Driving standards

[GrumpyPenguin]

3 hours ago, TheQ said:

I know that, but you can't leave a wall of snow blocking one lane,  without stopping reversing and changing lanes. 

 

Do you honestly think it would be safe to reverse a vehicle which could weigh up to 32T on a motorway with drivers like you not driving at a speed that they could stop safely within the limits of their vision ?

The "mountain of snow" would have been dealt with by the next plough.

Too many drivers think they are far too important to stay safely behind the plough/gritter and have to get in front of it and then come unstuck.

 

As it happens I usually meet at least one idiot everyt time during a run.

Plough/gritter drivers are out there doing a diffecult and sometimes dangerous job when most people are safely tucked up in bed

[Vistisen]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

There has been at least one case in Australia, where the owner of the vehicle, successfully appealed the high end vehicle's suspension, which normally occurs.

The owner (a major vehicle rental company) was able to prove, that the vehicle was heavily booked out for the next 30 days (length of seizure) and importantly, there was no spare vehicle of similar standard, even from competitors - perhaps it was the Spring Carnival (horse racing big race season) or the Grand Prix.

 

Anyway the judge agreed, that even if the owner had been reimbursed for the loss of the vehicle income, the rental company was not the organisation, intended to be punished. So they got their vehicle back.

There have been cases to the highest court... they all lost. The cars are already sold at auction. One of the side effects has been that when buying 'performance' cars, you no longer get to do at test drive without a salesman in the car!. My contract for my company car has an ammendment stating that is I was stupid enough to lose it, I have to reimberse the leasing comapny, No person or company has got their car back, or any compensation.

 

Edited Thursday at 09:34 by Vistisen

[Sidecar Racer]

2 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Plough/gritter drivers are out there doing a diffecult and sometimes dangerous job when most people are safely tucked up in bed

 

 Which means that there could be so little traffic that reversing to do a lane change

as @TheQ has outlined is possible , you seem  to be equating all gritter drivers as having

the same modus operandi as you .

Edited Thursday at 11:01 by Sidecar Racer

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Sidecar Racer said:

you seem to be equating all gritter drivers as having the same modus operandi as you .

 

One would hope that that is the case - that training would have instilled a common mode of operation based on risk analysis and best practice.

[JDW]

On 31/08/2024 at 12:18, GrumpyPenguin said:

I'm not condoning truck & coach drivers for tailgating (I hold an HGV ClassII* myself). However, because HGV/coach speedometers are calibrated that means that their indicated 50mph is actually 50mph, whereas an indicated 50mph on your uncalibrated car/van speedometer is more like 47mph.

Just catching up with this thread after a while away (and quoting this post for context, not picking up on GrumpyPenguin's comment in particular). Those who drive for a living are all too aware of the difference between commercial vehicle and car speedos, and we're all aware that HGV and coach drivers want to maintain the best speed they can, and the pressure they're under to keep to time, but at the end of the day it's irrelevant whether one speedo is calibrated slightly differently. The car in front could be doing 35 in a 50 limit, it's still the job of the professional driver to drive at a safe and suitable distance behind. The point about the difference in calibration is, in my opinion, a good explanation for why they find it frustrating to be behind a slower car, but never an excuse for getting frustrated and tailgating, which often it seems to be used as.  

[Sidecar Racer]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

One would hope that that is the case - that training would have instilled a common mode of operation based on risk analysis and best practice.

 

 I agree , but we don't know the exact circumstances that were involved in @TheQs

situation , there may have been an obstruction that meant the plough had no option but to 

do as has been described , to say  'it couldn't happen' is a bold statement .

[TheQ]

6 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Do you honestly think it would be safe to reverse a vehicle which could weigh up to 32T on a motorway with drivers like you not driving at a speed that they could stop safely within the limits of their vision ?

The "mountain of snow" would have been dealt with by the next plough.

Too many drivers think they are far too important to stay safely behind the plough/gritter and have to get in front of it and then come unstuck.

 

As it happens I usually meet at least one idiot everyt time during a run.

Plough/gritter drivers are out there doing a diffecult and sometimes dangerous job when most people are safely tucked up in bed

That diatribe mentioning a wall "a mountain of snow" which I did not, still does not give any reason for them to have stopped and reversed...  It is the only possible way to leave a wall of snow across a carriageway.

 

Ps I've driven snowploughs ( day and night on 12 hours shifts) myself on public roads, even if only little Landrover ones.

Edited Thursday at 14:54 by TheQ

[Vistisen]

4 hours ago, JDW said:

Just catching up with this thread after a while away (and quoting this post for context, not picking up on GrumpyPenguin's comment in particular). Those who drive for a living are all too aware of the difference between commercial vehicle and car speedos, and we're all aware that HGV and coach drivers want to maintain the best speed they can, and the pressure they're under to keep to time, but at the end of the day it's irrelevant whether one speedo is calibrated slightly differently. The car in front could be doing 35 in a 50 limit, it's still the job of the professional driver to drive at a safe and suitable distance behind. The point about the difference in calibration is, in my opinion, a good explanation for why they find it frustrating to be behind a slower car, but never an excuse for getting frustrated and tailgating, which often it seems to be used as.  

To put it perhaps too simply: it is called a speed limit, not a speed target.

 

[Compound2632]

39 minutes ago, Vistisen said:

To put it perhaps too simply: it is called a speed limit, not a speed target.

 

I was taught to drive at the speed limit, where it is safe to do so. To do otherwise, it seems to me, is to show a lack of consideration for other road users.

 

Of course 'where it is safe to do so' is dependent on vehicle and driver.

Edited Thursday at 16:38 by Compound2632

[jcm@gwr]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was taught to drive at the speed limit, where it is safe to do so. To do otherwise, it seems to me, is to show a lack of consideration for other road users.

 

Of course 'where it is safe to do so' is dependent on vehicle and driver.

 

If you take the Institute of Advanced Drivers course, you will lose points, maybe even fail, if you don't change down

a gear and accelerate as you pass a speed limit sign (indicating a higher limit of course!)

[bimble]

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

One would hope that that is the case - that training would have instilled a common mode of operation based on risk analysis and best practice.

 

One would have hoped... but one could say the same considering the majority of people on the road have had training and testing to be able to drive on the road and yet we're 545 pages into a thread about those people and how they drive.

[kevinlms]

11 hours ago, Vistisen said:

To put it perhaps too simply: it is called a speed limit, not a speed target.

 

Yes, bet just because it's a limit, doesn't mean that its good practice to drive well under that limit. Ir's particulary bad if it's difficult for others to safely pass you. Still not illegal though, except vary rarely.

[97406]

11 hours ago, Vistisen said:

To put it perhaps too simply: it is called a speed limit, not a speed target.

 

 

28 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Yes, bet just because it's a limit, doesn't mean that its good practice to drive well under that limit. Ir's particulary bad if it's difficult for others to safely pass you. Still not illegal though, except vary rarely.

 

The blanket Welsh 20 limit in built up areas is well below a sensible target speed for most of the roads it applies to, Woe betide anybody starting a long drive back home being diverted off the main roads and bypasses through towns. 

 

Derbyshire County Council has imposed blanket 50 limits on many straight, well sighted stretches of A road, which again are below a sensible target speed. The particularly annoying thing here is all the back roads where I go and ride my peddlybike along with a plethora of other leisure users using them are still at the national speed limit (NSL). The A515 is one such daft limit between Buxton and Newhaven. A53 Axe Edge is another - strangely the laws of physics change once you cross over into Staffordshire and a 60 maximum is deemed safe. One of the main reasons for the limits were accidents involving motorcycles travelling at well over the former NSL who now have more convoys of slower traffic to zip past.

 

The A537 between Macc and Buxton also has a 50 limit and average speed cameras along its length. You would have to contravene the aforementioned laws of physics to exceed an average of 50mph on the section with the dangerous bends, but the long straighter sections, which could really have stayed at a 60 limit has 3 cameras on it.

 

There is widespread misuse of what should be a targeted and vital road safety tool, normally as a box ticking exercise and revenue generator. Authorities need to be ‘seen to be doing something’ about any accidents, but there is no detailed analysis done before a limit is dropped.

[jjb1970]

There are two separate aspects when discussing mandatory legal requirements,  do they make any sense and do you have to comply. A law may be ridiculous or badly drafted, but ultimately if it is a legal, mandatory requirement then compliance is not optional. Well, not unless people are happy to accept the consequences. 

 

The thing I find worrying isn't so much whether laws are based on a good or bad premise but bad drafting which can turn the best of ideas into a mess.

[97406]

1 minute ago, jjb1970 said:

There are two separate aspects when discussing mandatory legal requirements,  do they make any sense and do you have to comply. A law may be ridiculous or badly drafted, but ultimately if it is a legal, mandatory requirement then compliance is not optional. Well, not unless people are happy to accept the consequences. 

 

The thing I find worrying isn't so much whether laws are based on a good or bad premise but bad drafting which can turn the best of ideas into a mess.

 

With the Derbyshire limits, the enforcement threshold can be taken into account, plus as a regular user, the Talivan spots are well known. I wouldn’t dream of breaking the law on those stretches m’lud, but were I to make such a mistake and get an NIP through the post, then it would incur a speed awareness course which I would gladly cough up and attend. I hear they can be quite educational.

[kevinlms]

IF you think the UK is bad, how about these US crossings for pedestrians? Little orange flags to wave, to help you stop traffic while you cross and other dangerous ideas

!
 

 

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, 97406 said:

Derbyshire County Council has imposed blanket 50 limits on many straight, well sighted stretches of A road, which again are below a sensible target speed. The particularly annoying thing here is all the back roads where I go and ride my peddlybike along with a plethora of other leisure users using them are still at the national speed limit (NSL). The A515 is one such daft limit between Buxton and Newhaven. A53 Axe Edge is another - strangely the laws of physics change once you cross over into Staffordshire and a 60 maximum is deemed safe. One of the main reasons for the limits were accidents involving motorcycles travelling at well over the former NSL who now have more convoys of slower traffic to zip past.

Ah yes, the A515. Yes, there are corners, but there's also about as good a visibility forward as you'll ever get too. Which probably encouraged people to go well over NSL, but why the idea that lowering the limit will solve that is anyone's guess. Still head that way rather than the A6, slogging through the Matlock area, to get to Derby though.

 

Too many lowered limits simply run the risk of lowering respect for speed limits overall. Rules only work when enough people respect them enough.

Edited Friday at 07:45 by Reorte

[97406]

14 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Ah yes, the A515. Yes, there are corners, but there's also about as good a visibility forward as you'll ever get too. Which probably encouraged people to go well over NSL, but why the idea that lowering the limit will solve that is anyone's guess. Still head that way rather than the A6, slogging through the Matlock area, to get to Derby though.

 

Too many lowered limits simply run the risk of lowering respect for speed limits overall. Rules only work when enough people respect them enough.

 

Absolutely when it comes for arbitrarily lowered limits undermining respect for the limits! There’s plenty of comedy limits elsewhere too.

 

I’d rather have seen the National Speed Limit retained on the northern section of A515 and average speed cameras installed than the current 50 limit and random talivans. They never tried to enforce the old limit to any degree, they just slapped the 50 limit on it, despite many complaints about the proposed reduction before it was imposed.

 

 

[Vistisen]

6 hours ago, Reorte said:

Ah yes, the A515. Yes, there are corners, but there's also about as good a visibility forward as you'll ever get too. Which probably encouraged people to go well over NSL, but why the idea that lowering the limit will solve that is anyone's guess. Still head that way rather than the A6, slogging through the Matlock area, to get to Derby though.

 

Too many lowered limits simply run the risk of lowering respect for speed limits overall. Rules only work when enough people respect them enough.

We have a road near us which goes through a wood half of it has been there for years and has a speed limit of 50mph, it has just been extended. The new section, which is wider, straighter and with fewer trees close to the road, has a daytime speed limit of 35 mph, due to the risk of bats flying acording to the signs.. 

there is so much wrong with this:

1. bats are nocturnal, they sleep in the day.
2. bats have echo location sense to avoid moving objectsm, thats why they do not crash into each other in dark caves.
3. the bats have lived in the woods for years, also in the bit by the old section of the road that has a 50 mph limit.
4. some species of bats will be flying faster than the cars and risk running into them! 

Edited Friday at 13:46 by Vistisen

[97406]

16 minutes ago, Vistisen said:

We have a road near us which goes through a wood half of it has been there for years and has a speed limit of 50mph, it has jast been extended The new section, which is wider, straighter and with fewer trees close to the road, has a daytime speed limit of 35 mph, due to the risk of bats flying acording to the signs.. 

there is so much wrong with this:

1. bats are nocturnal, they sleep in the day.
2. bats have echo location sense to avoid moving objectsm, thats why they do not crash into each other in dark caves.
3. the bats have lived in the woods for years, also in the bit by the old section of the road that has a 50 mph limit.
4. some species of bats will be flying faster than the cars and risk running into them! 

 

Sounds like they may be running an exchange programme with Derbyshire County Council! 

[Reorte]

Of course there are sometimes non-obvious good reasons for having a reduced limit. They're more likely to be obeyed if people don't find reasons to question them more generally.

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 hour ago, 97406 said:

 

Absolutely when it comes for arbitrarily lowered limits undermining respect for the limits! There’s plenty of comedy limits elsewhere too.

 

I’d rather have seen the National Speed Limit retained on the northern section of A515 and average speed cameras installed than the current 50 limit and random talivans. They never tried to enforce the old limit to any degree, they just slapped the 50 limit on it, despite many complaints about the proposed reduction before it was imposed.

 

 

 

The annoying thing about the A515 is that the speed limit was introduced because of some motorcyclists using it like the Mulsanne straight, which from the last experience of it they still do.

 

Mike.

[stewartingram]

I know this will be controversial, but, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a dangerous road. It is the drivers that are dangerous. If you drive to the conditions, because there are so-called dangerous spots, the road is safe.

Edited Friday at 10:07 by stewartingram

[Enterprisingwestern]

5 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I know this will be controversial, but, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a dangerous road. It is the drivers that are dangerous. If you drive to the conditions, because there are so-called dangerous spot, the road is safe.

 

Is it in Germany where there is no such thing as an accident?

 

Mike.

[Dunsignalling]

12 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

The annoying thing about the A515 is that the speed limit was introduced because of some motorcyclists using it like the Mulsanne straight, which from the last experience of it they still do.

 

Mike.

 

Average speed cameras would seem the only effective way of enforcing any speed limit on a stretch of road such as that.