Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 22:22

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 22:39 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
This from this weeks Westmorland Gazette:
Image

Note the high number of respondents to the petition, AND the police research which says the average speed (despite being NSL) in only 45 mph!!
The few drivers who exceed the limit and drive dangerously are the reason to persecute those few driving at the average, while the REAL cause of the situation goes unaddressed! :x
Those average drivers will be paying dearly for the recklessness of youth.

Short of an improved driving examination (not just a test!) the only effective answer would be improved police presence. A bit of local intelligence would be required, and a few high profile stops on a regular basis to back it up would achieve more than cameras.
The only drawback would be the EXPENDITURE required to save lives, instead of the INCOME which could be generated from the cameras, while Pat Holmes and the public is fed a load of pap about it being all in the name of road safety!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 22:59 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 22:21
Posts: 925
Pat Holmes wrote:
There will always be idiots

Which are by the sounds of it the drivers that need to be targetted.

The high number of people calling for lower limits are easy to explain - they like a simple and easy to understand solution to a problem. "Something needs to be done" is the frequent cry. Lowering speed limits and putting up cameras will evoke images of happy similing motorists tootling along, and they will be happy then because "somthing is finally being done". It's only when they sit down and think about it, that they may begin to understand that the proposed solution won't work. It will be even longer before they may realise that it could make things worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 00:01 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
There is about 7 miles of road, and the camera will slow SOME for about 100 yards. I doubt there would be ANY impact on fatalities, and probably very little income.
Given it's a coast road, it might need to be salt resistant.. maybe in an old periscope housing! :lol:

Are you looking for somewhere to live in this area Capri? :)

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
Monday morning Cooperman with cynical hat on:

Someone said it's a dangerous road.
There are no dangerous roads, only bad drivers.
Train our drivers better = make our roads safer!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 15:28 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
I think more needs to be done to curb this growing belief that NSL = you are expected to drive at exactly 60.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 15:46 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Zamzara wrote:
I think more needs to be done to curb this growing belief that NSL = you are expected to drive at exactly 60.

it's worse than that, the belief is that you're expected to drive at whatever the speed limit happens to be. The NSL thing is just an extension of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 15:51 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
johnsher wrote:
it's worse than that, the belief is that you're expected to drive at whatever the speed limit happens to be. The NSL thing is just an extension of that.

What can you expect when the main mantra of "road safety" is "if you keep to the limit you're driving safely"? Too many read that as "if you're driving at the limit...".

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:19 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
johnsher wrote:
Zamzara wrote:
I think more needs to be done to curb this growing belief that NSL = you are expected to drive at exactly 60.

it's worse than that, the belief is that you're expected to drive at whatever the speed limit happens to be. The NSL thing is just an extension of that.


True, but I think the belief is more dangerous when applied to NSLs. At least with a :40: :50: or :60: you know that the road has actually been surveyed and set at that level for a reason. With the NSL sign, it is simply the default deristriction sign and is supposed to originally mean set your own safe speed for the conditions. I have been in cars with drivers who go right up to the car in front's bumper on bendy country lanes that are not wide enough for two cars to pass, trying to get them to speed up as 'it's a 60mph road'. :o

Of course it isn't a 60mph road or anything like it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 18:35 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 22:21
Posts: 925
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Are you looking for somewhere to live in this area Capri? :)

As lovely as I'm sure the area is, I think I'll stick with sunny Burnley. Though at least if I did move I could be one of the seemingly few people who don't want the county covered with mobile traps and Gatsos!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 18:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
I dont know if it's the same everywhere, but round here, it would help if parents knew where their 16 and 17 year old boys and girls were hanging out, once they graduate from smooching in bus shelters! :oops:

In a spectacularly horrific accident on the A590 a while back, the driver had just been given the car for his birthday, and the 16 year old girl in the back and two companions were killed - at 2.30 in the morning.
Now I'm no prude, but if I had a 16 year old daughter, she would not be driving around the countryside in cars at all hours of the night!! :x

The accident report suggested the vehicle's lights might not have been on at the time. The accident took place in a section of road which is equiped with solar powered lit up cats eyes. Rumour has it that youths have taken to driving through the section of road with no lights on at speed as a measure of bravado. :(
It's sad that there was a tragic loss of life, but I cannot but feel that the parents were negligent, and the youths involved contributed to their own demise, after the car flew through the air for many yards, before impacting with several trees - it's the sort of circumstance a suicidal motorist might contemplate!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 19:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 18:39
Posts: 346
In respose & agreement of the number of 'youth' related crashes.Why not target these specifically and not penalise everybody. Nearly every crash on the rural roads withing 5 miles of my house involve teenage youths or young males under 25 wrapping their nova or corsa round a tree, plunging down an embankment or headlong into a dry stone 'dyke' when they over cooked a corner. There are flowers tied to fences & trees - even on relatively straight sections! But I've NEVER heard of a Jag, BMW or other luxury saloon crashing on these roads, typically owned by the more 'mature' & competent driver. (not saying always). A passenger limit for newer drivers - less inclined to show off, or a secondary test after 6 months to allow transport of more than that one passenger. The government could rake it in, and it'd give new lads & lasses a chance to improve their skill before trying to kill all their mates in one night.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 22:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 23:35
Posts: 37
Location: New Zealand
Here in New Zealand there is such a graduated test. At 15 you take a test and get a restricted licence, restricted as you aren't supposed to drive between 11 and 6 overnight, not supposed to take passengers unless at least one of them has a full licence - and the drink drive limit is lower up to age 21. I'm not convinced these actions work very well, (apart from the drink drive one). My 16 year old daughter has recently passed her restricted, as she is already a better driver than most of the locals I am not concerned if she breaks the rules (apart from drink/drive), strangely enough she has to be more careful with an illegal passenger so she dosn't get stopped.
Someone once said that you should always drive a car as if you had just stolen it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 23:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
jaybkay wrote:
Here in New Zealand <snip>
Someone once said that you should always drive a car as if you had just stolen it.


I prefer to treat my car with a bit more respect :lol:
Maybe NZ joyriders ARE a bit more respectful towards the car makers engineering masterpieces than here in the UK? :D

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 17:39 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 17:33
Posts: 108
Location: North Lancashire
hobbes wrote:
In respose & agreement of the number of 'youth' related crashes.Why not target these specifically and not penalise everybody. Nearly every crash on the rural roads withing 5 miles of my house involve teenage youths or young males under 25 wrapping their nova or corsa round a tree, plunging down an embankment or headlong into a dry stone 'dyke' when they over cooked a corner. There are flowers tied to fences & trees - even on relatively straight sections! But I've NEVER heard of a Jag, BMW or other luxury saloon crashing on these roads, typically owned by the more 'mature' & competent driver. (not saying always). A passenger limit for newer drivers - less inclined to show off, or a secondary test after 6 months to allow transport of more than that one passenger. The government could rake it in, and it'd give new lads & lasses a chance to improve their skill before trying to kill all their mates in one night.


Yes but this all boils down to experience again. And as long as the law alows a young person behind a wheel under almost any circumstance, then tradgadies will occur. I agree that older, compitent, more experienced drivers, should not be penalised because of less able drivers, but feel that this would be a difficult thing to manage.
Not sure I know the answer, but one is needed.

_________________
belladonna
'Wisdom is knowing how little we know'
Socrates


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 18:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Quote:
Yes but this all boils down to experience again. And as long as the law alows a young person behind a wheel under almost any circumstance, then tradgadies will occur. I agree that older, compitent, more experienced drivers, should not be penalised because of less able drivers, but feel that this would be a difficult thing to manage.
Not sure I know the answer, but one is needed.

Given the extra risk involved, they seem to manage reasonably well with young motorcycle riders. I'm not certain, but I suspect that a smaller percentage of YOUNG M/C riders are killed, than car drivers, because there are strict restrictions on testing and the size of bike they can ride.

A probationary period, limits to the size of engine, and better testing of drivers would be a start.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 18:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Quote:
A probationary period, limits to the size of engine, and better testing of drivers would be a start.


Sounds good in theory, but...

1) there already is a probationary period in place
2) size of engine isn't always directly linked to performance/acceleration
eg just after I passed my L test, there was a 993cc Dahatsu Charade (I think it was called!) that was turbocharged - they called it the "pocket rocket" 0-60 in 7 seconds (20 years ago :lol: :lol: ). My Uncle had a diesel Renault 18 - 2.1 litre engine, 0-60 about 20 seconds....

3) what changes would you make to the current L test?

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 18:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
belladonna wrote:
hobbes wrote:
In respose & agreement of the number of 'youth' related crashes.Why not target these specifically and not penalise everybody. Nearly every crash on the rural roads withing 5 miles of my house involve teenage youths or young males under 25 wrapping their nova or corsa round a tree, plunging down an embankment or headlong into a dry stone 'dyke' when they over cooked a corner. There are flowers tied to fences & trees - even on relatively straight sections! But I've NEVER heard of a Jag, BMW or other luxury saloon crashing on these roads, typically owned by the more 'mature' & competent driver. (not saying always). A passenger limit for newer drivers - less inclined to show off, or a secondary test after 6 months to allow transport of more than that one passenger. The government could rake it in, and it'd give new lads & lasses a chance to improve their skill before trying to kill all their mates in one night.


Yes but this all boils down to experience again. And as long as the law alows a young person behind a wheel under almost any circumstance, then tradgadies will occur. I agree that older, compitent, more experienced drivers, should not be penalised because of less able drivers, but feel that this would be a difficult thing to manage.
Not sure I know the answer, but one is needed.


I've been chatting about this recently. I believe a big part of the problem is that our young people simply don't understand the scope or the depth of their responsibility. I think this could be addressed with road safety lessons in schools. One of the problems is that it'd probably be seen as a boring and stuffy subject. However the right approach could spark their interest and explain their future responsibilities.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 21:20 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Getting the kids early enough might work. I can still remember some of the driver training cartoons on the telly from the 1970s! I was only a kid and these were aimed at adults but they stuck. Of course the trouble with this pproach is that the payback is YEARS later and few governments seem to look that far ahead but I think nore little 30-second cartoons would be the way to go. Nothing too heavy or patronising, just information.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 23:04 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
kendalian wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Quote:
A probationary period, limits to the size of engine, and better testing of drivers would be a start.


Sounds good in theory, but...

1) there already is a probationary period in place
2) size of engine isn't always directly linked to performance/acceleration
eg just after I passed my L test, there was a 993cc Dahatsu Charade (I think it was called!) that was turbocharged - they called it the "pocket rocket" 0-60 in 7 seconds (20 years ago :lol: :lol: ). My Uncle had a diesel Renault 18 - 2.1 litre engine, 0-60 about 20 seconds....

3) what changes would you make to the current L test?

I was thinking of AFTER the test - as they do in several European countries.
In France, new drivers display an A sticker in their cars for one year.
I would limit horsepower to new drivers: 2 years after taking the test before 20 years old, and 1 year for drivers older than 20.

I would incorporate night driving into the test, and skidpan testing to ensure they had developed sufficient insight into vehicle control.

France has large driving school centres where they can learn on a track. It usually includes some degree of teaching how to cope with emergencies.
I'm not sure how widespread they are, but the one just outside Rennes is next to the motorway. You can see the future road users learning their craft!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.630s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]