Safe Speed Forums

Speed Kills?

OK, I feel that I am fairly qualified to comment on this subject. I am one of those that some of you would consider the Dark Side - a police advanced driver.

Lets get the record straight - speed on it's own is not a killer. As some have pointed out I am TRAINED to drive very fast, that training makes a huge difference.

What does kill is a really nasty mix of very complicated factors, before you say I told you so, speed is most certainly one of them.

The factors I would consider most dangerous are Speed, experience (or lack of) road and weather conditions and traffic conditions. It is a fact that a young newly qualified male driver is 7 times more likely to crash than other people.

I am trained to drive high speed cars in certain situations at speeds over the maximum for that road. But before I do so I make a judgement based on Weather, Time of Day (consider schools and kids) road surface and traffic. Only if I think it is safe to drive fast will I do so. For example, I was making my way to a fatal road accident that happened on a dark road in the early hours, no other traffic on the road but I did not exceed the speed limit because it was not safe for me to do so - the weather and the bends of the road.

What the government cannot do is legislate for each and every individual. OK, so SafeSpeed (not picking on you but you do own the site) might consider that he can drive safely at speed and he might feel that the speed limits should not apply to him, or that he should have a higher limit than young Fred Bloggs that has just passed his test - or Mary Bloggs that only drives 2,000 per year to the shops and back. That is just NOT feasable.

Most (please note I say Most) speed restrictions are in place for a reason - that is the safe passage of vehicles from A to B giving the widest leaway allowing for the various levels of experience.

OK, now onto cameras - I'm not a fan of them - but I don't bother about them because I don't break the speed limit when I drive (except on a blue light job) so why bother? Why put this site up in the first place? Why not do as lots of law abiding people do and stick to the speed limits? What gives people the thought that they can ignore the limit and drive faster than the speed of the road?

The answer, attitude OK, now here is another factor, Attitude. This is a major factor in road accidents and deaths and your attitude to speed is directly linked to your likelyhood of having a crash.

Just consider a routine trip up the Motorway. You are sticking to the 70mph limit because the guy infront of you is doing the same, after all, you can't drive through him. Then some other guy decides 70 ain't no good - he undertakes and cuts in infront of you causing you to brake, the driver behind does the same and so on until 5 miles down the road the traffic comes to a halt. Why did the guy think he was allowed to do more than 70, does he have an exemption? Or is he just selfish and a bad driver? His attitude and his speed have casued a hold up and perhaps even a pile up further back!

Now we all know that there are other factors such as Drink Driving and use of Mobile Phones but thats what I am there for. But the police can only be in a limited number of places at a time and the use of speed cameras does help in reduce accidents. Again, I can name at least one junction near my home (and on my patch) that has had the speed reduced by 20mph and cameras installed - I used to go to an accident almost every shift at that junction, since the speed reduction and the cameras I have been to one in 2 years.

I hate to deal with accidents and I hate to be the one that has to tell some poor person that their loved one is dead or critical in Hospital. I know we cannot all be good drivers but sticking to the lawful limits helps - imagine the two cars crashing at 30mph head on (60mph impact) then think of those if they were doing 40 or 50 in the 30..........I know that in a 60 you could have a 120mph impact, but some roads have been deemed safe for the 60mph speed limit (by who I don't know because there are many roads I'd reduce the limit on - country lanes for example). I know first hand that accidents can happen at any speed but the higher the speed the higher the risk of death and personal injury.

There are many other variables to take into account - I saw one post on this topic where the poster stated that why should he not be able to drive at 100mph in good conditions on a straight dual carriageway in light traffic? I can give one very easy answer and one I am very aware of when I drive on fast response runs - what happens if something OUT of my control occurrs? Such as a tyre blowing or an object (bird, stone anything) strikes the car I'm driving - I might loose control and crash into the central reservation. Even if your side is clear you could pass straight through the barrier and into the path of another. At 100mph the barrier will not stop you, it's not designed to, at 70 you stand a chance of not passing through. You ain't gonna be feeling to well but the people on the other carriageway might still be alive and intact and doing first aid on you rather than bleeding to death.

I'm going to end this little rant with this - the speed limits are part of the law of this land and if you knowingly break that law you can expect to be prosecuted. If you are willing to do that in your car you can expect the police, the councils and the government to fight back as hard as they fight against drugs or violence and with the most practical and cost effective means - Cameras. If you get caught, don't moan, you shouldn't have been speeding anyway.

Firstly, welcome lawman1965, any and all input from the police on this forum is welcomed by me regardless of whether you disagree with some of the views expressed.

What I would like to know is, how much of this forum have you read? The reason I ask is that I would like to know if your comments are based purely on your experience or whether you have read a significant proportion of the information provided and have taken it into account when making your post.

I'm sure you have also noted that no-one on this forum condones or encourages driving at any speed that is not appropriate for the conditions so at least on that point we have agreement.

I think that you will also find fairly wide ranging support for cameras when they are placed in a location that has a genuinely poor accident record.

You say you do not mind cameras because you do not speed. Is this because your car has cruise control? In Australia we get booked for travelling at more than 2mph over the limit. Can you honestly say that you have never inadvertently strayed over the limit by a few mph? Do you think it is fair that an otherwise law abiding citizen is criminalised for such a heinous act?

I would really like to hear more from you as your experience on the roads makes you more than qualified to contribute on this forum.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Great. We need folk like you! Welcome. Were you trained in old class one days, or are you errr, younger than that?



The biggest two and carelessness and inattention. After those we seem to have a series of dangerous and lawless behaviours - drunks, stolen cars, racing on the highway, unlicenced drivers and so on.

Drivers who crash in the first two categories tend to need help (training, advice and so on) drivers in the later group need your attention.



We all make those sorts of judgements continuously. If we didn't there would be hundreds of times more crashes. We might not be perfect at it, but we're pretty good.



Yep, but you seems to be forgetting that almost all drivers exceed the speed limits. What we think is needed is intelligent enforcement against those exceeding safe thresholds, not blanket enforcement against those exceeding a speed limit safely in appropriate conditions. Have a look at this page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html



Actually most speed limits are set at a pretty average speed level, well suited to inexperienced drivers. Take the motorway speed limit in good conditions. A new driver really shouldn't be going much above 70mph. But we all know an competent and experienced driver in a suitable vehicle can cruise all day at 100mph in safety.



See this page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html



It certainly is if you approach the situation recklessly. But if you're talking about page 11 in Roadcraft, I think I might vomit.



I don't think this sort of imaginary example is realistic enough to be useful.



I don't doubt that there are a series of localised sucesses for speed cameras. I used to think that cameras had a role to play. I used to think they could be well used to make the roads safer. But they have been very badly misused and now they are a dangerous distraction. If you have time, have a careful read of: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html



Actually sticking to the speed limit hardly helps at all. If sticking to the speed limit means less attentio - and sometimes it does - then sticking to the speed limit is a very bad thing.



That's not how they think in Gernamy is it? The foundations of road safety are firmly in "avoiding crashes" not in accepting that crashes are "inevitable" and then trying to reduce their severity.

The objective must be to have fewer crashes every year.



Except reality is that most everyone speeds and we're going to have a REALLY good moan about any law that penalises the behaviour of a competent and careful majority of responsible people.

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

Oh it is, if you drive on any busy Motorway you will have been caught up in one of these hold ups. Just look ahead and you'll see idiots undertaking, changing lanes etc to get that "Extra" little bit of speed, causing folks to brake etc but there are many other examples where that kind of selfish behaviour can lead to RTC's - overtaking vehicles that are already doing the max speed and then forcing their way in causing the other cars to brake etc, the list is endless.



Possibly true, but Germany also has some of the worst crashes in Europe - so bad that the German government is looking at the Autobahn and speed and is considering setting new, lower limits. But, the point I made there is is that no matter how good a driver you are, if you drive at speeds of 100mph or more any accident is going to have greater consequences. The barriers here are just not suitable to take such high speed impacts and to replace them with better barriers is far to costly, we, the motorist would have to pay for the few people that wished to drive at those speeds.

Plus, how many times have you been on a road that 100mph is suitable? Most M/ways in the UK are now so congested that it's silly to do more than 60 at times.



Oh god please



Get the sick bag out -



Not true and as I said, not feasable. Yes cars are manufactured to a much higher standard than before and are capable of travelling faster and safer. But not on our roads in the UK, the congestion and traffic is far to high. Plus, you have the other variables I mentioned, things out of control of the driver. Imagine you are doing 100mph on the M/Way and a lorry crashes through the central barrier, not too fancyful as it happened recently in Staffordshire, if you are doing 100mph you have far less time to react than if you were doing 70mph (yes, I know that if they crash through right in front of you you don't stand a chance - I'm just making a point about reaction times).

Ultimately, I suppose I am so against excessive speed because I see the end results of speed related RTC's. I am not stupid and I know that speed is only one factor in most accidents in the UK but I really do hate having to try to save the lives of people that have died as a result of speeding related crashes. I have had to do this, it's not pleasant and I would rather not do it again. If people looked at the speed limit and used it but not abused it I would like to think some of the road deaths could be avoided.

What we really need here in the UK is a better method of training drivers. The current training methods and testing scheme is so outdated, it really needs to be revised to come in line with the more powerful cars that are now available. Education is the key to safer roads but part of that is the attitude towards speed and other road users.



I don't disagree here, anything that takes your eye from the road is a bad thing - but if you keep to or below the speed limit all the time you need not worry. Don't forget that most cameras in this country are set at about 5 mph above the limit.

You'd keep glancing at your speedo passing a school wouldn't you? So what is the problem with monitoring your speed near a camera. Like I said, keep it down and there is no worry. Not knowing your speed is Driving Without Due Care....



And driver error, misjudgements of speed, position etc......in fact, it's one of the highest causes.



And finally - I'm a younger pup - but not that young..... . Many thanks for the welcome and I look forward to some very constructive debates. We might disagree on some points but I would like to think that the safety on the roads is paramount to everyone that comes here.

Rich

Actually, until speed cameras I would NEVER and I mean NEVER look at my speedo when passing a school, especially at the busy times when kids are coming and going.

I would slow down, still do, and keep a sharp eye out for activity that might indicate a potential hazard. Now, just in case I am 2mph over the limit, I look at my speedo, taking valuable time away from what is going on around me.

Speed cameras have actually made me a worse driver and children are more at risk because of them.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

If I was driving at 100mph I would be looking a LOT further ahead than at 70 mph and concentrating a LOT harder on the task of driving. I might even have a better chance of seeing this lorry as it started to lose control and take avoiding action earlier. And that action might have been to accelerate up to 130mph rather than brake, depending on the situation.

So I disagree that the speed has any bearing on the cause of the accident, only the damage in the event that the accident is unavoidable. And of course in this example I would be dead either way.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Lawman

This is the way I see it. A dual carriageway in my area, which goes from 40MPH to 30MPH (built up area) had cameras installed in the 30 zone, now before these cameras were installed the traffic used to flow at steady 45 in the 40 and 35 in the 30 (no bad thing), now the traffic does the same but now it slows down for the camera then speeds up more after the camera then back to the original cruising speed. To me the camera is just a distraction that serves absolutely no purpose (in this instance) other than a slightly slower traffic speed 200 yards or so before the camera and slightly higher 200 yards after but the mean traffic speed is still unchanged so what is the point?




With all due respect the last place I would have my eyes in a school area would be on the speedo. I know from the feel of the car how quick I can stop and always assess the dangers from my view in front. It seems that if you are continually looking at speedo and the road then you build up a sort of mean or 'blur' picture like if you look at something and another thing very quickly, so then your front view is very limited and you could miss all sorts of dangers. I think in a way cameras outside schools could be very dangerous.

Lower speed limits as well don't seem to be abided by, which I think should tell us something, wholly unreasonable 20MPH limits etc. I think limits are a reasonable reflection of all unextreme prevailing road conditions for that road but you certainly wouldn't be going 20 in a 20 zone with black ice on the road but neither would you be doing 20 in 20 at 2 in the morning. I have yet to see someone do a constant 20MPH in our new school 'zone', even the law doesn't do it

Before cameras were brought in I never looked at my speedo ever, maybe just out of interest

Shouldn't we have condition cameras where a certain limit is chosen as the threshold dependant upon conditions and also placed on windy back roads with 60 limits not big open carriageways where the limit is 30MPH?

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

Firstly, welcome along to Lawman. I also look forward to learning from you, honinig in on my views and, possibly, playing some small part in colouring your own viewpoints.

You have set out your colours in both the inaugural post of this discussion and your supplementary to Paul's reply. Paul and others have extracted and picked up on several points, all in context. The one consistent difference between your stance and the remainder of the collect above (and now me) is the apparent weight you give to the need to know speed (in absolute terms), particularly when going past a school.

Leaving aside cameras for the moment, and assuming that a policeman pulled me in a half mile or so after one of these 20 limit zones (incidentally, I've not seen one yet), and asked me what speed I was doing through the zone, I would not know, nor would I pretend to know, what speed in absolute terms I was travelling at. However, I can confirm that unequivacolly I would have set my speed throughout commensurate with hazard density and visibility of hazards. I also guarantee that, for a given set of road conditions (including time of day etc as per your intro), the *first* few times I go through such a zone I would be doing so on average slower than once familiar, in order that I can not only assess hazard density but assess also for specific hazards where visibility may be mutually restrictive. All the above information collected over time goes into the CPU (brain!) and continuously regulates speed in such an area.

If the stretch of road is fairly short and there are no specific very low visibility hazards, the chances are I will have set my speed commensuarate with the hazard density in the area and be hovering over the brake (losing just a few % from end to end thanks to the windcheating high-geared auto), saving another 1/10th second or so should the need arise to brake. Is this really driving without due care? I personally suggest respectfully that it is drving with greater than the more typical numpty driving spot on the speed limit irrespective of the conditions - but I still don't know what (absolute) speed I went through at - unless I get a flash in my RVM - when I know that it probably exceeded the posted black writing inside the red circle by some ([robably small) amount.

The other aspect I would like to query in your post is the "undertaking" tale you tell.



I am trying to visualise this in context and failing - so if my take is obtuse, please accept my apologies, it's not deliberate. The first question beged immediately is why are you not on the inside lane (or at least a lane less outside than the one yuou are in)? If the lane you are in is doing 70, and the inner lane(s) are clear, and you do not want to travel any quicker, surely you should move back in? That would stop the undertaking, give you a clearer view ahead - and if you saw the trafic bunching ahead, give you the opportunity to back off nice and early?

Or are you referring to a higher speed version of a congenstion situation such as the one I encounter travelling to work in the mornings? I have come to learn a pattern of a (two-lanes-each-way) dual carriagway. I enter the particular road at a fairly busy junction. From that junction for 1 - 2 miles, the inside lane is crawling and the outside lane is travelling at I'm guessing 45. Thereafter, I know not why, but for the next 4- 5 miles, the inside lane goes at around 20, while the outside lane is stop/start. The next pinch point - an on-slip - the roles change again for a mile.

If I stick to the inside lane, that stretch of road takes me 20 minutes or thereabouts. If I get over to the outside lane and stick there, it takes about 25 mins. If I do three well-timed lane changes (get over to the right ASAP after getting on tyhe road, filter in left soon after, filter right just before final pinch point) I can do it in around 10 minutes. So I do. However, I do not cut anyone up. At all times of course I am part of one or other queues of traffic so am not "undertaking" per se.

See this:



So if Germany has "some of the biggest crashes" why are the fatality rates in Belgium and Austria around double those in Germany?

Also see:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/international3.html

Where we note that the Autobahns have narrow lanes, tight junctions and short slip roads because much of the network was built in the 1930s.



I really don't understand your reaction there. There's a great deal we could and should be doing to reduce the number of crashes each year.



Agreed, although those misjudgements mostly arise out of carelessness. This may amuse:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/s.p.e.e.d.html



Yes, absolutely. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the sophisticated, well developed and well founded views around here I expect.

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

If you have to look at your speedo to tell if your speeding in a schol zone then you shouldnt be on the road.

I am one of the worst drivers (in my opinion), every day I give someone a bump or a nudge, userly just because its easier than using the horn, but I never have to look at my speedo, especialy not in a school zone.

The limit is 30 for gods sake, its not safe to be doing 10 in most of them, with kids running around between parked cars.

That speedo argument is lame.

Why do so many people think they are above the law?

If you cant pay the fine dont do the crime.

deliberatly hitting other cars, and that is "safe" is it....you just keep getting dafter..

sounds like you are the one who is trying to be above the law. How about failing to report an accident.

Sounds to me like you are just taking the p*ss now.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Lawman, it really doesn't matter what speed you are going if a HGV comes through the barrier. If it happens so close to you you don't have time to react your in trouble. It won't matter if your doing 40 or 140.

As for hittng wild life, I've hit foxes at, shall we say above the limt, and it didn't even mark the car, never mind lose control.

Is it safer for me to exceed the limit where I feel safe to do so or take up a 40 a day smoking habit?

I agree that you would be looking much further up the road to see what is going on and you might just see what is happening. However, the point here is reaction times. You are a racer I see by some of your posts so you know just how fast you need to think at speeds over 100mph, I guess you know that driving on a race track at high speed is nothing like driving on a major orad at speed? There are so many other things to take into account along the racing aspect. On a busy M/Way you have to have your eyes up your bum to be able to see just what is happening all around and thats hard enough at 70. you close so fast on vehicles in front and need to make snap decisions, make the wrong one and someone could end up hurt.

The example I used was just for reaction times and not something that is directly related to speed, check out the little disclaimer I put in the brackets.

OK, perhaps a better example would be this: -

You are driving at 100mph on the M6 (in your dreams - - the M6...haha) and you are in lane 3. Miss Daisy who is hogging lane 2 decides she is going to overtake the HGV that just pulled up infront of her, she's doing 60 as always and even assuming she's using her mirrors she still pulls out into lane 3, she signals AS, and not before, she makes the move (loads of drivers do ).

You are doing 100mph and are quite close - your reaction time is 0.7 seconds (OK as a racer you might have better reactions but this is aimed at untrained drivers). Your closing speed is very high and in general you have not got sufficient time to react and you collide with Miss Daisy or swerve into the cetral reservation (OK some might say, "I'd go into lane 2", you might be able to but then again, you might not and at 100mph you're gonna hit the HGV).

At 70mph your closing speed is much much slower and you would have to be almost alongside Miss Daisy to not have time to react, all you would have to do (depending on the distance from her) is to either use acceleration sense (release the accelerator) or apply some brake. We do this all the time when driving at speeds near the speed limit. This is a major cause of RTC's on the M/Way and dual carriageways here in the UK and is directly related to the speed of the vehicles - yes, before anyone says, some accidents can't be avoided no matter what speed you are doing, but many can.



I'm not talking overall figures like the table you published - I'm on about single incident RTC's. There was the one some years ago that I think might still hold the record for the highest number of cars involved, the highest number of injuries and the most deaths in a single crash. I can't remember exactly when it happened but it was a biggie.

Having driven on the German Autobahns I think they are better laid out and less congested than over here - and remember, my post is about UK roads and not others. Plus, the German people are more aware of the speeds on the Autobahns because they have or used to have this no speed limit thing. They also have separate speed limits for different road conditions - look at the signs and you'll see a speed figure for wet weather etc.

But I suppose the biggest thing, if looking at your chart, is the number of UK road deaths - this is a PROPORTIONATE chart and shows that Germany has 4 times the death rate of UK roads. Does that not tell you something? According to that chart we have some of the lowest death rates in Europe....a very good thing and one to be proud of.



It means Oh God please lets have fewer accidents - I was agreeing with your comment.....



I mean exactly what I said - if you have a busy stretch of M/Way (such as the M6 near 21 or around B/Ham) there are drivers that are not happy to choose a lane and sit in it. They move from lane to lane into peoples breaking gaps and use those to undertake/overtake weaving in and out of traffic because they have no consideration for others. If you watch this - it never happens near my works car for some reason - you'll see folks get cut up and others have to break to avoid collisions or to keep a safe distance. This happens when the flow of the traffic is moving slowly or at a reasonable speed. Not only is it dangerous and selfish, it's also an offence.



OK, I take your point and not a good example to use - but you would not exceed the speed limit and would be aware of the dangers and your speed. The same applies near cameras.



Are you really sure of this? I've seen cars hit by Phesants and the front bumpers gone and I've seen cars (police ones...... ) written off by a badger (no - he wasn't the driver ) and strike a deer at speed and see what happens. I agree that hitting most wildlife would not cause a car to go out of control - I'd be well cheesed off though. But it's not just the striking of the animal though - many motorists would swerve to avoid the animal and not take into account other traffic - or they swerve off the road and hit trees etc. You might not and neither would I but many if not most normal drivers would take that natural action

Don't get me wrong folks - I'm not a camera lover and I am very well aware of the dangers involved in checking your speed when near a camera.

I think that when used correctly they are a life saver. I also feel that until the government puts more funds into putting more officers on the roads cameras are one of the most effective and cheap methods of enforcing seed limits - something we need to do.

Like I said before, the speed limit is part of the Law - if you choose to break that law then you must expect to face the music if you are caught and shouldn't moan when the authorities decide to use whatever means available to enforce that law.

Possibly, the better cameras are some of the ones in Northamptonshire - they measure the average speed between 2 separate sites on the road, you don't have to check, slam on the brakes etc - all you have to do is be aware of your speed at all times....something we should all be doing.

One last point about speed - my original post was that I agree with many of the comments on this forum - speed itself is not a killer, but it is a major contribution to many many accidents on our roads. I am talking inappropriate use of speed here - the spotty youth that has just passed his test and thinks that he can put his souped up Corsa into a bend at 60 (in a 60 limit) but it's only safe to go around that bend at say 45 - we all know of bends like that - his speed is not against the law but it's inappropriate and as a result he could die or kill someone else.

Yes, there are places in the UK that, with some PROPER training (I'm talking proper training and not race track or IAM training), you could do more than say 70mph (some of the M/ways above Preston can be quiet at times) but it is still against the law - no matter how much you argue about the fairness of cameras and camera vans they are only upholding the law. Until the law is changed, and it might be on the horizon, you need to either obey it or face the fine/ban and stop moaning - it's the driver that CHOOSES to speed and not the camera.

If you kill someone while driving at 100mph you could be facing a charge of Causing Death By Dangerous Driving (even if it's their actions that led to the accident) and you could, if found guilty, face 14 years in prison. Please bear that in mind.

I need to add that as in my original post I am trained to drive at high speeds in pursuit situations. I have been at speeds on busy roads that, at the end of the chase, have left me shell shocked. I abide by the speed limits because my training and high speed (road) driving has taught me that on UK roads excessive speed is not appropriate or safe

Drive safe and stay safe - no matter the speed.

Rich[/quote]

Er.. no; emphatically, no! Before draconian speed enforcement changed my priorities to put preservation of my license before safety, I'd have been doing between 80 and 90, I'd be in L3 only because I'd be in the process of overtaking Miss Daisy. On seeing the truck starting to pull into L2, I'd have already lifted off the throttle and be covering the brake. (I'm assuming that I'm not close enough to Miss Daisy to make acceleration the safest option.) On seeing that Miss Daisy didn't slow down, I'd have braked so that she had somewhere to go. IOW, I'd assume from her driving that she was going to pull out.

Now, with preservation of my driving license as my priority, I'd be doing exactly 70. There is a high probability that my head would have been in the dash as the lorry pulled out, and so would have less time to react. There is also a very high probability that the lack of speed differential as I overtook Miss Daisy would make a collision either between her and the truck or between her and me much more likely. Of course, I still hold back when I notice a Miss Daisy who could pull out in front of me. However, that has its own dangers because it gets right up the noses of the motorists who I'm now holding up -- and you wouldn't believe the aggression that evokes in some.

_________________
Will

In *my* dreams I may have been closing much faster than 100. HOWEVER, *LONG* before I'd reached Miss Daisy in the middle lane closing on HGVs, I'd have been down to the speed of Miss Daisy plus 10 mph max, covering the brake until the final glance at her offside front wheel confirmed she was staying put. I'd then be slowing a tad further to get differential speed to manageable proportions in case Mr Yorkie was on the phone. Past them I'd be back up (in my dreams of course) to 120. Same progress as the ton-all-the-way, attracted less attention, a tad more petrol and a bl**y sight safer. Camera on the stretch leading to or from the congestion - I'm inside doing a stretch for 120. Camera catching the one in your example who had to react through going too fast... points and fine.

Edit: This post was composed and posted at the same time as, and without reference to Willcove's above.

I've just read the Speeding page on this site - http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

I must say that the arguement there is very well put and very well thought out. I agree with many of the points listed - especially the one with regards to WHO sets the limit. That should be left to experts.

In fact, there are only one or two things there I really have any issue with and I might just be reading the thing incorrectly - . I feel that limits need to be set to allow for those that don't have the experience and not for those that do. As already mentioned in this post (see my first post in this topic) it is just not feasable to set limits which equate to your level of driving experience. They must be set to the lowest tolerance, that is, so that young Joe Bloggs can drive his Corsa after just passing his test in safety if abiding by the maximum limit.

If the limit was set on a M/way for example to 70mph during the day but from midnight to 4am it was 100mph then Joe Bloggs would be legally allowed to do that speed at that time - but is he capable of doing it, I would argue that with most novice drivers (and this also applies to drivers that have many years but little prctical experience) would be way out of their depth at that kind of speed. If the limit is set to an individual how could it be enforced? It would be far to hard and far to costly to contemplate.

The other item I don't 100% agree with is where speed limits have been dropped. Some areas had speed limits that were too high for the road and therefore the limit was dropped. There is a section of road near my home that was National Limit but is now 40mph. With good reason, it passes through a residential area - old and not new houses - and should never have been 60mph. Another stretch of the same road has a 40mph limit near to a very bad junction (already mentioned in this post - the one with the cameras) but it is also on a bad bend that when I blue light down I only go at about 60 around, not safe to go faster, it is also residential and had one of the highest accident rates on my patch - not any more.

The point I'm making here is that some of the new lower speed restrictions are in appropriate areas and just because the old limit was 60 doesn't mean that limit was safe.

Speed limits constantly need to be revised, more cars on the road, more housing etc. On the side of increasing some limits, many modern cars are far safer and have much better braking systems and could cope (with the right driver - the most important factor) with higher speeds.

What I would advise anyone reading this - stick to the speed limit if it is safe to do so - don't abuse it or exceed it. It might be frustrating but it is the law (not gonna do that one again). Put pressure on politicians to revise speed limits if you want to go faster.

Most of all be aware of your limits and drive WELL within them, don't overestimate your driving ability.

Rich

To Roger and Willcove - Yep I agree 100% with what you have said about looking forward, seeing the signs and adjusting your speed for them. Perfect driving, too fast....hehe....but perfect.

I really need to explain more when posting - I was talking about the times when it happens very fast infront of you and with very little warning - we all can avoid something with advanced warning - never mind how fast we're going. But sometimes things happen and we are lucky to avoid them. In my example - at 100mph you simply would not be able to whereas at 70 there would not be much of a problem as your closing speed on Miss Daisey is in effect only 10mph (see the disclaimer thogh - I know if you're along side it's too late).

Roger, the dreamy speed of 120mph is a little fast but in the conditions and circumstances it's slightly more appropriate - not justifyable though...lol. Much better to do that and slow for congestion than fly by at 100 in heavy traffic - many do though .

Is that better explained? Like I say, it's in reference to one of those situations where you have very little warning, the kind where accidents are likely to follow.

Rich

Yep - better explained. However.....

In addition to attempting to reduce differential speed in proximity to others on m/ways and d/carriageways, I assume I'm not alone in also planning "what if" subconsciously and in advance? I can remember - a long time ago - coming along a very drizzly M11 in a Mark III Cortina 2000E estate - laden with concrete blocks (bespoke for a project). I was, I think, in the middle lane, about 60, hanging back. The fast lane was going about 70 - 75, inside lane a tad slower than the middle lane but all bunched up with a limited number of gaps. One such gap was about 15 car lengths in front of me (I was perhaps 30 car lengths behind the next middle-laner). I noticed about 20 cars ahead a dab on the brakes (no idea why) - which was followed by a shot ofof steam about 5 cars tall and two cars wide. Dabbed brakes (way long before others back this far) - locked up. Lifted off the brake and floored the throttle - through the gap in inside lane traffic to the shoulder where I braked (but not quite so hard) to a halt - about 5 car lengths before the accident in the middle lane, allowing traffic to slew around it (some of which was using the shoulder in front of me) alongside the accident. I heard at least two other crunches resulting from that smash. Once the traffic had backed up behind me, and having seen all passengers/drivers out of their cars safely, I cautiously rejoined the carriageway in front of the accident. I could add nothing as a witness so got out of the way for the emergency services.

I learned that day that standard brakes and tyres on a MkIII Cortina with a serious loadare not up to 70mph. I also learned that my "what if" was well in tune too.

Very rarely do things happen without advanced warning. As you are approaching the situation, you should be observing things like speed differentials between vehicles in L1, assessing how that may affect the vehicles in L2, etc. So, from some way back you would have noticed that the truck was closing on the vehicle in front, and so was likely to pull out. You would have noticed the speed differential between that truck and Miss Daisy and so anticipate her movement into L3 even before the truck pulled into L2.

Now, the larger the speed differentials, the easier the situation is to assess. For example, with a 20 mph differential between two vehicles in L2, the "interaction zone" is about a tenth that for a 2 mph differential. Thus, it is much easier to assess when a vehicle will pull out when there is a larger differential. However, with draconian speed enforcement, speed differentials are much smaller. It is harder to assess when an event (e.g. someone pulling out) will occur and there is a much longer "overlap" period where one vehicle is alongside another, where each can catastrophically affect the other.

So, the low speed differential between you and Miss Daisy actually increases the likelihood of a collision. Also, draconian enforcement removes half the options available to you should you need to take avoiding action because you daren't accelerate over the limit to get out of the way!

_________________
Will

Perhaps, but it's marginal, and the risk overall is far reduced doe to consequences being pride and tin hurt rather than flesh and bones