Safe Speed Forums

Trucks can drive at a greater range of speeds, one could drive slower. I have no problems with trucks. They have every right to do what they do. Better than big speed differentials.




On a narrow 2 lane motorway contraflow, at 40mph, the consideration is an accident with an oncoming veicle which shoots through the cones. That is why the speed is restricted. Where there is a nice barrier, there is generally a lesser-enforced limit. Your argument is not irrelevant, but misguided. It is oncoming crashes that are being minimised, as at 40mph there is MUCH more reaction time and shorter braking distances, also for following traffic faced with an accident occuring ahead. Why ALWAYS defend speed?

On non-roadworked motorways in clear weather and normal traffic, you know damn well that a higher speed than 70 is allowed, and peeople generally accept that. Of course it is not policy, just common sense. Why always do you have to be so techincally perfect in your arguments? The real world is out there and it is NOT technically perfect or filled with ultra-alert hyper-responsive drivers.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

I have to work for a while again, and by the way, I am on Radio5 at around 4.30 ish talking about my truck (I think). I'll see if I can get the subject on to road safety of having my truck parked next to the A1 (see my website), and maybe suggest the council should have speed cameras near it to minimise accidents!

Hey ho! Hope no-one offended.

Is it coincidence that most of you sound like male drivers???

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Here is my truck

[/img]

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

I have no problem with trucks either, in fact this exactly backs up my point.

The huge majority of truck drivers are responsible, alert and safe. Thus the *right* thing to do is to trust them to overtake sensibly, to have the freedom to do so at a sensible speed differential, even if one lorry briefly speeds whilst doing so. That would be sensible and safe.

Instead our stupid "Nanny knows best" Government decides they know better than the experienced truck drivers what is safe, and saddle them with speed limiters. Now the truck being overtaken is not going to back off from his imposed 55.8mph limit as he knows there's a hill in a mile's time and he'll never regain that momentum. Similarly, the truck steaming up behind at 56.2mph isn't going to back off for the same reason so instead he pulls out and creeps past at 0.4mph speed differential (or even less now he's out from the slipstream of the other truck).

If this is in a contra flow then we now have a truck in the outside lane for an unnecessarily long time, which increases your risk of a cross-over accident with oncoming traffic, should either truck swerve for some unexpected reason..

And all of this for what? Because some misguided Gov't official is obsessed with the notion that trucks were going too fast, even though inb reality was caused a tiny percentage of accidents. In the quest to address an imaginary problem they have caused a load of other ones, such as the above, also bored truckers falling asleep at 56mph etc etc...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

But 'the masses' break the speed limit. So are 'the masses' wrong, or is it the speed limit (set by an incredibly small minority) that's wrong?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Good point and one which puts our 'problems' very much into perspective Ling. People here have so much freedom, whilst most have never known any real hardship at all, that any minor interference from the authorities and they'd have you believe its 'next stop facist regime, nazis, etc etc'

I'm sorry, I smell a troll. If she was born in China, I'll stand f:censored:g!

In Africa I saw an overloaded taxi van doing about 50mph being sideswiped just slightly by a car - with the result that the van lost control and started cartwheeling down the road, spilling out bodies all the while. It doesn't take much lateral acceleration to unsettle a vehicle travelling at anything much more than a crawl.
I also saw a car being sideswiped by a HGV. What was left of the car and its driver was not a pretty sight.
Trust me, you do not want to get sideswiped - especially by something a lot larger than you.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

How does that work? Can you please explain.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

To Ling:

As people have already asked (and you have ignored the question multiple times)

What real evidence do you have that speed cameras have improved safety dramatically?

Ling, as your husband is a pilot, he would also know that he would be able to go faster than the 250knot limit under 10,000ft with permission and when considered safe to do so. The 250knt rule is not absolute.

Please feel free to get your facts right before posting.

I think Ling is still missing the point.

Most Safespeeders (that means we support the Safespeed campaign - not that we think it is safe to speed all the time) will intentionally drive for the vast majority of the time under the speed limit and at the safe speed for the road and conditions at the time, as the safe speed is often below the legal limit. We have no problem with proper and sensible enforcement of the speed limits by the police.

A major problem arises with the government's massive over enforcement of exceeding speed limits in recent year at the expense of other road safety issues such as inattention, drink driving, tailgating drugs etc.
The speed cameras themselves are not the problem, it is how they are used that we take issue with. The technology is far more problematical than we are led to believe, the checking of photos is less rigorous than it should be etc. You said yourself that many of the vans and cameras are very well hidden - but they're not supposed to be! According to the guidelines they should highly visible with equally visible warning signs.

If I remember the figures correctly, motorists have paid over £120 million in fines in one year to save (according to the Gov.t's own figures) 100 lives. can you imagine how many lives COULD have been saved if the money had been spent on extra traffic police, or driver education, or catching drunk/drugged drivers, or engineering schemes on poor roads?

I'll hold my hands up and say I like to drive quickly where appropriate, but my own village in the morning isn't it, so I keep my speed well below the stated speed limit as 30mph isn't safe with so many young kids running around.
I've had 3 bumps in the last 18months, but they've all been caused by someone else not paying attention and consequently running into the back of me in conditions of clear visibility. Of these, all were below the limit, 1 was at about 20mph and the other 2 were at about 3mph.
I know of at least 4 other accidents where the cause was lack of attention and concentration rather than speeding (all below the stated limit and all preventable).

edited due to lots of posts between Ling's last one and mine...

That's all a bit academic. Besides the fact that most single-engined light aircraft aren't capable of speeds anywhere near the limit, aircraft do not spend most of their time around the limit like cars do. You don't see pilots flying at 249 knots if the limit is 250 knots, neither do you see them flying at 1998 feet if the limit is 2000 feet. Of course it's simple. And pilots don't have cameras waiting to pounce on them for every minor transgression, do they?

But most drivers spend a lot of time at the very edge of legality - like 30mph in a 30 limit. Do 30.1mph and, technically, you're breaking the law. How many bank robbers 'almost' rob a bank?

Anyway, isn't the sub 10,000 feet speed limit in place for noise control, rather than safety?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

In highly congested CatA airspace (Heathrow, in the UK) it's to enable ATC to get a consistent separation as well as noise due to traffic. Most pilots, at least I do will fly it using AP/AT which to non aviators is like cruise control on a car - ie the airspeed is maintained automatically by the FADECS/AP systems.

And yes, there are fines for transgressions of the 250 KIAS speed restriction which are slightly more than a £60/3pt.

My point was, planes seldom have reason to be anywhere near the limits - particularly light aircraft which can't do anywhere near 250 knots anyway.
Unlike cars, where normal driving is right on the edge of what's legal.



But I'm sure they use more common sense than the SCPs do.
For example, what happens if you're flying at 240 KIAS and you suddenly encounter a 60-knot headwind, so your IAS auddenly shoots up to 20% above the limit?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Apologies to all for my particularly quotey post.

So elaborate; don't just say "oh yes he is"

Yes it was important and yes you did miss it

As others have pointed out, this is not a 'safe to speed' site.
You must have interpreted my quote wildly out of context. Perhaps it's the language barrier. Let me explain: some people have a break from work by going out for a fag, I do the same but instead surf on Safespeed.

Yes, the Advertising Standards agency would agreee with me. Complaints against these two were upheld:
"where you see one of these......."
"Speeding causes over a quarter of all deaths on London's roads........"

I agree, the Chinese public have got it bad, but it doesn't mean we in the UK should bend over and accept our 'lesser problems' with a wide smile. To do so could lead to another 'China'.

Go to any respectable UK news site, find an article about speed cameras and it'll be very likely that Safespeed will have a mention.

Public opinion is an indirect measure, but it's still valid. Policy can be changed (by pressure from the public), that's partly why this site exists. Don't forget that moratorium.........

No it's not, it is an entirely valid, logical and relevant statement, derived from your post. Please explain how do you interpret otherwise; don't just say "oh no he isnt"

Here's a good example. Be honest, how much actual professional hands-on motorway tuition did you and your husband receive before passing your UK driving test? There can only one answer to that: none! Don't you think that a little odd considering what's at stake?

No, the faster you go, the further ahead you need to plan and create contingencies for, it's called C.O.A.S.T.

I agree with your sentiment on consistency but you're dodging the point. So what about that panic braking and speedo watching (also meaning that some drivers won't notice the panic braking ahead)? Do you view that as encouraging consistent driving?

........Wait a minute, you state that cameras are 'good' then you go and undo your claim by saying we can't draw conclusions?


:lol: I agree, Let's take a breather, go out and enjoy the Friday evening sunshine.

I suppose that, in comparison to Tianamen Square, Gatso's are a piece of p!ss...

ReichsChancellor Brown only needs a bit of time when he takes over from President Bliar...

There is a faint smell of bridges and three Billy-Goats Gruff here...

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

I'll explain:

Because you are going slower, you are covering the ground at a reduced rate. Therefore the time taken to cover that ground is greater. Therefore you have more time to react.

If you were creeping along at 5mph in a traffic jam it would take a great deal of time. If you are doing 100mph you can barely blink.

Does that cover it?

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

In China, i saw a moped with 4 people on it crash once. Does that disprove my point also?

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Ling, you make some very good arguments, but I cannot understand how you arrive at an assumption that speed cameras save lives.
I gave a personal example here which you appear to have overlooked.

Your argument that a contraflow places two lanes in potential conflict, separated only by cones, fails to consider that many roads are 60 mph with NO CONES, and drivers manage not to crossover and strike a vehicle coming the other way.

In Leicestershire on the M1, cameras were put in place "to protect road workers in road works".
5,438 drivers failed to slow down, and paid £326,280 in fines, yet not one of the 5,438 drivers killed a road worker, or had an accident.
In fact the people who placed the cameras made no attempt to STOP any of the drivers who were apparently placing road workers lives at risk!!!
I am sure you could have provided a vehicle, and they could have employed two officers to man it for less than £326,280, so it could not be shortage of resources which led to this inaction!!

Like many, you seem to think we are against cameras because we wish to speed over the limit.
I for one want sensible limits, governed by common sense like the rules governing aircraft, and proper road safety measures in place, not a slavish persecution of speed, to the exclusion of all else.
Everyday on my way to and from work, I pass through a 40 limit which was petitioned for by a group of people who met in a pub. The county council gave in to them on the grounds that it showed they listened to the wishes of local people. Since the limit and major re-organisation of the road layout was introduced, they have placed speed cameras - mobile at first, and now fixed cameras. Accidents (KSI's) have gone UP!!

Now does this look like a road requiring a 40 limit? It's one of the busiest tourist routes in Britain. So how have cameras helped? KSI's UP, and a substantial contribution to £1.6 million pounds collected in Cumbria by the "Safety" Camera Partnership. That = 26,666 drivers speeding, and not one of them was stopped from speeding!!

And the accidents used to meet the criteria for placement of the cameras?
A local man, had a heart attack at the wheel of his car UNDER the speed limit, and ended up upside down in a ditch, and a driver had a stroke and struck a tree!

My view of speed cameras is not disimmilar to your view of the company policies which prevent you leasing motorcycles!! You just know it doesnt make sense!

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