enough away that at 70 you have time to brake and they have come to a stop, but at 90 you arrive faster and they haven’t come to a stop and you haven’t stopped either.
Would you rather be doing 70 or 90.
All your logic is based on 70 or 90 into a brick wall equals death, therefore 200mph is equally safe.
In fact RL is a bit more nuanced.
However it is indisputable that at lower speeds you have more opportunity to avoid collisions, and if you are involved in one then slower speed will reduce severity.

And that, because your reaction distance changes as you increase speed so your overall braking distance increases non linearly.

There is also the problem that if you drive lower than the average speed of the other vehicles on the road you are on that is likely to increase your chances of an accident, however it would reduce the severity…

I mistakenly thought that when you said “driving at 90” you were implying that the conditions dictated that it was safe to do so.

Sorry I am assuming all other factors are fixed, speed only varies.

If you’re driving at a speed where you cannot sufficiently react to events in the distance you can see, whether that’s 90mph, 30mph or walking pace, you’re driving too fast for the conditions and therefore not “very skilled.”

So at 90MPH on the motorway a vehicle crosses the barrier into your path. The likelihood of the event is not related to your driving skill, it is random. Would you rather be doing 90 or 70?

Eg (I’m making the numbers up) if your braking distance is linear where every 1 MPH is 10metres so at 70 is 700m and at 90 is 900m.
Imagine that you see a stationary object 650m away, at 70 you hit it at 5mph, at 90 you hit it at 25mph. Big difference in severity.
If it was 750m away at 70 you don’t have an accident at 90 you do.

Well I said it increases the severity, it does.
However it does also increase the likelihood. You have less reaction time to events as you see them over the same distance. Gong faster does not increase your visual acuity.

I agree such that to say that there are many factors that influence safety such as skill, conditions, judgement, awareness, speed etc.
Varying these factors will have an effect on road safety eg increase skill, or reduce speed or change attitude.
So if we accept that these changes will bring about safety we have to legislate for each one as we are able to control it.
Speed is one of those, it is easy to control and has a significant effect on safety no matter what your skill. EG a very skilled person at 70 MPH on a motorway is less likely to cause harm in the event of an accident than the same person at 90 MPH. That is an indisputable fact. Therefore pragmatics and logic indicate that reducing speed is safer. The rights of the public to be safe outweigh the rights of the individual to get there a few minutes sooner.

Yeah I just looked this up.
https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-faqs.htm#programmed

Does that matter? Wont it work both ways?

Or is it that the more skilled you are the faster you should be allowed to go, to a maximum speed where your chances of killing someone are the same as the less skilled driver who is morally compelled to drive slower.

This is a problem, I find that as soon as I pull on to the motorway I start yawning.

I didn’t mean to insult either, I wanted a discussion, I thought your point that many people get caught by cameras speeding whilst overtaking was just not viable and lacked critical thought. It is an invitation to show me why or how people speeding whilst overtaking can get caught by cameras. Do it.

Where is the like button??? ^^^

Not at all, accusing you of a lack of critical thinking is not an insult per se, calling someone a dick is. I didn’t mean to differentiate between asking and saying you were lacking critical thinking. I’ll say it now “that post lacked critical thought”.
You asked me not to be a dick, IE you were saying I was a dick. Its just cheap blatant ad hom.

Exactly, the fallacy here is that because someone in front of you is travelling below the speed limit then you have the right to take risks to ensure you are at the speed limit.

It isn’t Ad hom, I am asking you to think the statement through. Not calling you a dick.

EDIT – crossed understanding – I mean “how” are automatic cameras increasing tickets for speeding whilst overtaking.

DBAD.

Try and be civil. Moderator or not, I am making a statement not resorting to ad hom.

Exactly, being late for a flight or business pressure is not an excuse for risking lives.

Really? How?
Anyone who overtakes in front of a fixed cam deserves to get done, and on Mways the “speeding to overtake” argument is null as there is plenty of room, zero TED.
So then we have mobile cameras on sections where you could overtake, most of which will be obscured by the overtakee as the overtaker sails past. I can’t really see many people being caught speeding whilst overtaking. Critical thought here please.

Yup bang on. After being caught for 99MPH (a bit like the poster above, the officer suggest 99 as it was an acceptable figure for both of us..) and with 9 points I decided to revise my “work stress to get as many sales as possible vs chances of death or at least licence loss” equation and found that by never going more than 80 in a 70 and sticking to lower limits I got just as much achieved.
At 26 years old I still could not stop being a maniac when I thought I could get away with it, but now I am happy pottering at the limit.

In my 20’s I spent a year as a travelling salesperson selling wholesale products to independent high street retailers. I did 120k miles in that year all over the uk. I had a 2 litre small saloon that could do 135mph and I wellied it as much as possible. I had lots of fun and a fair few fines/points.

Guess my average speed from one urban centre to another?

Umm this. If overtaking is your justification for speeding, then just don’t overtake, sorry.

All the french people die?
Or more realistically, the car cannot do more than 70 in France. Big deal.

I don’t understand why vehicles are capable of more than 70mph in the UK. We should have speed limiters.

Thanks motozulu, I need external cable, but the Fox external goes to the seat not seatclamp so it moves as you up or down. The associated cable rub and flappyness hurts my sensibilities.

That is what worcester told me. Its all about the heat dump.

No one?

Tiagain you had me a little concerned so I called Worcester-Bosch today. Had a long discussion about how their boilers work.
They told me categorically that my greenstar combi requires an open rad for the purposes of dumping heat from the boiler when using the hot tap (obviously and for when the trvs shut and the heating is still on.)
It is essentially the same purpose, heat demand has ended either through turning off the tap, the trvs shutting, or the heating turning off, and the boiler can then overheat, so the CH pump overuns until an internal thermostat is happy that things are cool enough.
Hence the need for an open rad in the case using the hot tap.

Are you using hot water? Excess heat gets dumped into the radiators.

This ^^
The boiler gets hot when you use the hot taps and needs to cool it self, so one rad is always left open (normally bathroom) to give it somewhere to dump.