Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 06:46

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:49 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rways.html

Who are "the Guild of Experienced Motorists"? I've never heard of them.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 14:02 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
malcolmw wrote:
Who are "the Guild of Experienced Motorists"? I've never heard of them.
Me neither :?

He started off well with “people should drive to road conditions” and went on to silly stuff like “how fast people should be allowed to drive depended on the driver” and “If you've got a Formula One racing driver, well you can go flat out”. Public roads were not built as a race track. A race track is a different animal to a public road of course, so no matter how great a ‘Bunsen may burn’ even he would not know what surprise could lie in store for him on a public road.

The trouble is I never ever hear anyone admitting they are a bad driver; yet we all know very well there are plenty of bad drivers out there and after all - someone is having all these accidents! So long as people are in denial about their own bad driving and make no attempt to be the best that they can, I don’t see much hope for improving overall road safety anytime soon.

The reason I think I’m a good driver/rider is as much because of my track record as anything. I must be doing something right to be my age, with my mileage and experience under my belt, so why should I try and be modest by saying differently? By contrast my young neighbour, new to driving, said she drives very cautiously and “never speeds”, (rather arrogantly implying that I am a greater risk), yet she had a small prang in her car within weeks of ownership. This was before she’d even done a thousand miles in it, IIRC, but she had a reason of course... :roll:

By contrast I’ve just got back from a whistle stop tour from the South of France in sun and rain, day and night, without incident. (2045 miles in under five days). Also, much of it was at a legal 80+mph which, over here, would have me prosecuted because ‘speed kills’ don’t ya know - but not in France somehow...

I think experience and a good track record should be taken into account on lawful matters. After all, do you want a nation all just driving within the law or a nation all driving within safe limits? It’s a shame the law doesn’t, or can’t, differentiate between the two and perhaps this is the point he was trying to make?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 18:56 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Yes, to be clear, when F1 racing drivers are sharing the track with novices, there is often conflict due to the new drivers inexperience.

Guild of Experienced Motorists though... what constitutes experience in their view, years driving, miles travelled or variety of road conditions encountered and safely overcome? :o

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 08:56 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
malcolmw wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313625/Police-commissioner-Stephen-Bett-says-drivers-able-flat-speed-limits-scrapped-motorways.html

Who are "the Guild of Experienced Motorists"? I've never heard of them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_Motoring_Assist

A lesser known RAC by the sound of it

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 17:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Big Tone wrote:
By contrast I’ve just got back from a whistle stop tour from the South of France in sun and rain, day and night, without incident. (2045 miles in under five days). Also, much of it was at a legal 80+mph which, over here, would have me prosecuted because ‘speed kills’ don’t ya know - but not in France somehow...


After all these years you still don't get this.

Travelling at 80mph, as compared to travelling at 70 puts you at more risk (given the same conditions are prevalent for road and driver), and if something does go wrong, it's going to go wrong in a worse way.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 19:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
"Travelling at 70mph, as compared to travelling at 60 puts you at more risk (given the same conditions are prevalent for road and driver), and if something does go wrong, it's going to go wrong in a worse way."

See where this is going?

And one of the arguments that Paul Smith used to put forward is that, if driving within the limits of visibility and curvature of a road, there is a range of "safe speeds" within which the increased risk from higher speed is trivial - it isn't a strictly linear relationship.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 21:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
PeterE wrote:
"Travelling at 70mph, as compared to travelling at 60 puts you at more risk (given the same conditions are prevalent for road and driver), and if something does go wrong, it's going to go wrong in a worse way."

See where this is going?
:yesyes: But I know a man who still doesn't after all these years. :doh:

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 21:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9263
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Exactly ,Peter, but time after time, we see limits reduced on "dangerous" roads . Effect - nil ,as it's not the roads that are "dangerous" ,but the lack of training/education to recognise that certain bends are not negotable at NSL.So ,what happens - YEP ,GIVE THE MAN A COCONUT- the entire stretch is limited to a speed where even someone on L plates would have problems getting into trouble.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:24 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
Travelling at 80mph, as compared to travelling at 70 puts you at more risk (given the same conditions are prevalent for road and driver), and if something does go wrong, it's going to go wrong in a worse way.




Why is it then, that many serious accidents on motorways, where lorrys run into the back of cars, often killing the occupants, happen at less than 60MPH?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 14:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
weepej wrote:
Big Tone wrote:
By contrast I’ve just got back from a whistle stop tour from the South of France in sun and rain, day and night, without incident. (2045 miles in under five days). Also, much of it was at a legal 80+mph which, over here, would have me prosecuted because ‘speed kills’ don’t ya know - but not in France somehow...


After all these years you still don't get this.

Travelling at 80mph, as compared to travelling at 70 puts you at more risk (given the same conditions are prevalent for road and driver), and if something does go wrong, it's going to go wrong in a worse way.

Who's the one that 'doesn't get this' ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 14:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
graball wrote:
Quote:
Travelling at 80mph, as compared to travelling at 70 puts you at more risk (given the same conditions are prevalent for road and driver), and if something does go wrong, it's going to go wrong in a worse way.
Why is it then, that many serious accidents on motorways, where lorrys run into the back of cars, often killing the occupants, happen at less than 60MPH?

According to the figures 'inattention and frustration'.

I don't see the 24% figure either down to 'inappropriate speed' and who said that all of that was 'over the posted limit' ???
There is only 6% of accidents that have 'inappropriate speed & driving too fast for conditions' as a factor not a cause. So all this 'treatment' is only for an effect not to resolve anything.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
There is only 6% of accidents that have 'inappropriate speed & driving too fast for conditions' as a factor not a cause. So all this 'treatment' is only for an effect not to resolve anything.


That statistic is such utter b****ks and has been shown to be again and again I can't believe it's being used again, especially by somebody that regards themselves as a transport expert.


Quote:
Inappropriate speed contributes to around 14% of all injury collisions, 15% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death and are recorded by the police.1 This includes both 'excessive speed', when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).


http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... speed.aspx


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 19:39 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
If average speeds reduced by 1 mph, the accident rate would fall by approximately 5%.2, 3 This varies slightly according to road type, so that a 1 mph reduction in average speed would reduce accident frequency by about:

6% on urban main roads and residential roads with low average speeds
4% on medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% on the higher speed urban roads and rural single carriageway main roads.


Erm this suggests to me that roads with a higher speed limit are safer and have a smaller benefit from lowering the speed limit...any ideas why, Weepy?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 14:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
graball wrote:
Quote:
If average speeds reduced by 1 mph, the accident rate would fall by approximately 5%.2, 3 This varies slightly according to road type, so that a 1 mph reduction in average speed would reduce accident frequency by about:

6% on urban main roads and residential roads with low average speeds
4% on medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% on the higher speed urban roads and rural single carriageway main roads.


Erm this suggests to me that roads with a higher speed limit are safer and have a smaller benefit from lowering the speed limit...any ideas why, Weepy?


Isn't it obvious.

"Higher speed urban roads" = no junctions no pedestrians, fenced off, designed for cars and cars only.

We've been through this before, you always bring up the "motorways are our safest roads so faster roads are safer" gig at every opportunity.

A total and utter logical fallacy.

Funny how that roads with no pedestrians have no pedestrian impacts on them a? :loco:

However, put a pedestrian on a motorway and they ain't gonna last for long before they're a big split up bag of meat, as we see so often.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 16:02 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
weepej wrote:
graball wrote:
Quote:
If average speeds reduced by 1 mph, the accident rate would fall by approximately 5%.2, 3 This varies slightly according to road type, so that a 1 mph reduction in average speed would reduce accident frequency by about:

6% on urban main roads and residential roads with low average speeds
4% on medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% on the higher speed urban roads and rural single carriageway main roads.


Erm this suggests to me that roads with a higher speed limit are safer and have a smaller benefit from lowering the speed limit...any ideas why, Weepy?


Isn't it obvious.

"Higher speed urban roads" = no junctions no pedestrians, fenced off, designed for cars and cars only.

We've been through this before, you always bring up the "motorways are our safest roads so faster roads are safer" gig at every opportunity.

A total and utter logical fallacy.

Funny how that roads with no pedestrians have no pedestrian impacts on them a? :loco:

However, put a pedestrian on a motorway and they ain't gonna last for long before they're a big split up bag of meat, as we see so often.
I find it funnier how roads with the same environment, surrounds and population density have different speed limits all allegedly based on safety.

After all these years you still don’t understand the difference between a matter of safety and a matter of law. If a limit drops down from a :nsl: to :40: that is a point of law. If it was about safety then why have I, like every other driver, done up to 60mph on these previously :nsl: roads until recent changes to :40: where there has never been an accident? As always, this is despite incredible advances in car safety and protection for peds.

Perhaps we should all be retrospectively tracked down and prosecuted for having done 20mph over what the new limit is, yourself included of course because you wouldn't have been speeding at the time? Oh, I know why you’re whiter than white! You have never gone down a :nsl: at 60mph which has later become a :40: because you always knew it should have been a :40: in the first place on the grounds you knew it was too fast and dangerous. :bighand:

In the same way, to make it simple for your brain to think of, if they dropped the alcohol limit for drivers to 50 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, on ocassions where drivers had 70 milligramme in their system, (under our current legal limit), they would now be drunk by definition. I'm not making a point for drinking anything, I'm trying to show you the meaning of a point of law and how it differs from one year, and indeed one country, to another.

I’ve got a road nearby my home which, until recently, was a :nsl: and you would see a path running by the side which has been there since forever. Hang on! Pedestrians right next to a 60mph with junctions and driveways! Sounds a bit close to a motorway situation to me which you metioned as bad. :scratchchin: There ought to be carnage according to you but I’m sure you have a smart ass answer for why these places aren’t carpeted with "big split up bags of meat" :?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 16:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Big Tone wrote:
In the same way, to make it simple for your brain to think of, if they dropped the alcohol limit for drivers to 50 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, on ocassions where drivers had 70 milligramme in their system, (under our current legal limit), they would now be drunk by definition. I'm not making a point for drinking anything, I'm trying to show you the meaning of a point of law and how it differs from one year, and indeed one country, to another.


For the same person in the same condition and situation having 70mg is more irresponsible that 50mg when driving, but they are both irresponsible, regardless of what the law says.

The law decides at what level that irresponsibility turns into criminal irresponsibility, with a blunt instrument sure (alcohol per mg of blood), but the alternatives are just too complex too consider.

Slightly different for 70mph on a road compared to 50mph, but both are situations that can lead to severe injury and death if something goes wrong, and as I said given the same conditions things are going to go wrong much worse at 70.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 17:48 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
But that only assumes something is going to go wrong...it doesn't necessarily mean it is going to go wrong JUST BECAUSE someone is driving at 80MPH instead of 70MPH.

By your reasoning nothing is going to go wrong if we reduce the limit down far enough...like 4MPH for instance.....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 18:03 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
graball wrote:
But that only assumes something is going to go wrong...it doesn't necessarily mean it is going to go wrong JUST BECAUSE someone is driving at 80MPH instead of 70MPH.

By your reasoning nothing is going to go wrong if we reduce the limit down far enough...like 4MPH for instance.....


I always assume something is going to go wrong when driving or riding my pedal cycle.

And yes it pretty much always doesn't.

But, given the same initial situation things are going to go wrong less often on roads that have their traffic speeds lowered (however that is achieved).

There is a balance to be struck, but for instance of ALL cars were limited to 5mph tomorrow there would be no next to no crashes resulting in death or serious injury on our motorway network and today with a 70mph limit there are lots and lots.

I say no deaths, apart from people dying of old age that are driving to Scotland, so I concede there is a balance to be had.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 19:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 19:11
Posts: 172
Location: Southampton
So therefore one has to drive to suit the actual conditions, which are continually changing, consequently what is a safe speed will also be continually changing. As Big Tone said, all a speed limit decides is that you are within or outside the law, which at least at one time was based on reasonably sound criteria, but unfortunately not any more . What it does not tell you is whether the speed is safe or unsafe, because it does not know the actual conditions. Speed is a relative thing based on many factors as clearly explained by Stephen Haley in Mind Driving and is not obtained by plucking numbers out of the air which seems to be the favoured method at the moment.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sensible or Stupid?
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 20:21 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
There is a balance to be struck, but for instance of ALL cars were limited to 5mph tomorrow there would be no next to no crashes resulting in death or serious injury on our motorway network and today with a 70mph limit there are lots and lots.

Why then, when the limit was 4MPH and there were VERY FEW cars on the roads , they still had fatalities?


Oh, I know....people speeding....:-)

Have you not read the study, where it was determined that people travelling below the 85 percentile speed, were more like to crash than those travelling at it?,,,or isn't that a ROSPA soundbite?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.034s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]