Driving standards

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

20 mph limits might have some advantages in areas that are heavily stop-start but for constant speed they're pretty bad for fuel use IME. At any rate my car's fuel efficiency drops significantly below 30 too (at its best between 30 and 50 then starts to go down again over 50).

 

20 mph limits are about stopping distances, not fuel efficiency. You are more likely to cause death or serious injury to a child by being unable to stop in time from 30 mph than you are by your additional contribution to atmospheric pollution and global warming by driving at 20 mph. That may be short-termism but society as a whole finds it easier to understand the immediate effect on one individual than the cumulative effect on many.

 

On the other hand, you are more likely to contribute to the death rate from apoplexy by the rage induced in the drivers of the over-powered or indecently-sized vehicles on your tail. (Nothing personal, @royaloak.)

Edited December 5, 2019 by Compound2632

[royaloak]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

On the other hand, you are more likely to contribute to the death rate from apoplexy by the rage induced in the drivers of the over-powered or indecently-sized vehicles on your tail. (Nothing personal, @royaloak.)

Mine isnt over powered (150bhp) or indecently-sized (E46 Touring (Estate in normal speak)) oh, the indicators work AND I actually use them.

 

20 is 20 for a reason, anyone who goes through them at more than 20 should have their licence revoked on the spot!

[Reorte]

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

20 mph limits are about stopping distances, not fuel efficiency. You are more likely to cause death or serious injury to a child by being unable to stop in time from 30 mph than you are by your additional contribution to atmospheric pollution and global warming by driving at 20 mph. That may be short-termism but society as a whole finds it easier to understand the immediate effect on one individual than the cumulative effect on many.

 

That's the reason I have a problem with 20 mph limits. I'm of the view that children should either be capable of not running out into the road or under the control of someone responsible, so I find it a spurious reason for limiting speeds, and what with the fuss made over anything environmental these days that aspect is rather too overlooked (not that I'm as motivated by that as many are either). Most urban sidestreets aren't really suitable for greater than 20 mph in any case, and anyone going much faster is probably the type to ignore the limit. Main through routes definitely should not be 20 mph.

[melmerby]

It amazes me how many drivers seem to like to put their car between a bus and an immovable object and then get all "horn blowey" when they run out of road.

One did just that when the bus I was on was turning right at a sharp bend and needing more than one lane to round the corner.

The inevitable happened, as it was turning an Audi came up the right side to be confronted with a narrowing piece of tarmac and started the horn blowing bit.

However the length of the bus meant the tarmac all but disappeared and crunch, contact was made, clearly audible at the back of the bus.

The bus driver carried on, probably unaware of what had happened.

 

However when we had rounded the corner, the Audi had disappeared. I wonder whether there was something not right with the driver/car/insurance etc.?

Edited December 5, 2019 by melmerby

[SM42]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

20 mph limits are about stopping distances, not fuel efficiency. You are more likely to cause death or serious injury to a child by being unable to stop in time from 30 mph than you are by your additional contribution to atmospheric pollution and global warming by driving at 20 mph. That may be short-termism but society as a whole finds it easier to understand the immediate effect on one individual than the cumulative effect on many.

 

On the other hand, you are more likely to contribute to the death rate from apoplexy by the rage induced in the drivers of the over-powered or indecently-sized vehicles on your tail. (Nothing personal, @royaloak.)

 

Makes you wonder why they don't fence the road in. If you ran a factory where 2 ton pieces of metal moved around unprotected at 30mph, I'm pretty sure the local H&S officer would have a word or two to say.

 

The Highway Code stopping distance may be, in theory, 35 ft different for 20 and 30mph, but in practical terms the difference is minimal. (around 15ft) It is no longer 1935 and technology has moved on.  I can easily beat the Highway Code 30mph stopping distance at 40mph. I tried out of curiousity many moons ago on a straight, traffic free (find one of those nowadays) country road that all locals test their cars on after repair. The car pulled up in less than 30ft. That's 70ft total adding in reaction time. I only did it once. It was scary even with ABS.

 

The above theory also forgets that those who stick to the limit will in fact be below it, (30mph on the speedo equates to around 26mph on the ground)  the car will be slowing, and will probably strike the person at well below 10mph. Ok, not ideal, but not as alarmist as the campaigns would have you believe. The sudden no chance to take any action pedestrian will still be hit at 20mph. Still not a good number regardless.

 

It could be argued that it is far more likley that you will cause injury at 20mph as opposed to 10mph, so why not 10mph? At least I could stay happily in one gear and not be thrashing around at at 1800 rpm in second or kangarooing along in third.

 

Don't misunderstand  me. I have no problem with 20mph limits, except the horrible noises my car makes trying to stick to them and the blanket approach to them in areas where risk is minimal.  In some cases the reason it's 20 is to make the Traffic Regulation Order less messy. Otherwise how can one road be 20mph, but the next one across be 30mph when both have the same basic risk factors?  In one case I can think of the 30 mph road has more risk factors, such as a school, an unfenced park, shops, several pubs and numerous  junctions rather than  gated, private  driveways and few junctions.

 

 

Andy

 

[Coldgunner]

DRL's again tonight.

PUT
YOUR
BLOODY
LIGHTS
ON

Why are people so thick? I have automatic lights, but if I think they should be on and they don't seem to be, I override the switch. Not bloody hard. Wonder how an insurance company would see it if someone without rear lights was rear-ended.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Coldgunner

[melmerby]

57 minutes ago, Coldgunner said:

DRL's again tonight.

PUT
YOUR
BLOODY
LIGHTS
ON

Why are people so thick? I have automatic lights, but if I think they should be on and they don't seem to be, I override the switch. Not bloody hard. Wonder how an insurance company would see it if someone without rear lights was rear-ended.

I think the name "daylight running lights" is a misnomer.

Most people probably think "Volvo" and their DRLs which lit up both ends of the car.

I had assumed on my Focus both ends were alight but as pointed out earlier, no rear laights once you are on the move.

Why not? No idea, it strikes me as a bonkers idea to only have front lights.

I did notice some Audis and some Mercs with both ends lit when on DRLs.

 

BTW I don't rely on them, as soon as visibility is less than ideal the main lights go on.

Edited December 5, 2019 by melmerby

[beast66606]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

That's the reason I have a problem with 20 mph limits. I'm of the view that children should either be capable of not running out into the road or under the control of someone responsible,

 

 

Around me - and no doubt other places - there are villages with no lights and no pavements and can be quite narrow, there are VERY GOOD reasons why 20 mph limits are in place, unless you are of the view that children (or adults for that matter) should stay inside after dark - which is around 15:45 at the moment ?

As far as I'm concerned anyone who exceeds the 20 mph by more than 10 mph should have their car taken off them for crushing, and if the car isn't owned by them ? - then they can compensate the owner to the value. Idiots speeding through villages are INCREDIBLY dangerous to those of us who like to use our feet, I don't like feeling I'm going to be killed every time a set of headlights appears - and this despite me wearing high viz gear and carrying a strong torch.

[PhilJ W]

When I go to visit a friend I pass a junior school that has a 20mph limit outside of the school. Fair enough but I usually go past the school of an evening long after the pupils have gone home. In fact the school is locked up and this time of year is in darkness. Another junior school near to where I live although it doesn't have a speed limit has an electronic 'reminder' sign of the (30mph) speed limit. At the former school very few stick to the 20mph limit, at the latter most drivers slow down when they see the sign. As for economy when travelling at less than 30mph, most cars that I have driven will happily pootle along at 30mph/50kph but going slower than that usually involved changing down. The only solution to excessive speeding on rural roads has to be by traffic calming measures such as chichanes, but not speed bumps.

[Hobby]

Either of which ruin fuel consumption by causing stop/start scenarios whereas a constant speed doesn't. 

[PhilJ W]

Not neccessarily increasing fuel consumption if you think and plan ahead and anticipate. As in the case of the second school at lunchtime and turning out time I ease off when approaching and passing the school and ready to brake if I have to. I might have to drop into fourth gear to get up speed afterwards but only for a few seconds, with a negligble effect on fuel consumption.

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Not neccessarily increasing fuel consumption if you think and plan ahead and anticipate. As in the case of the second school at lunchtime and turning out time I ease off when approaching and passing the school and ready to brake if I have to. I might have to drop into fourth gear to get up speed afterwards but only for a few seconds, with a negligble effect on fuel consumption.

 

Or even better simply avoiding going that way at those times! (Possible here on an urban estate; I appreciate it may not be practical in more rural areas.)

[PhilJ W]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Or even better simply avoiding going that way at those times! (Possible here on an urban estate; I appreciate it may not be practical in more rural areas.)

Its on quite a busy road also used by three bus routes. The only alternative is several minor roads through residential areas. I do try to avoid times when the school is turning out but thats not allways possible.

[Hobby]

Most people don't drive like that though Phil. They speed up and brake for both bumps and those daft road narrowing they use. So constant speed wins on reducing emmissions. 

[PhilJ W]

11 hours ago, Hobby said:

Most people don't drive like that though Phil. They speed up and brake for both bumps and those daft road narrowing they use. So constant speed wins on reducing emmissions. 

I'm well aware of that, too many drivers do not concentrate on their driving. If they did there'd be far fewer accidents and a lot less polution.

[TheQ]

The route home for me Passes 5 Schools, the first 3 are Chaos with the parents trying to park in the front doors, the roads become single track. The worst one is on a curve so you get cars arriving in the middle from both directions. I've even seen Double deckers going up onto the pavements to get past. Two of the first 3 have road humps, that some parents assume are pedestrian crossings and wander out dragging their children.

Constant speeds are impossible..

[Nick C]

13 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

When I go to visit a friend I pass a junior school that has a 20mph limit outside of the school. Fair enough but I usually go past the school of an evening long after the pupils have gone home. In fact the school is locked up and this time of year is in darkness. Another junior school near to where I live although it doesn't have a speed limit has an electronic 'reminder' sign of the (30mph) speed limit. At the former school very few stick to the 20mph limit, at the latter most drivers slow down when they see the sign. As for economy when travelling at less than 30mph, most cars that I have driven will happily pootle along at 30mph/50kph but going slower than that usually involved changing down. The only solution to excessive speeding on rural roads has to be by traffic calming measures such as chichanes, but not speed bumps.

Quite a few other countries have time-varying speed limits, which seems like a good idea to me - so pass the school mid-evening and it's 30, pass at 8am or 3pm and it's 20. It'd be best to have some kind of clear indication when it's in force, but that'd be no different to the flashing lights they have for the school crossings anyway...

[Hobby]

There are plenty of those in the UK as well.

[Titan]

15 hours ago, melmerby said:

I think the name "daylight running lights" is a misnomer.

Most people probably think "Volvo" and their DRLs which lit up both ends of the car.

I had assumed on my Focus both ends were alight but as pointed out earlier, no rear laights once you are on the move.

Why not? No idea, it strikes me as a bonkers idea to only have front lights.

 

 

Could it be that people are not in the habit of driving along roads backwards at 30mph?

Edited December 6, 2019 by Titan

[Reorte]

16 hours ago, beast66606 said:

 

Around me - and no doubt other places - there are villages with no lights and no pavements and can be quite narrow, there are VERY GOOD reasons why 20 mph limits are in place, unless you are of the view that children (or adults for that matter) should stay inside after dark - which is around 15:45 at the moment ?

As far as I'm concerned anyone who exceeds the 20 mph by more than 10 mph should have their car taken off them for crushing, and if the car isn't owned by them ? - then they can compensate the owner to the value. Idiots speeding through villages are INCREDIBLY dangerous to those of us who like to use our feet, I don't like feeling I'm going to be killed every time a set of headlights appears - and this despite me wearing high viz gear and carrying a strong torch.

 

Was is INCREDIBLY dangerous before the limit was reduced to 20 from 30? Or did you have a few cases of people incapable of looking after themselves, stepping out into moving traffic, and some more of people paying no attention to the 30 limit (or just generally driving inappropriately to the conditions)? I live in a village with a 30 mph limit and no pavement through some of it, there's no real risk even in the dark as a pedestrian as long as you act sensibly and don't encounter the type of driver who's dangerous wherever you encounter them whatever the limit is.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Reorte

[Nick C]

4 hours ago, Titan said:

 

Could it be that people are not in the habit of driving along roads backwards at 30mph?

No, but they are in the habit of not turning on their lights in low visibility, so people approaching from behind can't see them as clearly as they should be able to...

[duncan]

I parked my car to do some shopping, (in a parking bay opposite a street light) & on returning to the car was very unpleasantly surprised at how poorly the reflectors were showing up in the high mounted headlights prevelant nowadays.   I checked the reflectors & they were clean.  

[Titan]

3 hours ago, Nick C said:

No, but they are in the habit of not turning on their lights in low visibility, so people approaching from behind can't see them as clearly as they should be able to...

 

The rear lights are only there for poor light conditions, not low visibility. That is why cars are fitted with rear fog lights for such conditions, unless you are proposing that all cars should have rear fog lights illuminated during the day?  Anything less will be insufficiently bright to make a significant difference during daylight.  In any case the DRL is mostly for the benefit of  pedestrians, which may not have as good eyesight as drivers, being able to see the car more clearly so less likely to walk out in front of it. They are not there for the benefit of drivers.

[davefrk]

Just today driving through Bothwell village at less than 20 due to cars badly parked on both sides of the narrow main street, watched two cars having to brake hard due to a number of stupid twonks from the secondary school just walking off the pavement with their chip pokes, then a few seconds later some twonks did it to me..... I blasted the horn which was quite loud with the buildings on both sides and just got a dirty look from the offending egits. Plenty of 'blonde footballers wives' in Range Rovers and Bently Cs. about the area so I'm surprised there aren't more 'accidents'.

 

Dave.

Edited December 6, 2019 by davefrk

[Titan]

1 minute ago, davefrk said:

Just today driving through Bothwell village at less than 20 due to parked cars badly parked on both sides of the narrow main street, watched two cars having to brake hard due to a number of stupid twonks from the secondary school just walking off the pavement with their chip pokes, then a few seconds later some twonks did it to me..... I blasted the horn which was quite loud with the buildings on both sides and just got a dirty look from the offending egits. Plenty of 'blonde footballers wives' in Range Rovers and Bently Cs. about the area so I'm surprised there aren't more 'accidents'.

 

Dave.

 

Does your car have DRLs?