A50 Users beware

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 01:25

No, I am a young male.

Ollie's Gadgets · 12 Apr 2007 at 01:28

Peopl drive above the speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways as the arbitary 70mph limit was set some 30 years ago and is no longer applicable with current car performance.

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 01:32

Ollie's Gadgets said:
Peopl drive above the speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways as the arbitary 70mph limit was set some 30 years ago and is no longer applicable with current car performance.

Have people's brains got faster though?

I agree with the part about the speed limit on motorways etc. being too low, but are you basically saying it's OK to break the law if you don't agree with it?

T16 · 12 Apr 2007 at 09:28

GFX707 said:
You're right, and I even think they should up the speed limit for motorways/dual carriageways, but some people just speed on purpose, plain and simple, and brake every time they see a speed camera, which is just dangerous....but can they blame that on the government?

Think about it this way - if no one ever sped, would there be any speed cameras on the roads? Who is to blame for the speed cameras being there? The macho men, the boy racers and the people who speed.

It's their own fault.

I'm not saying I am perfect and I never accidentally speed, but like I said, it's the people who do it on purpose that are to blame for speed cameras even being there in the first place.

Misguided at best. Must try harder.

Speed cameras are a thinly veiled cash cow.

Dolph · 12 Apr 2007 at 09:32

GFX707 said:
Have people's brains got faster though?

I agree with the part about the speed limit on motorways etc. being too low, but are you basically saying it's OK to break the law if you don't agree with it?

Do you have evidence that contradicts the government research showing speed (either excessive or illegal) is not to blame for the vast majority (circa 95%) of accidents by any chance?

Laws are supposed to have a point, in the case of road laws they are supposed to make the roads safer. Cameras, statistically, have the opposite effect, as does the message they (and you) convey

dirtydog · 12 Apr 2007 at 09:33

Stellios said:
Depends really, you wouldnt thinks its dangerous, but the way ive seen a lot of people jump on the brakes you would think there was a small child in front of them.

Tell me about it. You even get people braking to 30 when they go past a camera near here which is on a 40 road... argh :mad:

mattpc · 12 Apr 2007 at 09:55

GFX707 said:
You don't have to stare at the speedometer not to speed

You do if you don't have cruise control.

Dolph · 12 Apr 2007 at 10:01

GFX707 said:
Already had that one. A quick split-second glance every 10 seconds is adequate, I mean, unless you just floor the accelerator, release, floor, release, or something moronic like that.

But for road safety, wouldn't that time be much better spent observing important things outside the car, the things that actually allow you to determine appropriate speed?

dirtydog · 12 Apr 2007 at 10:11

mattpc said:
You do if you don't have cruise control.

Not really. I'm not an anti-speeding zealot but it is silly to say that you need cruise otherwise you have to check your speedo every few seconds.

dirtydog · 12 Apr 2007 at 10:14

Dolph said:
But for road safety, wouldn't that time be much better spent observing important things outside the car, the things that actually allow you to determine appropriate speed?

I don't know about you but I use the speedo to see how fast I'm going because otherwise it can often be hard to tell, because cars insulate you so much from the sensation of speed. 40 can easily seem like 30, and without the speedo you might think you are doing a safe speed (in a built-up area say) when in fact you aren't. The speedo isn't just about staying within the law.

Dolph · 12 Apr 2007 at 10:20

dirtydog said:
I don't know about you but I use the speedo to see how fast I'm going because otherwise it can often be hard to tell, because cars insulate you so much from the sensation of speed. 40 can easily seem like 30, and without the speedo you might think you are doing a safe speed (in a built-up area say) when in fact you aren't. The speedo isn't just about staying within the law.

The speedo is just a number, a represenation and is largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

I drive at the speed safe for the given conditions, which is sometimes above the posted limit, and sometimes below (I look down at my speedo in residential areas and realise I'm doing 20 because that's what is safe, for example)

I have had a fair bit of additional driver training on observation and anticipation though. That doesn't mean I speed everywhere, there are plenty of places where my speed, based on what I can observe safely and my reaction times, will be lower than the posted limit.

dirtydog · 12 Apr 2007 at 10:31

Dolph said:
The speedo is just a number, a represenation and is largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

I would defy you to drive without a speedo and know how fast you are going. My speedo stopped working for a few days a while back and it is quite unnerving driving without knowing your speed.

I can look at a corner for example and know the sort of speed I can safely take it at. Without looking at the speedo I might underestimate my speed and take it too fast. But if I know my speed, I can take the corner with confidence, knowing from past experience that the car is capable of doing so safely.

Von Luck · 12 Apr 2007 at 10:43

To be fair, anyone with a bit of experience should be able to maintain a fairly constant speed without having their eyes glued to the speedo. I've no problems keeping a car bowling along within +/- 5mph of a given speed with just the odd cursory glance at the dials.

Or is everyone else saying that they'll suddenly find that they're doing 90 if they don't regularly check the speedo?

chrisd · 12 Apr 2007 at 11:14

Von Luck said:
To be fair, anyone with a bit of experience should be able to maintain a fairly constant speed without having their eyes glued to the speedo. I've no problems keeping a car bowling along within +/- 5mph of a given speed with just the odd cursory glance at the dials.

Or is everyone else saying that they'll suddenly find that they're doing 90 if they don't regularly check the speedo?

.

If you don't have sufficient control of your foot to be able to maintain a given speed, you shouldn't be driving.

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 11:52

T16 said:
Misguided at best. Must try harder.

Speed cameras are a thinly veiled cash cow.

That's true, but if they had no excuse to put them there, they wouldn't be there.

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 11:54

Dolph said:
Do you have evidence that contradicts the government research showing speed (either excessive or illegal) is not to blame for the vast majority (circa 95%) of accidents by any chance?

Laws are supposed to have a point, in the case of road laws they are supposed to make the roads safer. Cameras, statistically, have the opposite effect, as does the message they (and you) convey

Haven't you been reading? I am all for upping the speed limit on the motorway, but right now the limit is 70, and if you go above that limit then you obviously don't think the law applies to you....so, does that mean I can have you killed because I disagree with you? Is it OK to break the law if you don't like its terms?

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 11:55

Dolph said:
But for road safety, wouldn't that time be much better spent observing important things outside the car, the things that actually allow you to determine appropriate speed?

A split-second glance is hardly an eternity....if you are following the car in front of you at the correct distance, and you have adequately checked junctions, slip roads etc. well in advance like they teach you, then nothing unexpected should happen, so you have plenty of time for that 0.1 second glance at the speedometer. Are you just making excuses? I know I sound like Alan Partridge here, but it's really not that hard just to check your speed once every ten seconds or so.

Dolph · 12 Apr 2007 at 12:00

dirtydog said:
I would defy you to drive without a speedo and know how fast you are going. My speedo stopped working for a few days a while back and it is quite unnerving driving without knowing your speed.

I can look at a corner for example and know the sort of speed I can safely take it at. Without looking at the speedo I might underestimate my speed and take it too fast. But if I know my speed, I can take the corner with confidence, knowing from past experience that the car is capable of doing so safely.

That was actually one of the exercises I did with the bloke who taught me advanced road driving (he was a police pursuit driving instructor among other things). I may not know exactly how fast I was going, but I would certainly be able to tell you whether or not it was safe, because safety isn't judged by a number.

There are lots of ways to determine your speed without the speedo, but one of the best is using travelling time for fixed objects.

GFX707 · 12 Apr 2007 at 12:02

Dolph said:
one of the best is using travelling time for fixed objects.

Isn't a split-second glance at a speedometer a whole lot safer than sitting there going "one, two" and staring at cars going past trees/lampposts?

Dolph · 12 Apr 2007 at 12:04

GFX707 said:
A split-second glance is hardly an eternity....if you are following the car in front of you at the correct distance, and you have adequately checked junctions, slip roads etc. well in advance like they teach you, then nothing unexpected should happen, so you have plenty of time for that 0.1 second glance at the speedometer. Are you just making excuses? I know I sound like Alan Partridge here, but it's really not that hard just to check your speed once every ten seconds or so.

I'm not making excuses at all (my licence is entirely clean for a start), I simply want safer roads, whereas your focus on arbitary speed limits and their strict adherance produces the opposite effect.

The approach you advocate reduces observation and anticipation chances for sudden changes, even if it is only a bit, for no readily apparent safety benefit.