Safe Speed Forums

Perhaps if sense prevailed ,there is a case (to be qualified for exceptional cases/circumstances ) of a MINIMUM speed limit on motorways ,under normal circumstances - and allow the use of the overhead signs to remove this ,should circumstances prevail .

_________________
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

You're talking about overhead signing the entire motorway network for the very rare occasion when somebody choose to travel very slowly, when they could go a little faster.

Wow.

How much is that?

A lot -ask any HGV driver (especially on the M6 ,around J3) ---At times cars only get off the M6 due to the courtesy of HGV - there's a lot of 50 drivers in this area - as a matter of fact -too many of them overall - again ask the HGV posters on here. Would suggest you open eyes before opening mouth.

_________________
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

Unless you had not noticed, the entire motorway network IS being overhead signed. The yellow signs at the side are the intermediate signing. The frequency depends on the useage, the busiest first....the M1 has them about every mile....at the moment.
http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3138

So we have the signs to remove the minimum limit -all we need is the will to enforce a minimum limit - but like the mloc what chance is there ?????

_________________
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

And cameras to enforce it? :p

And cameras to enforce it? :p[/quote
Haven't you seen the state that cameras have got our roads into -- please put brain into gear before using typing finger.The idea is the old fashioned ,using brain and discretion. should retain control of limits.

_________________
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

I am not sure I agree. Insurance claims yes 100 %
but the root cause was an avoidable slow vehicle that should not have been there and is legislaited against.

Very few accidents are the fault of just one cause.
We all should drive with an eye out for each other. If a driver looks like he is running out of space, create some space for them to correct thier error. We all make errors time to time.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Not quite so straightforward... insurers may not always hold the person who rear -ended as liable in such bizarre circumstances - especially since she was successfully prosecuted and barred from driving and can only hold a provisional licence until the day she proves herself capable of such responsibility and an adequate standard.


There are insurance fraudsters who engineer these and sometimes if a person changes lane or makes an emergency stop for no reason - then insurers may fight and quibble over pay-outs based on the stories and diagrams given. Some of these cases end up in the County Courts and a judge will decide based on "probability of the party's gifts of the gab on the day" .

In this case she was well beyond the standard expected of a normally average qualified motorist.


This was a fast road and there are regulations top abide by. Had her weaving/straddling and dangerously slow behaviour on a fast moving road caused an accident to road users within her area of road space - then her action would be the catalyst in the incident. We have in the past successfully prosecuted the driver whose dangerous action catalysed a collision.


Now at this speed she's perhaps travelled say 6 yards per second. A car travelling at 60 mph travels around 30 yards per second. It's not then rocket science to work out that this low speed becomes then as dangerous as a high speed .. given that the driver is in a free flow and there are no wave/brake or other jams or warning signs relating to any stationary traffic.


When you are approaching a jam.. you see it in your limit point/horizon ahead - and there will be visible brake lights and other courteous drivers giving that secondary courtesy of a half dozen flash of the hazard warning lights too.


In this case - the driver would see a clear road on approach and only realise when closing in closer that she was practically stationary for the type of road here - with no other clues other than she was confusingly slow. The standard would be equally dangerous on a 30 mph road as well as open to confusion to all other road users - including a pedestrian - as to whether she is stopping or negotiating a turn.


If the driver created a tailback and a driver collided with the last car in the slow moving traffic - then this would be a separate incident and she would not be a catalyst in the causation of this incident as jams occur a-plenty from wave/brakes .. and a competent driver would see the line of slow moving traffic ahead of him.

There are no excuses for driving like that on a motorway and you know it as well as I do - and offering the excuse of "fear of driving" as a reason or "needing an ink cartridge" when there are other means of going shopping for it and presumably stores which do not mean a motorway drive given learners and cyclists cannot use this road.


The traffic officer came to a professional decision that her action fell well below the required standard and the court agreed. In fact, she agreed as she did plead guilty anyway

I doubt she will pass a test unless she gets over this phobia. You cannot afford to have phobias about driving above walking pace or phobias about roundabouts or any other fact of life on the roads out there if you are in charge of anything on wheels.

Having such a phobia is just the same a getting into that car when drunk, tired or otherwise unfit and will kill someone just the same. Her doctor should have reported this and really advised her not to drive without some qualified supervisor to help her at the very least.

If you have doubts about being able to drive properly and to a required standard - then do not drive. The team here do not like clearing up messes - and we do prosecute dangerous and potentially dangerous idiots with little mercy.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

What planet are you on "weepej" as I have never seen anyone on this forum who is so bigoted and ignorant of facts as yourself, you can,t even see the stupidity of a driver travelling at a "Dangerous Speed" of 10mph on a m/way for no other reason than fear and putting other drivers in danger.

Even the "Traffic Police" and the courts "DECIDED" that this driver was in need of instruction apart from other things and needs to re-take her driving test.

What purpose would having a camera on a m/way to "police" a stretch of m.way for 75 yds do? Oh I forgot IT WOULD SAVE LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have the most illogical idea of safety that I have ever come across I personally don,t think you have a clue what utter rubbish you are putting on this forum.

It is patently obvious to people like myself (A HGV driver for over 35 years) that you have no perception of what is safe driving other than 0MPH for all vehicles as in your blinkered view ALL accidents are definitely not ACCIDENTS they are caused by STUPID DRIVERS not idiots who get steaming drunk and wander in to the road or pedestrians who don,t look where they are going and walk in front of vehicles on the public highway as even ALL road users have a responsibility for their actions or inactions WHATEVER THE CONSEQUENCES!

Sadly some times they are injured sometimes fatally but that is not the fault of the driver just because he / she happened to be driving at the legal and very likely safe limit for the road & conditions concerned, as you say you drive at 15 / 20 mph in residential areas so what is your definition of a "residential area" as I know a lot of main trunk rds. in this country that are a mix of residential and shops all on the same rd.

What are you advocating, that ALL drivers should drive at your speeds in roads like this?

Do you drive at these speeds in ALL residential areas no matter what?

Why should the driver always be to blame just because they happen to be there at the time of the accident?

That is the culture of "if you weren,t there the accident would not have happened" so as you were there it is "YOUR FAULT" that the idiot who CHOSE to cross the road in front of you is totally not to blame it is your fault for not travelling atyour ridiculous self imposed limit of 15mph and to hell with what problems you are causing to other traffic quite frankly YOU are the danger on the road not the other drivers.

It is NOT MY RESPONSIBILTY to think for other road users my responsibility is to ensure that I am as safe as is humanly possible and to make progress without unduly delaying other road users something you cannot understand as it is in the Highway Code that it is illegal to "drive without consideration for other road users" and that means simply that you make SAFE progress not driving at 15 / 20 mph when conditions allow for the LEGAL limit to be reached.

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

He's not saying it IS straighforward IG!
Excuse me but how many more different ways are there to point out that in an incident where driver A collides with driver B the decision as to who is culpable is not always straightforward even though one may appear to be more to blame than the other?
Because that is essentially what you are both saying. Again.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

We charge people for careless or dangerous driving even if they were the only person/vehicle involved - if we have the evidence to suggest this was the case and the CPS agree there is a case to answer.


But not all are successful and you have to prove within reason that the standard of driving fell far beyond the accepted or acceptable norm.



In this case - the driving standard as displayed fell way beyond the accepted norm and she got convicted and banned. And I think a good thing as one less potential danger to deal with out there.


Had she been travelling on a residential road or past a line of parked cars on a narrow urban road or in very severe weather condtions whereby visibility was almost nil.. then choosing to drive at 10 mph -20 mph max would be the safest speed to choose.


However, she admitted to being "terrified of driving to the point of phobic panic", chose to drive on a motorway in that state "because she wanted to buy something" , which could have been bought on her weekly trek to to main supermarkets who all stock consumables for popular home computing equipment these days, did not "know the way on the A road" and chose not only to drive on a motorway .. but chose to drive on this motorway at a speed which was just as dangerous and inconsiderate to another road user than driving on this road in the rush hour at way over the legal limits.

Yeah.. you are right about "attitude" and I am concluding she was perhaps "selfish" as well as "rather stupidly inconsiderate". By this I mean her choice of road to use and speed choice given she knew she was prone to/ allegedly being treated for rather debilitating panic attacks when on fast and busy roads.

Oh, I am well aware of her MS condition - but this condition apparently is not yet severe enough to prevent her carrying on a normal life for the time being.


My post does not mean I am not sympathetic to her condition as I know from what the medic in this family tell me and I do have a pal who has this same condition. But she is apparently still considered able enough as yet to drive a car and that means responsibilility to drive that car to the standard as required by the law of the land - which is set at the standard required by the basic driving test regardless.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Ah... but if RPU are involved in a serious - you know we close the entire road down and send everything off to forensics.

If in a normal collision - neither party admits liablity - insurers may try to settle 50/50 to close it or go to court whereby a judge will hear both sides and decide on the balance of the arguments presented and probability as the judge udnerstands the situation. It may not always be the "right decision" as it can depend on who has the better gift of the gab on the day.

That would have been part of the equation had the bloke who lkilled mahali's daughter been found and prosecuted. Kentpolice and CPS would have had to have proven his driving catalysed the incident. ASme as had this lady caused a KSI type collision between cars immediately in her stretch of road.. we would have to prove to a court that her driving catalysed the incident.


But we go over the whole scene as you know with the road closed for hours whilst we collect, photograph and bag all the evidence .. and test the cars forensically and even test ourselves within reason and if safe to do so.


Er.. that's why ,, we ,, er close roads
We would still have prosecuted her for being a danger on the road anyway as drivng at an abnormally low speed on a fast road through "fear" is just as dangerous and inconsiderate to another road user as driving over the ton for a "jolly thrill"

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

But, er, um, isn't that.....

Ok, forget it.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

But the speedo doesn't measure closing speed, does it? Current instrumentation is NOT going to help in this situation and therefore the ONLY choice you have is to rely on your senses.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Two wrongs do not make a right.. but had anyone collided with her and she was successfully prosecuted (as she was) for inconsiderate and sub-standard driving - then this will have a bearing on insurance settlements and it may well be that we may prosecute the rear ender if there was sufficient reason to do so. But we would be looking closely as to how he could have avoided the collision given the extremely low speed on a fast road.


Basically though - she was the dangerous driver and there is no excuse for driving without due consideration to others at any damned speed.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

No, I was just using the speedo example to say that you should never trust what your senses are telling you.

If you first think a car up head is going at a decent speed, check how fast its passing the white lines, or how other cars move in relation to it, don't just trust its going forward at the same speed as you are.

Just my 2c worth on this, but observational sense is of Primary importance on a motorway, and I - for one - trust it implicitly over and above the position of the speedo needle.

Picture the scene of said 10mph driver dawdling along in the inside lane creating chaos due to the huge speed differential between her and other drivers. Given adequate forward observation, one would see abnormal traffic movements, erratic application of brakes, unusual lane swapping of cars, and an inexplicable slowing of all three lanes of traffic.

Now, on seeing such things unfolding in front of me, I'd start looking for escapes and alternatives, and adjusting my road position should it all go tits-up.

Spacial awareness is a sense that should never be under-used nor under-rated whilst driving.

IMVHO, of course......

_________________
Simon

Lets chuck a hypothetical situation at this:-

You're on a motorway. All 3 cars are in lane 1 to start with.Clear conditions, dry road.
Car A is travelling at 10mph.
Car B is 3 seconds ahead of you , travelling at 70mph.
Car C is being driven by you, also at 70mph.

Car B's driver is busy chatting to his passenger and realises Car A is travelling 60mph slower than him 2 seconds before potential impact. He simultaneously indicates and moves to lane 2 without checking his mirrors.Luckily there isn't a car alongside him. This takes a second.

You in Car C now have 4 seconds to realise there's an almost stationary obstruction in L1,check mirrors,signal,find a gap in L2 that's viable (but there isn't one as you've got a queue of tailgaters next to you now)Using the hard shoulder as an emergency get-out isn't possible as Car A is straddling from L1 to the hard shoulder.

IF you're alert you now have 2 seconds in which to drop from 70mph to 10mph.

Bang.

So, weepej.

Who's fault was it?

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

But apparently, women and gays have a different spatial awareness to heterosexual males !

So, does that mean she would have been "rear-ended" by a woman or a gay person (no crude jokes please) in preference to a heterosexual male ?

Doesn't it get complicated.

So, you're driving along, quite happy with the world, when suddenly you notice that the car in front of you is getting larger, faster, and too faster.
You look for a way out, while braking. Bearing in mind that you have a truck about 3 metres behind you, and a line of cars on your right, doing anything up to 70+.
Pedants always have an easy time driving, they just mutter the mantra "I'm in the right and that truck should know the two second rule", and brake harshly. Becoming pedant soup in less than two seconds.

In real life things are not easy. I had a car behind me once that had its headlights on mainbeam, dipping them when another car came towards me/it. After a while I pulled in and let it pass (I couldn't see anyway). I tagged it to its house (about a mile) and asked the lady driver why she drove along with her headlights on high....she said she couldn't see without them on high She was wearing specs with lenses like bottle bottoms. She was also about 80.