[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)

[iadom]

Originally Posted by andyl

I understand the point you're making. But Durham et al do not have the concentration of the kind of urban roads upon which most deaths occur that other areas have. The comparison is not like for like even when it's looking at per head of pop.

But those other areas that are exactly comparable to Durham, large areas of Wales for example do have 'safety' cameras but have a higher accident rate.

There is little evidence that these cameras actually reduce accidents, they are milch cows for the authorities.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

At 20mph the stopping distance is 40ft.
That means that there is a 35 foot zone where the 30 mph car could hit and kill or injure a pedestrian but the 20 mph car would have stopped before entering.
What would your view of speeding be if you hit and killed a pedestrian in that 35 foot zone?

Would your view change if your child, partner or parent was killed in that zone?

How about if you hit and killed your own child, partner or parent in that zone? Would you put on their gravestone

Here lies the body of my son
He died but hey, I wasn't speeding so I'm obviously not a bad driver

Speeding does not equal death/injury/accident, bad driving does.

Your last sentence would be so true but you are forgettting that speeding IS bad driving.

When you are driving you have to read the road and anticipate what could happen.

A 30 mph area does not mean that you HAVE to drive at 30 mph or even faster if you think you are the perfect driver who is never going to have an accident or get caught speeding. It means that you are in an area where accidents are more likely to happen and you should be prepared by keeping your speed below the limit.

But the point that some of us are trying to make is that accidents DO happen and the faster you are travelling, the more serious the consequences.

A couple of questions for you.

1 Do you deliberately break the speed limit?

2 If you do, why?

Originally Posted by ian@huth

A couple of questions for you.

1 Do you deliberately break the speed limit?

2 If you do, why?

Do you mean any speed limit ? if so then ;

1. Yes

2. Because the limit is plain stupid.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Your last sentence would be so true but you are forgettting that speeding IS bad driving.

Could you please explain how doing 71mph along a straight empty dual carrigeway equals death/injury/accident but 70mph along the same stretch of road doesn't?

Originally Posted by ian@huth

A couple of questions for you.

1 Do you deliberately break the speed limit?

2 If you do, why?

On motorways with the flow of traffic.
It's a fact that the safest form of traffic is that which has a relative speed of zero.

Overtaking when safe on a single carrigeway when there's some dolt who doesn't know what a white disc with a black diaginal line means and insists on doing 40mph (and normally speeds up to 45mph when they hit a 40zone! Or you get someone who sticks at 50mph no matter what the speed limit is, so they're not going slow for safety's sake!)
I'd rather get past them as quickly as possible, even if that means going over 60mph for a few seconds

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Do you mean any speed limit ? if so then ;

1. Yes

2. Because the limit is plain stupid.

So we should all break any laws that we think are stupid?

Would you still break speed limits if the penalty was more severe, say a months ban for every MPH above the limit?

I would say that most people break the speed limit because the chances of getting caught are slim and the penalty if they do get caught is no deterrent. That is why they are against Gatsos because it increases the chance of them getting caught. That plus the feeling that accidents will never happen to them.

[Raistlin]

I'm a firm believer that, on certain roads and at certains times of the day/night, there should be a minimum speed limit and that the maximum speed limits should be increased.

For example, motorways/dual-carriageways. Why should I be restricted to 70Mph at 2 O'clock in the morning on a long straight bit of road when there's nobod else about?
Similarly, single carriage-way bypasses. Where I live there are a number of long, open roads. Well-lit and clear of all pedestrians etc. Why should I, in the wee hours of the morning, be forced to sit behind some muppet who doesn't want to travel above 30Mph in a National Speed Limit zone? I can't overtake because the lines down the middle are solid, I can't go any faster because the guy in front says that I can't.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Could you please explain how doing 71mph along a straight empty dual carrigeway equals death/injury/accident but 70mph along the same stretch of road doesn't?

Nobody has made such a claim. For the umpteenth time what is being said is that the faster the speed the more serious the results of any accident may be. You can be the only car on that straight dual carriageway doing 60 mph, 70 mph or 80 mph and can have a blowout. The result of that blowout can mean injuries or death and the severity of those increases with speed.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

On motorways with the flow of traffic.
It's a fact that the safest form of traffic is that which has a relative speed of zero.

Quite correct but again if all vehicles are travelling at the same speed and an accident happens for whatever reason then the consequences are more serious the higher the speed.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Overtaking when safe on a single carrigeway when there's some dolt who doesn't know what a white disc with a black diaginal line means and insists on doing 40mph (and normally speeds up to 45mph when they hit a 40zone! Or you get someone who sticks at 50mph no matter what the speed limit is, so they're not going slow for safety's sake!)
I'd rather get past them as quickly as possible, even if that means going over 60mph for a few seconds

Have you ever stopped to think that some drivers are going slower than the maximum speed limit for a reason? If the car that you want to overtake is just slightly below the speed limit then there is no real reason to overtake it other than impatience. If it is going a fair bit below the speed limit then by all means overtake it if it is safe and legal to do so which doesn't mean you have to exceed the limit to do so.
__________________

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I'm a firm believer that, on certain roads and at certains times of the day/night, there should be a minimum speed limit and that the maximum speed limits should be increased.

For example, motorways/dual-carriageways. Why should I be restricted to 70Mph at 2 O'clock in the morning on a long straight bit of road when there's nobod else about?
Similarly, single carriage-way bypasses. Where I live there are a number of long, open roads. Well-lit and clear of all pedestrians etc. Why should I, in the wee hours of the morning, be forced to sit behind some muppet who doesn't want to travel above 30Mph in a National Speed Limit zone? I can't overtake because the lines down the middle are solid, I can't go any faster because the guy in front says that I can't.

Stopping distances at night are greater than during the day, a fact ascertained by tests on reaction times.

If the lines down the centre are solid then there is a reason for them being so. Have a guess what that reason may be.

Again, why is the driver doing 30 mph a muppet? There may be a valid reason for him doing that speed.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Stopping distances at night are greater than during the day, a fact ascertained by tests on reaction times.

Yes, they are. Similar tests have also shown that a driver's concentration levels increase with a similar increase in speed. Increased concentration levels lead to faster reaction times, thus reducing the total distance required to stop the vehicle quickly.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

If the lines down the centre are solid then there is a reason for them being so. Have a guess what that reason may be.

The lines down the center are solid because this is a busy stretch of road and accidents are often caused by people who overtake - during the day. At night the road is practically empty, oncoming vehicles are more visible because they have their lights on, and the average speed of vehicles travelling on the road actually decreases. People just seem to travel more slowly on that road at night.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Again, why is the driver doing 30 mph a muppet? There may be a valid reason for him doing that speed.

Ok, perhaps me referring to him/her as a muppet was unfair. The fact still remains that there are other roads (with lower speed limits) which the other driver could use. The route is not the most direct route and they would almost certainly get to wherever they are going just as quickly (or slowly) if they took another (lower speed limited) road. I don't see why I should be inconvenienced purely because someone else isn't confident enough to, hasn't got a car which is mechanically sound enough to, or simply doesn't have a desire to, go faster.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Quite correct but again if all vehicles are travelling at the same speed and an accident happens for whatever reason then the consequences are more serious the higher the speed.

However, if they are giving each other a safe amount of space then any accident will not have a knock on effect, and don't bother with blowouts as you are as likely to survive/die from an resulting accident at 70mph as you are at 80mph

Have you ever stopped to think that some drivers are going slower than the maximum speed limit for a reason? If the car that you want to overtake is just slightly below the speed limit then there is no real reason to overtake it other than impatience. If it is going a fair bit below the speed limit then by all means overtake it if it is safe and legal to do so which doesn't mean you have to exceed the limit to do so.

A survey by the AA several years ago showed that the majority of drivers have no idea what the national speed limit is for a car on single carrigeways, hence why they tend to also speed through villages, they aren't going so slow along national speed limit areas for safety's sake, it's because they have no idea what the speed limit is!

Rather than pootle past someone, I'll get past them asap thank you very much!

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Yes, they are. Similar tests have also shown that a driver's concentration levels increase with a similar increase in speed. Increased concentration levels lead to faster reaction times, thus reducing the total distance required to stop the vehicle quickly.

A drivers concentration should be at its maximum at all times and should have no opportunity to increase. I started working life as a Scientific Officer with the DSIR which had the road research laboratory as one of its subdivisions. I have seen the testing that goes on there which leads me to be rather vociferous on these issues.

Originally Posted by Raistlin

The lines down the center are solid because this is a busy stretch of road and accidents are often caused by people who overtake - during the day. At night the road is practically empty, oncoming vehicles are more visible because they have their lights on, and the average speed of vehicles travelling on the road actually decreases. People just seem to travel more slowly on that road at night.

Not knowing the road it is hard to comment.

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Ok, perhaps me referring to him/her as a muppet was unfair. The fact still remains that there are other roads (with lower speed limits) which the other driver could use. The route is not the most direct route and they would almost certainly get to wherever they are going just as quickly (or slowly) if they took another (lower speed limited) road. I don't see why I should be inconvenienced purely because someone else isn't confident enough to, hasn't got a car which is mechanically sound enough to, or simply doesn't have a desire to, go faster.

Mechanically sound cars can have punctures which means a wheel change and a slower than normal speed, if the driver has any sense, for cars fitted with emergency space saving spare wheels. There are a fair number of reasons why a mechanically sound car can develop a fault which entails driving the car slowly. Problems with cars can take place without warning anywhere along the route that a driver is following often at very awkward locations.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

However, if they are giving each other a safe amount of space then any accident will not have a knock on effect, and don't bother with blowouts as you are as likely to survive/die from an resulting accident at 70mph as you are at 80mph

You musn't have done much driving if you think that drivers give each other a safe amount of space. How many multi vehicle pileups have you seen on motorways often with fatal results. They are a regular feature on the news.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Not knowing the road it is hard to comment.

It could be that they are tired, in which case they should not be driving at all, or it could be they've been down the pub and had a drink, again they should not be driving if their ability is impared.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Mechanically sound cars can have punctures which means a wheel change and a slower than normal speed, if the driver has any sense, for cars fitted with emergency space saving spare wheels. There are a fair number of reasons why a mechanically sound car can develop a fault which entails driving the car slowly. Problems with cars can take place without warning anywhere along the route that a driver is following often at very awkward locations.

Spare tyres should be rated to alow travel at atleast 60mph.
If a vehicle is suffering a mechanical problem that is preventing it performing normally, then they should not be on the road even if it happens during a journey.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

You musn't have done much driving if you think that drivers give each other a safe amount of space. How many multi vehicle pileups have you seen on motorways often with fatal results. They are a regular feature on the news.

Caused by people driving dangrously, not specifically by them exceeding the speed limit.
Remember the massive pile up in Wales due to fog? Most of the cars involved were not breaking the speed limit, however they were driving dangerously by travelling at the speed they were, and as such tens of people lost their lives, again showing that driving well under the speed limit can be as fatal as driving over it.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It could be that they are tired, in which case they should not be driving at all, or it could be they've been down the pub and had a drink, again they should not be driving if their ability is impared.

I agree with those sentiments but saying I don't know the road meant just that. I have never seen the road that you are referring to so can't give my opinion on whether the solid white lines are justified.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Spare tyres should be rated to alow travel at atleast 60mph.
If a vehicle is suffering a mechanical problem that is preventing it performing normally, then they should not be on the road even if it happens during a journey.

Emergency spare wheels are often rated at 50 mph maximum and some even less. They are used on vehicles, mainly sports cars, where there is not sufficient room for a full size spare. One or two cars have different size wheels front and rear and the spare is a compromise and is onle meant to help you to get slowly to a repair station.

Some problems enable you to drive slowly and safely to your destination or to a garage. Imagine you are disabled and your mobile can't pick up a signal on a deserted out of the way road. What do you do, drive slowly to somewhere you can get help or just sit and wait maybe in a freezing cold car for hours.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Caused by people driving dangrously, not specifically by them exceeding the speed limit.
Remember the massive pile up in Wales due to fog? Most of the cars involved were not breaking the speed limit, however they were driving dangerously by travelling at the speed they were, and as such tens of people lost their lives, again showing that driving well under the speed limit can be as fatal as driving over it.

Travel along any fairly busy motorway and you usually see the nearside lane practically empty, the middle lane with a fair amount of trafic doing around the speed limit and the outside lane virtually nose to tail with hardly a car length gap between the, all doing over the limit. Which of those lanes would you be in?

As for the Wales pileup, would you think the casualties would be the same or greater if the traffic had been going 10 mph faster?

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Emergency spare wheels are often rated at 50 mph maximum and some even less. They are used on vehicles, mainly sports cars, where there is not sufficient room for a full size spare. One or two cars have different size wheels front and rear and the spare is a compromise and is onle meant to help you to get slowly to a repair station.

Too true, my car, an Alpha Romeo 156, has one of these. It is road legal, but limited in maximum speed, and distance (50miles). It is a get out of trouble card. Knowing how interesting the handling of the car is on it's normal tyres, I'd really not like to experience even 50Mph on one of these thin tyres in the dry, let alone wet or ice.

Originally Posted by scastle

I actually agree, speeding itself is not the problem. It's merely a symptom of bad driving (not that I am saying all people who speed are bad drivers - I have friends who speed whom I consider to be very good drivers), but I think the police are in a no wine situation.

A most unfortunate typo

[me283]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

That is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard.


A car travelling at 30 mph takes 75 feet to stop in a well maintained car during the day in good weather conditions with the driver concentrating on driving. At 35 mph that distance increases to 96 feet. That means that there is a 21 foot zone where the 35 mph car could hit and kill or injure a pedestrian but the 30 mph car would have stopped before entering.

Here lies the body of my son

He died because I was speeding

Firstly, why is it stupid? You constantly make the point that higher speed = greater risk of death/injury. I am pointing out that there are still deaths/injuries when drivers have not broken the speed limits. Therefore, if we as a nation are committed to trying to stop ALL deaths/injuries on the road then why not reduce all speed limits to the point where accidents/injuries don not happen? Why is that stupid? I notica also that you didn't answer...

Second point, is actually wrong to say. Different cars, different drivers, different conditions... all have an impact on stopping distances. You might as well say "that car would have stopped from 30 mph in a much shorter distance if it had ABS brakes. The driver is to blame because he chose a cheaper option on his car". As has been pointed out, why always assume it's the driver's fault?

Last point - very poor. I think it is safe to say that nobody on this board would want anyone to die. But to then heap the blame on just one factor is grossly unfair. How about, for example: HERE LIES THE BODY OF X. HE GOT DRUNK AND WALKED IN FRONT OF A NON-SPEEDING CAR. HOWEVER IF THAT DRIVER HAD BEEN TRAVELLING AT 1MPH LESS HE MIGHT ONLY HAVE MAIMED OR CRIPPLED POOR X".

The facts are that speeding is always pointed at. There are no GATSOs that I know of which can detect a drunk driver, which is far more dangerous in my opinion that having an extra stopping distance of a few feet. However there is a much smaller effort put in by the police to snare drink drivers than there is to catch speeding motorists. Incidentally, drink driving is (I believe) impossible to defend, unlike speeding.

By the way, as opposed to justifying NOT using the Durham example, can you tell me why Durham IS such a comparitively safer place to drive? Perhaps if you look at the positives that Durham can teach, as opposed to pooh-pooh-ing something that puts a spanner in the works of your argument, then you may broaden your views on this subject?

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

It is quite obviously not a good way of exemplifying the point you are trying to make. This really isn't hard to grapple with. If you are travelling at greater speed you have less time to respond and will cause greater damage if you collide with something or some one. That is undeniably logical. Your argument that you can kill anyone at nearly any speed is frankly stupid. Presumably you also think water is a dangerous toxin because if you drink enough of it, it will kill you.

OK, my point is obviously a little unclear to you. Let me put it in simple terms:

The higher the speed, the more likely that death or injury will occur (your point).
Death and injury can occur at the current speed limits too (my first point).
If speed limits were LOWERED then death or injury would be LESS likely to occur (continuing my first point).
You argument would suggest that the government, or whoever sets speed limits, cannot care enough about reducing death or injury on the road, if they allow speed limits to remain as they are, instead of reducing them to a much lower level (I am hoping for a response to this point, but not getting one).

Put quite succinctly, the argument that speed limits etc are there to save lives is not accepted on my part. If that were the case, then it isn't working well enough. The reduction of speed limits would suggest that saving lives is higher on the agenda.

Let me just say however, that I certainly do not want speed limits reduced, but I think a complete review of speed limits should take place. Some should be lowered, some should be raised.