Driving standards

[Neil]

Pertinent and interesting initiative reported on by the BBC.

[Kickstart]

"Reduce limits at the expense of safety" ? ? ?  

The slower you are travelling, the more time you have to react to a situation, and the shorter the distance you can stop in.

Problem is that things are far from that simple.

 

For example there is the well known idea of risk compensation. That it you make someones task appear safer then they will compensate in other way. This pretty certainly applies on the roads with reduced speeds, with people paying less attention (even if many won't realise it, or even deny it). This is idea is used as the basis of some forms of traffic calming such as those where the central line in the road narrows the lane between pedestrian refuges, making the road feel like it is narrowing.

 

Changing the topic, but as you would appear to be a M/C enthusiast, why do some bikers  insist on riding bikes which are so noisy - often with seemingly open exhausts? It appears that this is usually in towns/built up areas. Is it to cause the most annoyance?

 

Really not sure and probably loads of reasons.

 

Some people do claim that they get far less people pulling out in front of them / changing lane onto them with noisy exhausts. Not sure that real or illusionary. 

 

There is the potential for more performance, but often not. Some standard exhausts are very badly designed power wise, although more realistically much of the time some people just think that as some exhausts are lousy all are.

 

Doesn't help that some standard exhausts rot quickly and are hideously expensive. For example a Yamaha R1 silencer is a gnats under £800 +vat (manifold and collector box are a further £1150 / £1700 + vat respectively).

 

Although, of course, if your driving speed is 30mph then the impact speed with a stationary pedestrian is very unlikely to be 50mph (which will result in more injuries).

 

True, chances are the impact speed wouldn't be 50 either. Idea is not to run them over in either case.

 

I think you have missed the point of speed limits.

No, I think you miss my issue with blindly sticking to limits. Especially when many are set with such contempt. One local to me 30 mph limit was implemented despite the objections of the police.

 

All the best

 

Katy

Edited December 4, 2016 by Kickstart

[DLT]

 

 

Problem is that things are far from that simple.

 

It is Absolutely that simple.

[PhilJ W]

Pertinent and interesting initiative reported on by the BBC.

At least their licences would have expired by the time they came out. Personally I think drivers who cause deaths should be banned for life.

[MJI]

Changing the topic, but as you would appear to be a M/C enthusiast, why do some bikers  insist on riding bikes which are so noisy - often with seemingly open exhausts? It appears that this is usually in towns/built up areas. Is it to cause the most annoyance?

 

Ignoring performance exhausts (I had a 4bhp increase with an expansion pipe on a bike)

 

usually so car drivers can hear them

[Reorte]

It is Absolutely that simple.

If only. However the real world rarely is that simple, and anyone who hopes to be a safe driver should realise that. One of the more disturbing things on this thread are the implications that drivers don't have sufficient judgment of appropriate speeds so need a lot more managing. Why's that frightening? Because such people shouldn't be on the road in the first place! What do you expect them to do in locations where an appropriate speed is below the limit? Oversimplifying generally misses the point, and misses the root cause of the problem. Someone who obeys every limit isn't necessarily a safe driver, and I don't want to be sharing roads with people who don't think much beyond keeping to limits.

[Arthur]

 

Indeed.

 

Few years back a friends mother, then 88, still bright, still driving, got done for speeding by a speed camera, first time ever in her life. I'd previously driven behind her and she drove her Micra (or whatever) just as you would expect an 88 year old to drive, SLOOWWWW.

 

The camera involved covered the end of a dual carriage way, a raised carriage way, no pedestrians, as it approached a roundabout. The limit dropped from 50 to 30 a long way before the roundabout. Appropriate at rush hour when heavy traffic could queue back quite a way. Completely stupid during the rest of the day and evening when traffic was very light and you'd hardly queue at all.

 

The camera was just a cash cow for 22 hours of the day.

 

.

[Horsetan]

....she drove her Micra (or whatever) just as you would expect an 88 year old to drive, SLOOWWWW.....

.

 

Micras aren't exactly quick anyway regardless of who's driving it, which is why they make great cars for L-drivers. They are fast enough to cut you up, but then seem to hover uncertainly between 25 and 28.5mph, almost regardless of speed limit zone.

[beast66606]

<snips>

No, I think you miss my issue with blindly sticking to limits. Especially when many are set with such contempt. One local to me 30 mph limit was implemented despite the objections of the police.

<snips>

This is idea is used as the basis of some forms of traffic calming such as those where the central line in the road narrows the lane between pedestrian refuges, making the road feel like it is narrowing.

<snips>

85 percentile speed was the accepted level to set limits. First google link:-

 

http://onlinemanuals...ntile_speed.htm

 

 

No-one has said they blindly stick to the limit, I always drive at the appropriate speed for the conditions but no faster than the limit.

 

I thought the idea of narrowing the road was to make people slow down because they felt the road was getting tighter and nothing to do with not paying attention - I can solve the paying attention problem by having things change as they move along, for example a car pulling out of a drive, a person crossing the road, a dog running across the road, a deer crossing the road, a car drifting as the mobile phone is checked - it's called DRIVING and happens all the time.

 

That link is for an American document wich seems to be related to temporary speed restrictions and/or highways and not built up areas.

 

Try

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2733/setting-local-speed-limits.pdf

 

13 and 14 are particularly relevant.

 

If only. However the real world rarely is that simple, and anyone who hopes to be a safe driver should realise that. One of the more disturbing things on this thread are the implications that drivers don't have sufficient judgment of appropriate speeds so need a lot more managing. Why's that frightening? Because such people shouldn't be on the road in the first place! What do you expect them to do in locations where an appropriate speed is below the limit? Oversimplifying generally misses the point, and misses the root cause of the problem. Someone who obeys every limit isn't necessarily a safe driver, and I don't want to be sharing roads with people who don't think much beyond keeping to limits.

 

Personally I don't want to share the road with someone who thinks THEY can make their own rules (makes me wonder if it's only when driving you/they do this, perhaps you/they feel rules aren't for you ?), why stick to just breaking speed limits ? Today I'm going to drive on the right - muhaahahahaha

 

Unfortunately the huge numbers (in total) of deaths, injuries (major and minor) and non-injury collisions which happen EVERY DAY implies to me that people DO need to be managed otherwise it becomes a total free for all - lets turn off traffic lights for a day and see what happens.

 

Let's consider one of these "safe" drivers, he's in a 30mph but the roads are dry, the weather is bright so he decides to drive at 40mph, and then a child runs out into the road, he brakes of course but because he's doing 40 he can't stop in time. Before you claim this wouldn't happen, most of the lower speed limits are around areas where people live and/or walk and/or cycle so by speeding the driver is making a judgement that no-one is going to suddenly be on the road - as I've said before, speed limits are NOT just about vehicles on the road.

 

PS :

 

Not one person has said they stick to the limit rigidly, WE all drive at or below the limit depending on conditions - WE don't decide WE want to exceed the limit because WE want to. Again not one person has said they only ever think about keeping to limits - *I* rarely (NOTE - rarely is not NEVER) think about it because it mostly happens automatically, like indicating for example, because my mind set is to make sure I'm not going over the limit when I pass the restriction sign, it's mostly automatic like indicating, .I rarely actually think "indicate now" it just happens.

 

A benefit of keeping within the limit is I don't need to bleat about speed cameras generating revenue because I'm not speeding and my mind is on my driving rather than my wallet - unlike "great judgement" people who will be looking out for speed cameras, speed traps, police or anything which may mean a fine - funny how they are able to slow down for a speed camera without issue and yet a speed limit is a difficult concept for them to grasp.

[beast66606]

The camera involved covered the end of a dual carriage way, a raised carriage way, no pedestrians, as it approached a roundabout. The limit dropped from 50 to 30 a long way before the roundabout. Appropriate at rush hour when heavy traffic could queue back quite a way. Completely stupid during the rest of the day and evening when traffic was very light and you'd hardly queue at all.

 

The camera was just a cash cow for 22 hours of the day.

 

.

 

Speed limits are not set (variable motorway ones aside) to manage rush hour traffic. It's only a cash cow for those who's ability to drive does not include noticing speed limit signs (I assume she didn't deliberately choose to speed).

 

I think it's time we left this particular issue, those who want to speed will continue doing it and those of us who don't will continue to not worry about speed traps.

[cheesysmith]

The problems with speed limits is the stopping distance from 30mph was set when cars had brakes with all the stopping power of sponge cake and tyres were skinny little cross plys. Modern cars have more grip and better brakes than ever, but the limits have never been altered, but maybe reduced to take more responsability from people and place more onto just following rules.

 

If we were using a railway analogy, HSTs and sprinter etc would still be limited to the same speed as the loco hauled trains, even though there brakes can stop them from higher speed in the same distance.

 

Having variable speed limits on motorways in good, but what about a higher speed limit for when they are quiet and empty? What was safe for a car from 1960 at 70mph would be perfectly safe for a car from 2016 at 90mph.

 

PS-I don't actually stick to speed limits, except when the fuzz are around and/or speed cameras. I will drive at a suitable speed for the road and conditions, which sometimes is slower than most people and other times is faster. And I have a clean licence. The difference is I pay attention to the road, to the extent I normally don't even have the radio on. I don't drive around in a day dream at 30mph, thinking "I'm below the limit so must be safe" like a lot of people do nowadays.

[Reorte]

Not one person has said they stick to the limit rigidly, WE all drive at or below the limit depending on conditions - WE don't decide WE want to exceed the limit because WE want to. Again not one person has said they only ever think about keeping to limits - *I* rarely (NOTE - rarely is not NEVER) think about it because it mostly happens automatically, like indicating for example, because my mind set is to make sure I'm not going over the limit when I pass the restriction sign, it's mostly automatic like indicating, .I rarely actually think "indicate now" it just happens.

And think about how you manage to do that, about why it happens automatically, and why you manage to go around corners that can't be safely negotiated at the limit but need to be slowed down for. That is all part of the judgement that you seem to have a go at me for calling for in every reply you make. It is important for the rules to earn, rather than demand, respect, and when you get examples where the police don't have respect for a lowered limit to the point of saying that they won't enforce it then that respect starts to disappear. You might not like that but it's how people are. Also ask yourself why drink-driving laws command much more respect (even though sadly there are always a few people who ignore them).

 

Someone who thinks "I stick to the rules so I'm safe" is a very dangerous person.

 

I am not saying "make your own rules up". I am saying "having good judgment is more important" when it comes to driving safely, and in order to get improved road safety you'll get a lot further by tackling that rather than by lashing out at people breaking speed limits. But it's harder.

[Guest]

Also ask yourself why drink-driving laws command much more respect (even though sadly there are always a few people who ignore them).

Like seat belt laws a couple of decades of drumming in the bleedin' obvious before people actually accept it as maybe being a sensible idea.

[Arthur]

It's only a cash cow for those who's ability to drive does not include noticing speed limit signs (I assume she didn't deliberately choose to speed).

.

 

What a load of sanctimonious clap trap.

[beast66606]

And think about how you manage to do that, about why it happens automatically, and why you manage to go around corners that can't be safely negotiated at the limit but need to be slowed down for. That is all part of the judgement that you seem to have a go at me for calling for in every reply you make. It is important for the rules to earn, rather than demand, respect, and when you get examples where the police don't have respect for a lowered limit to the point of saying that they won't enforce it then that respect starts to disappear. You might not like that but it's how people are. Also ask yourself why drink-driving laws command much more respect (even though sadly there are always a few people who ignore them).

 

Someone who thinks "I stick to the rules so I'm safe" is a very dangerous person.

 

I am not saying "make your own rules up". I am saying "having good judgment is more important" when it comes to driving safely, and in order to get improved road safety you'll get a lot further by tackling that rather than by lashing out at people breaking speed limits. But it's harder.

 

I'm afraid that in my opinion any police office who states they won't prosecute people who speed at a particular location should be sacked on the spot - if they choose to handle it differently behind the scenes that may be a different matter, but to publically say they won't enforce it ? - utter b***ks.

What message does the police statement give to people other than it's ok to speed - and people being people will extend that thought process to include other roads.

 

btw The difference between "your" judgement and mine is I'm not trying to justify breaking the law, I stick within the rules that should apply to everyone.

 

btw2 - if you think D&D has respect, try living round here in the wilds, from my own observations there are a lot of people who drink and drive, probably short distances but they still do it. 8% of people tested failed the breath test, hardly a "few", 1 in 10 cars I pass is driven by someone over the limit, that doesn't fill me with confidence, especially as they will probably also be speeding. Let's hope it's not your family who are affected by someone in either or both of these categories.

 

What a load of sanctimonious clap trap.

 

 

She could have been travelling at nearly twice the limit, maybe she was - what does it take before the idiots realise that such people KILL. If she couldn't see the speed limits then who knows what else she can't see - a cyclist ? (we had one killed down here the other day when hit from behind by a vehicle who presumably didn't see him so get off your perch and stop making excuses for people doing the wrong thing)

 

 

PS - I'm out of this thread now, the attitude of some members is disgusting and I'm finding it hard to stay calm. I bet these same members would be baying for blood if someone they knew was injured (or worse) by a speeding motorist though.

[Reorte]

I'm afraid that in my opinion any police office who states they won't prosecute people who speed at a particular location should be sacked on the spot - if they choose to handle it differently behind the scenes that may be a different matter, but to publically say they won't enforce it ? - utter b***ks.

What message does the police statement give to people other than it's ok to speed - and people being people will extend that thought process to include other roads.

 

btw The difference between "your" judgement and mine is I'm not trying to justify breaking the law, I stick within the rules that should apply to everyone.

 

btw2 - if you think D&D has respect, try living round here in the wilds, from my own observations there are a lot of people who drink and drive, probably short distances but they still do it. 8% of people tested failed the breath test, hardly a "few", 1 in 10 cars I pass is driven by someone over the limit, that doesn't fill me with confidence, especially as they will probably also be speeding. Let's hope it's not your family who are affected by someone in either or both of these categories.

Ask why the police said that - do you want them to be arbitrary rule enforcers, at the receiving end of increasing public resentment and disrespect, or concentrate on (when it comes to roads) the actually dangerous? The police need the public largely on their side if they're going to do their job effectively. You'd be better off asking questions about why such a limit was lowered to what it was. The more arbitrary a rule is the less respect it, and rules in general, get. That is not a good thing, and just repeating "should obey - end of story" is trying to brush the issue under the carpet rather than address it.

 

I am not so much justifying breaking laws as daring to question them, and trying to convince you that obsessing over the enforcement of blind obedience is not a particulary good path to go down.

 

Drink-driving is not a completely solved problem but you cannot deny that the level of social acceptance, and the amount of it, has dropped greatly. Is the current situation perfect? Of course not, but don't let that blind you to very real improvements. I'm getting an impression of "ignore anything short of perfection." And the "let's hope it's not your family..." line appears to be suggesting that I don't have a problem with drink driving. That is both absurd and offensive.

 

 

PS - I'm out of this thread now, the attitude of some members is disgusting and I'm finding it hard to stay calm. I bet these same members would be baying for blood if someone they knew was injured (or worse) by a speeding motorist though.

I'd be baying for blood if someone I knew was injured (or worse) by any irresponsible motorist, whatever speed they were travelling at. I find it rather sad though that you're calling attitudes you don't agree with disgusting. Please look more closely at what's being said, because what is being said is concentrating on the real issues that affect road safety, rather than an oversimplified crude hacking approach to it. Concentrating on speeding drivers is a rather crude, inaccurate way of dealing with dangerous drivers.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Reorte

[Horsetan]

 

.... I'm out of this thread now, the attitude of some members is disgusting and I'm finding it hard to stay calm. I bet these same members would be baying for blood if someone they knew was injured (or worse) by a speeding motorist though.

.....I'd be baying for blood if someone I knew was injured (or worse) by any irresponsible motorist, whatever speed they were travelling at. I find it rather sad though that you're calling attitudes you don't agree with disgusting....

 

 

 

?

[Reorte]

^ Not sure who that's directed at, could be both of us I suppose!

[DLT]

What a load of sanctimonious clap trap.

 

No it isn't, its an inescapable fact.

[Arthur]

 

Is that so.

[Kickstart]

Like seat belt laws a couple of decades of drumming in the bleedin' obvious before people actually accept it as maybe being a sensible idea.

The odd bit about the drink driving laws is the evidence they are based on. This was a US study , which showed a roughly doubled death rate when the blood alcohol level was around the current limit, but more to the point the rate rocketed shortly after that level. But the strange bit is the same figures also showed a reduced rate at a low blood alcohol count (a bit under half the current limit), which is a bit strange.

 

I thought the idea of narrowing the road was to make people slow down because they felt the road was getting tighter and nothing to do with not paying attention

Didn't say it was, rather than it makes the road appear to be narrowing and hence trigger a perception of an increasing hazard. This is taking advantage of risk compensation, and making people pay more attention.

 

Trick is to increase the perception of a hazard without actually creating a hazard.

 

Not one person has said they stick to the limit rigidly, WE all drive at or below the limit depending on conditions - WE don't decide WE want to exceed the limit because WE want to. Again not one person has said they only ever think about keeping to limits - *I* rarely (NOTE - rarely is not NEVER) think about it because it mostly happens automatically, like indicating for example, because my mind set is to make sure I'm not going over the limit when I pass the restriction sign, it's mostly automatic like indicating, .I rarely actually think "indicate now" it just happens.

Very few people keep to the limits anything like all the time (although many will claim to). A large number have succumbed to the idea of slow = good, and dawdle along at a lowish speed, then don't slow down when they get to a 40 or 30 limit

 

All the best

 

Katy

[JDW]

The problems with speed limits is the stopping distance from 30mph was set when cars had brakes with all the stopping power of sponge cake and tyres were skinny little cross plys. Modern cars have more grip and better brakes than ever, but the limits have never been altered, but maybe reduced to take more responsability from people and place more onto just following rules.

 

If we were using a railway analogy, HSTs and sprinter etc would still be limited to the same speed as the loco hauled trains, even though there brakes can stop them from higher speed in the same distance.

 

Having variable speed limits on motorways in good, but what about a higher speed limit for when they are quiet and empty? What was safe for a car from 1960 at 70mph would be perfectly safe for a car from 2016 at 90mph.

 

PS-I don't actually stick to speed limits, except when the fuzz are around and/or speed cameras. I will drive at a suitable speed for the road and conditions, which sometimes is slower than most people and other times is faster. And I have a clean licence. The difference is I pay attention to the road, to the extent I normally don't even have the radio on. I don't drive around in a day dream at 30mph, thinking "I'm below the limit so must be safe" like a lot of people do nowadays.

 

I don't want to get too drawn in to the speed limit debate, we've been there before, and in general I think the limits are appropriate.  I'd agree that certain limits could conceivably be raised now, though only on motorways which are suitable for it, I'd never suggest that 30mph should be 40!  Of course, the counter argument is that people might not be used to, or capable of, driving at higher speeds, and whilst I agree to an extent, I think an increase of the permitted maximum - not the target speed - on some motorways to 80mph would not be inappropriate.  

 

Consider this: I can go to France, where the limit is 130kmh (around 80) and drive at that speed (on the wrong side of the road too!) with no extra training.  I can go to Germany and drive significantly faster.  I'm experienced at driving in Europe and find 110mph (160kmh) a comfortable maximum, based on the car I drive, balancing fuel consumption with speed, and ability to react to other drivers.  Over that, and reacting to, say, a slower car moving in to your lane ahead becomes difficult, and levels of concentration needed make it much more tiring.  For many Brits, this "freedom" is a thrill, exciting and new, I've done it enough now that I just call it "driving", and do it at a suitable speed for the road.  And some of those unlimited ones are no better, no straighter and no wider than the northern sections of the A1...

 

OK, now I've (re-)opened that can of worms, discuss!

[peanuts]

prize plum of the day goes to the clown in the BMW climbing up the A629 into Halifax yesterday behind my truck im fully loaded and struggling to move off up the steep hills spot bus in inside lane so move over to righthand lane to pass clown Bmw dives up the inside has to slam on as he cant get through  i continue in righthand lane as parked cars on left as soon as the bus turns off here comes the Bmw is charging up the inside again to yet again fail to get through . proceeds to weave about behind me looking for a chance to go past for the next halfmile i ease across into the left lane at the next set of lights and idiot in the beemer comes flying down the right hand lane strait into the back off a minibus wating to turn right ooops ! got to my drop and phoned West Yorks Police who were very interested in my info and consequently sent a traffic cop out to take a statement .methinks mr Bmw is gonna be in a whole heap of trouble 

[chris p bacon]

What a load of sanctimonious clap trap.

Not really. All speeding fines are voluntary.

 

Everyone I know who's been fined starts the conversation with "the speed limit is too low for the road" or " they only put a camera there to raise money" each time they know the speed limit but don't slow down. 

I just wish that if anyone gets caught, they cough up and accept they c*cked up instead of trying to wriggle out of it.

[Reorte]

Not really. All speeding fines are voluntary.

 

Everyone I know who's been fined starts the conversation with "the speed limit is too low for the road" or " they only put a camera there to raise money" each time they know the speed limit but don't slow down. 

I just wish that if anyone gets caught, they cough up and accept they c*cked up instead of trying to wriggle out of it.

Since cameras aren't hidden it does speak of a disturbing lack of ability to notice them for someone to get caught, but it's still coming across as a bit of "that's the law, shut up, don't question it, you are 100% in the wrong, it never is."