Speed Taxation

[Lopéz]

You don't seem to be able to separate two different things. Capability and practicality are not the same. Nobody is questioning that you should be capable of driving however many miles, people are suggesting that it is not practical to do so.

 

[jpaul]

doesnt matter, you need to know how every type of road works. why does it matter how long it takes? a driving licence isnt suppose to be short and convenient, its suppose to teach you how to drive.

you could have a winter/sheet-rain/night(dazzle) section too ? I don't know if conditions more than road type are the bigger liability.

 

[Phemo]

You don't seem to be able to separate two different things. Capability and practicality are not the same. Nobody is questioning that you should be capable of driving however many miles, people are suggesting that it is not practical to do so.

Exactly, it isn't practical because it would also mean the closure of a large amount of test centres that aren't located near motorways, lots of job losses and means the average time a student needs to hire an instructor's car could be up to 6 hours in some areas. Test fees would rise significantly as a result too and availability would be much more limited.

I'd argue that many of the major A roads are almost as good as a motorway but with without a hard shoulder anyway and most of the country is within decent reach of those. Down here, the stretch of A27 that runs after the M27 ends is just as good - 3 lanes, plenty of exits and even a hard shoulder too. When I was taking driving lessons in Basingstoke, my instructor took me on the A34 which is about as close to motorway driving as you can get in that area without going on the M3. It prepped me up well enough at least because the principle is exactly the same.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

that's an interesting pandoras box -
- the fast food gendre, those facilities, and increasingly restaurants, are successful based on max speed.
- (maybe legislation is needed too) people don't know what their food limit is to avoid obesity egged on by calorie laden foods (analogue w/powerful cars)
- people may also maximise their tax efficiency
... but driving beeing a means to an end/destination, for many people they have an interest in reducing time spent.
[the orignal post was comic/gd - so can't we continue in that vein]


eh ... he was talking about the inaccesibility of motorways, for it to be mandatory in a test !

Well sticking with the fast food one, and the terrible thread derailment

No because if you literally exceeded your ability to consume you would be sick. I don't mean the safe limit (which would be the equivalent to doing 70 in a 70 limit), I mean the eating beyond what you can physically manage

Or the running one, I mean running until you physically go faint/black out due to oxygen starvation

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

There was some news about motorway testing a while back, sure they are talking of bringing it in

I am reminded of what my dad said to me when I passed my test many years ago. "You have passed your test, now you will learn to drive"

Ah found the motorway thing. It was literally illegal until recently to go onto a motorway, now allowed with approved instructor and as long as have dual controls

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/learner-drivers-will-be-allowed-on-motorways-from-2018

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I guess my other comment is that there are stretches of A road that are way more difficult to competently drive than some motorways, but there are also some motorways that are horrendous to drive.

There is a world of difference between the M6 towards the top, compared to the M25.

Personally I don't think driving standards are that much worse since I have been driving, certainly though the roads are busier, and in general I would say the state of the roads is worse.

There are many chicken and egg situations that arise whilst driving that are hard to fix. The symptoms of one become the causes of the other and then the circle repeats.

The primary one I say this in regards to is middle/inside lane discipline. I am more than happy to move over if someone wants to travel faster than me, however often with traffic density you can end up stuck as every other car tries to keep the gap too small so you cannot get back out.

 

[jpaul]

I am not sure the Germans are whiter than white with respect to autobahn habits ..- I had not known their 0.9s follow law, and, maybe uk is worse

but had read this recently discussing advantages of adaptive cruise control

 

[Philz0r]

To OP, theres a NSL road near me that goes downhill into a 30, it really isn't that difficult to slow down to 30 before you hit the 30 sign.

To say you need to brake hard seems a bit keen,

 

[adolf hamster]

you could have a winter/sheet-rain/night(dazzle) section too ? I don't know if conditions more than road type are the bigger liability.

absolutely, perhaps we should reform the testing procedure and instead give it to driving instructors, have the testing requirements that it's minimum of 1 years instruction with at least 1 recorded lesson per quarter and covering each type of driving (say countryside, motorway and urban), then give the instructor the power to pass a student if they've demonstrated competence in all the required areas.

at the minute it's possible to go between starting to learn to drive and passing in the summer on country back roads then progress inexperienced and unaccompanied to motorway driving in the snow.

 

[ttaskmaster]

So do we continue to let everyone drive like a muppet and put speed cameras everywhere so the government can make a bit extra cash

Nope. Just wait for one (or both) of two things to happen:
a) All cars become autonomous and thus driven perfectly.
b) All cars to have online electronic validation of your driving status, credentials and ability profile, before they will allow you to start the engine.

or adopt whatever the Germans are doing and actually have safer roads.

As I understand it, they have fewer crashes on their higher speed roads than us... but when they do have them, it's an absolutely massive mess with lots of people involved and everyone tends to die.

 

[Jumper118]

Nope. Just wait for one (or both) of two things to happen:
a) All cars become autonomous and thus driven perfectly.
b) All cars to have online electronic validation of your driving status, credentials and ability profile, before they will allow you to start the engine.


As I understand it, they have fewer crashes on their higher speed roads than us... but when they do have them, it's an absolutely massive mess with lots of people involved and everyone tends to die.

I will never surrender my manual car. Even if they cut my arms and legs off. I'll get bionic arms and legs.

There are less accidents overall and less deaths overall which is the main point. Obviously at higher speed the accidents are going to be worse because there is more force involved, but we have had the same speed limits since the 1960's and crashing even at 30 would kill you then. Making the speed higher would make people pay more attention l, because it will be worse if they do crash.

 

[Cristian]

I am not sure the Germans are whiter than white with respect to autobahn habits ..- I had not known their 0.9s follow law, and, maybe uk is worse

but had read this recently discussing advantages of adaptive cruise control

This.
Having crossed Germany 10+ times, I can tell you that whilst overall they are better disciplined, there are plenty of idiots on their roads as well. I remember one particular occasion when I was "making progress" behind a new Audi A6 at a reasonable distance (let's say 70ish to 100 yards, I'm sure people will be telling me I was tailgating) both doing ~130mph. All was well until another german car decided to pull in front of him from lane 2 to lane 3 without indicating whilst he was doing ~80mph at most.

I will be honest, I thought there was no way he was going to avoid it whilst I slammed the anchors but to his and his car credit (Audi brake guard, speaking of adaptive cruise control) he did brake hard enough and there was no contact. About 1 minute of flashing/tooting horn followed whilst the idiot driver that pulled in front continued obvliviously at his 80mph holding everyone back.

Last but by no means least, Germany is well quite central in Europe. To the extent where there will be plenty of foreign drivers at any given time on the road to "dillute" the talent pool. Foreign truck drivers are incredibily rude at night, overtaking at 52mph whilst the other vehicle is doing 51mph, so that you're sat there a few minutes doing 52mph instead of making progress on an unrestricted autobahn. Overall driving level is certainly not "whiter than white".

As for "only a fool breaks the three second rule", I put it in the same category as "giving cyclists at least a car width length when overtaking". Perfectly respectable and applicable.... if you live in the middle of nowhere. Within London / M25/ rush hour traffic, if you leave those kind of gaps, traffic will never ever move. Don't get me wrong, I hate tailgating as much as anyone, I always give plenty of space to cyclists whenever possible, but there are pragmatical realities than we need to take into account.

Leaving huge gaps, not accelerating at a decent rate when traffic restarts and all those "I'm in no rush habits" ends up creating huge traffic jams for everyone, as exemplified in the below:

Last but by no means least, I cannot help noticing that this part of my post was completely ignored, yet everyone picked up on the Germany bit.

This is one thing absolutely baffles me in the land of "safety".
Country roads are incredibly narrow with no "safety margin" whatsoever where you could potentially duck in to avoid a collision. But nope, either a stone wall or a hill/ ditch / gigantic bush. Tones of space behind it, but heaven forbid we give an extra half a yard to the cars...
It's perfectly legal to do 60mph on a blind corner where you could easily encounter a cyclist/slow moving vehicle on your lane whilst another vehicle is coming from the opposite way, or encounter some sort of tractor/harvester ready to decapitate you. And I've seen plenty of vans/buses/large vehicles sticking religiously to that 60mph on the twistiest bits, to the point where there is almost a bit of effort required to keep up with them.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I will never surrender my manual car. Even if they cut my arms and legs off. I'll get bionic arms and legs.

If you say so....

There are less accidents overall and less deaths

Fewer.

But anyway... Looking just at 2013, Germany has 4.3 and 6.8 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants and 100,000 vehicles respectively.
The UK has 2.9 and 5.1.
Not much looks to have changed in the years since, either. Generally, year on year, both countries report a slight drop in fatalities, but an increase in accidents.

but we have had the same speed limits since the 1960's and crashing even at 30 would kill you then.

So why not have everyone crashing at 120 instead, since they'll die anyway, but you just might get to college 2 minutes earlier, right?
Yeah, good one.

Making the speed higher would make people pay more attention l, because it will be worse if they do crash.

Speed is a factor in the actual crash, in that you go from really fast to a sudden stop.
But more importantly, higher speeds give you less time in which to take evasive actions, through which you might prevent the crash in the first place.
You'll also find an increase in speed will bring an increase in people overcooking corners, trying to pull out and beat oncoming traffic, tailgating, overtaking dangerously, and many other silly things.

"Using the most widely accepted statistical model, drawn up by a Norwegian academic using data from 100 studies in more than a dozen countries, an increase in average traffic speeds of just 3mph – a typical change for a 10mph rise – would be expected to cause more than 25 extra deaths a year on motorways and more than 100 serious injuries"

"A 1991 case study used in the ETSC report illustrates the results of introducing a speed limit. A 130km speed limit was introduced on a 167km section of the A61 in Rheinland-Pfalz combined with a ban on overtaking heavy good vehicles. The result of both these measures was a 30% reduction in fatal and severe injury accidents"

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths

 

[Jumper118]

If you say so....


Fewer.

But anyway... Looking just at 2013, Germany has 4.3 and 6.8 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants and 100,000 vehicles respectively.
The UK has 2.9 and 5.1.
Not much looks to have changed in the years since, either. Generally, year on year, both countries report a slight drop in fatalities, but an increase in accidents.


So why not have everyone crashing at 120 instead, since they'll die anyway, but you just might get to college 2 minutes earlier, right?
Yeah, good one.


Speed is a factor in the actual crash, in that you go from really fast to a sudden stop.
But more importantly, higher speeds give you less time in which to take evasive actions, through which you might prevent the crash in the first place.
You'll also find an increase in speed will bring an increase in people overcooking corners, trying to pull out and beat oncoming traffic, tailgating, overtaking dangerously, and many other silly things.

"Using the most widely accepted statistical model, drawn up by a Norwegian academic using data from 100 studies in more than a dozen countries, an increase in average traffic speeds of just 3mph – a typical change for a 10mph rise – would be expected to cause more than 25 extra deaths a year on motorways and more than 100 serious injuries"

"A 1991 case study used in the ETSC report illustrates the results of introducing a speed limit. A 130km speed limit was introduced on a 167km section of the A61 in Rheinland-Pfalz combined with a ban on overtaking heavy good vehicles. The result of both these measures was a 30% reduction in fatal and severe injury accidents"

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths

That was going great until you linked the guardian. Then any stats or opinions became invalid. The guardian love the nanny state.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That was going great until you linked the guardian. Then any stats or opinions became invalid.

Then just use it like Wikipedia - as a jump-off point for the underlying quotes and resources. It's 2018 and they're only a click-of-the-link-in-the-article away, these days.

The guardian love the nanny state.

They do?
I'd have thought they'd want to be all free and liberal and 'don't impose your laws on me, man'... all while writing novels on the MacBooks in trendy coffee shops.
They possibly gave birth to the nanny state, but only because they'll whine about anything there isn't a strict law against, as a way to dodge the personal responsibility and the punishment. I don't think that's what they really wanted. Just an excuse to make it someone else's problem and to pay for it with someone else's money.

I'm more the sort who probably ought to read the Daily Fail, myself... not that I've ever looked into such things much, but I believe I'm quite right wing and into following rules and stuff, harsh punishments for criminals, working hard to get ahead sort of things.

But whatever. I'm sure you're young enough to know better than me, and will come up with a dozen links that disprove all my assertions................. ?

 

[Jumper118]

Then just use it like Wikipedia - as a jump-off point for the underlying quotes and resources. It's 2018 and they're only a click-of-the-link-in-the-article away, these days.


They do?
I'd have thought they'd want to be all free and liberal and 'don't impose your laws on me, man'... all while writing novels on the MacBooks in trendy coffee shops.
They possibly gave birth to the nanny state, but only because they'll whine about anything there isn't a strict law against, as a way to dodge the personal responsibility and the punishment. I don't think that's what they really wanted. Just an excuse to make it someone else's problem and to pay for it with someone else's money.

I'm more the sort who probably ought to read the Daily Fail, myself... not that I've ever looked into such things much, but I believe I'm quite right wing and into following rules and stuff, harsh punishments for criminals, working hard to get ahead sort of things.

But whatever. I'm sure you're young enough to know better than me, and will come up with a dozen links that disprove all my assertions................. ?

The guardian article just was to fit in with your confirmation bias then. Fair enough. I think the difference here maybe libertarian vs authoritative rather than "right wing" or left wing.

I totally agree the law should be followed and if you break it you should be punished the same as everyone else. The problem I have is that the law shouldnt have been there in the first place

Even if the law is in place I think the way they are going about enforcing it is not effective.

You may disagree, but I think freedom comes at a cost, but in most cases, freedom is worth the cost. If everyone is put in a bubble of a self driving car that they can't crash in, yes it's all nice and safe, but they never experience driving. I am not against people who don't care about driving getting automated cars and putting up 9000 speed cameras to watch them, but when it starts affecting the people who do want to drive in a negative way then it limits their freedom.

 

[Jumper118]

Also I am not a link nazi. I like to form my own opinions rather than link to someone else's opinion.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

This is real easy. Don't want a fine, don't break the speed limit.
See how easy that was?

If you ARE going to insist on breaking the speed limit, just take responsibility for your actions and don't come here moaning about it.
If anything, you should be coming here to apologise to the rest of us. After all, by getting fined, you're funding the continuation of speed cameras, which buggers things up for those of us who are more careful.

 

[ttaskmaster]

The guardian article just was to fit in with your confirmation bias then.

No, it was to challenge (and subsequently disprove) your assertion.

I think the difference here maybe libertarian vs authoritative rather than "right wing" or left wing.

TBH, the difference is of absolutely no real concern to me, as my perspective on things will vary dramatically, depending on the particular issue. I'm a non-racist, prejudicial liberal authoritarian.... with guns... and tanks... and stuff. Maybe more The Telegraph?

The problem I have is that the law shouldnt have been there in the first place

People must be governed. Often not wisely, but governed nonetheless.
If you think you know, or can do, better then step up and get on with it... or just vote differently.

Even if the law is in place I think the way they are going about enforcing it is not effective.

Now this bit is definitely true. However, people complained about previous enforcements and now both Police powers and their funding, as well as their management and direction, have all taken a downward turn as a result.

You may disagree, but I think freedom comes at a cost, but in most cases, freedom is worth the cost. If everyone is put in a bubble of a self driving car that they can't crash in, yes it's all nice and safe, but they never experience driving.

You often won't directly experience the full extent of that cost, though. Your insurance might go up inexplicably, but that's often all.

However, if the cost of your freedom to experience driving is that some other ****'s freedom to drive dangerously ends up killing my daughter, then **** your freedom. Sorry, but her freedom to experience life trumps anyone else's freedom to experience driving.
Get out and walk - It's healthier.

I am not against people who don't care about driving getting automated cars and putting up 9000 speed cameras to watch them, but when it starts affecting the people who do want to drive in a negative way then it limits their freedom.

Now, I really love driving and absolutely adore riding (especially as I have a nice motorcycle) that really suits me... but if people who are given that freedom cannot be trusted to exercise it responsibly, it affects those of us who can, and then that freedom must be eliminated.

To that end, it's not really a freedom in the first place. It's merely a priviledge, which is very conditional.

Also I am not a link nazi. I like to form my own opinions rather than link to someone else's opinion.

Have your own opinion about things, sure.
But you can't just make assertions about facts, unless you're willing to accept it when they are disproven and/or can substantiate them when challenged.
I already stated my own opinion. It just happens to tally well with the facts.

So you can carry on believing that increasing or entirely removing speed limits will make the roads safer... you'll just be wrong.
Removing the various signs warning about tight bends or upcoming dangers (especially the Max Speed for this corner) might work, on the same logic that people will be forced to pay attention, think and take things slower... but increasing speeds limits just means people will go faster, crash a lot faster, and crash more often.

 

[Jumper118]

No, it was to challenge (and subsequently disprove) your assertion.


TBH, the difference is of absolutely no real concern to me, as my perspective on things will vary dramatically, depending on the particular issue. I'm a non-racist, prejudicial liberal authoritarian.... with guns... and tanks... and stuff. Maybe more The Telegraph?


People must be governed. Often not wisely, but governed nonetheless.
If you think you know, or can do, better then step up and get on with it... or just vote differently.


Now this bit is definitely true. However, people complained about previous enforcements and now both Police powers and their funding, as well as their management and direction, have all taken a downward turn as a result.


You often won't directly experience the full extent of that cost, though. Your insurance might go up inexplicably, but that's often all.

However, if the cost of your freedom to experience driving is that some other ****'s freedom to drive dangerously ends up killing my daughter, then **** your freedom. Sorry, but her freedom to experience life trumps anyone else's freedom to experience driving.
Get out and walk - It's healthier.


Now, I really love driving and absolutely adore riding (especially as I have a nice motorcycle) that really suits me... but if people who are given that freedom cannot be trusted to exercise it responsibly, it affects those of us who can, and then that freedom must be eliminated.

To that end, it's not really a freedom in the first place. It's merely a priviledge, which is very conditional.


Have your own opinion about things, sure.
But you can't just make assertions about facts, unless you're willing to accept it when they are disproven and/or can substantiate them when challenged.
I already stated my own opinion. It just happens to tally well with the facts.

So you can carry on believing that increasing or entirely removing speed limits will make the roads safer... you'll just be wrong.
Removing the various signs warning about tight bends or upcoming dangers (especially the Max Speed for this corner) might work, on the same logic that people will be forced to pay attention, think and take things slower... but increasing speeds limits just means people will go faster, crash a lot faster, and crash more often.

No, it was to challenge (and subsequently disprove) your assertion.


TBH, the difference is of absolutely no real concern to me, as my perspective on things will vary dramatically, depending on the particular issue. I'm a non-racist, prejudicial liberal authoritarian.... with guns... and tanks... and stuff. Maybe more The Telegraph?


People must be governed. Often not wisely, but governed nonetheless.
If you think you know, or can do, better then step up and get on with it... or just vote differently.


Now this bit is definitely true. However, people complained about previous enforcements and now both Police powers and their funding, as well as their management and direction, have all taken a downward turn as a result.


You often won't directly experience the full extent of that cost, though. Your insurance might go up inexplicably, but that's often all.

However, if the cost of your freedom to experience driving is that some other ****'s freedom to drive dangerously ends up killing my daughter, then **** your freedom. Sorry, but her freedom to experience life trumps anyone else's freedom to experience driving.
Get out and walk - It's healthier.


Now, I really love driving and absolutely adore riding (especially as I have a nice motorcycle) that really suits me... but if people who are given that freedom cannot be trusted to exercise it responsibly, it affects those of us who can, and then that freedom must be eliminated.

To that end, it's not really a freedom in the first place. It's merely a priviledge, which is very conditional.


Have your own opinion about things, sure.
But you can't just make assertions about facts, unless you're willing to accept it when they are disproven and/or can substantiate them when challenged.
I already stated my own opinion. It just happens to tally well with the facts.

So you can carry on believing that increasing or entirely removing speed limits will make the roads safer... you'll just be wrong.
Removing the various signs warning about tight bends or upcoming dangers (especially the Max Speed for this corner) might work, on the same logic that people will be forced to pay attention, think and take things slower... but increasing speeds limits just means people will go faster, crash a lot faster, and crash more often.

I don't think removing speed limits will make the roads safer. They would be more dangerous. That is the point. People are more careful walking into a cave where they know there is a lion than into a lions cave where there is a sign telling them the lion is behind bars.

There can still be signs with recommend speed limits, but they should be enforced in a way that takes into account the situation. Not a blanket limit across all roads. They could even have some roads with a speed limit and cameras and one without. Then people can choose a "safer" route if they wish. Tbh some roads the are nsl might as well not have one. I know this full well myself as I have crashed at 40mph in a Nsl. If I had gone on a main road home with a lower speed limit, I wouldn't have crashed. But it would have taken longer and been boring, so I chose not to.

Anyway. We both agree it is being dealt with poorly which is the main thing.