I think you've missed the point. The argument isn't "Let's speed everywhere and drive as fast as your car can go" at all times. It's "Drive with due car and attention at a speed that caters for the vehicle, conditions and drivers ability". The latter forgoes the need for specific speed limits. What it does require is a brain, which I admit not everyone on the road is in possession of...
New speeding fines
- Thread starter Lakeland
- Start date
I think you've missed the point. The argument isn't "Let's speed everywhere and drive as fast as your car can go" at all times. It's "Drive with due car and attention at a speed that caters for the vehicle, conditions and drivers ability". The latter forgoes the need for specific speed limits. What it does require is a brain, which I admit not everyone on the road is in possession of...
Problem is everyone thinks they are an amazing driver and non-petrolheads don't understand the limitations of a car, or the importance of things like tyres and brakes or driving conditions. So the speed limits are set for the lowest common denominator. I.e a brainless bimo, driving a rusty Ford KA, on budget tyres, with worn brakes and oblivious to possible hazards. Like we see every day on the commute :/
Instead of sticking up silly cameras everywhere and creating yet more distractions, they need to change the system to be more like the motorbike licence. Where your limited to a car with X power and speed capped, until you reach a certain age and pass the next stage of testing. Which involves more theory, basic maintenance and more advanced lessons.
Instead of sticking up silly cameras everywhere and creating yet more distractions, they need to change the system to be more like the motorbike licence. Where your limited to a car with X power and speed capped, until you reach a certain age and pass the next stage of testing. Which involves more theory, basic maintenance and more advanced lessons.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Nah, I was just being facetious.
The issue is that people already DO drive to what they think is with due care and at a speed appropriate to road conditions and their own ability. That's always what you're taught and told isn't it? Ride your own ride, drive within your comfort zone, know your limits, etc....?
The problem is that your judgement of what is best and your own assessment of your abilities are often inaccurate and do not (cannot?) account for that of other road users.
So while you may think you're perfectly fine hooning down a country lane, swing out to overtake at 90 and so on, other drivers may not be and you can be hideously wrong on both counts.
This if further compounded by the modern conditions of faster cars in greater volume on poorly maintained roads, driven by people with SatNavs and Smartphones and a general disregard for the law and rules of the road anyway.
If everyone followed the rules, the problems would be less. The issue is that some do not, putting themselves at immediate odds with the traffic and conditions around them, with which some do not have the ability to successfully contend.
Soldato
The problem with this is that almost everyone vastly overestimates their ability.
Add to this that on the public road there are a huge number of factors and risks (many unperceived) that are outside of the driver's control and it's a completely flawed argument.
I disagree, I'd suggest that those who over estimate their ability are actually in the minority amongst general road users. Perhaps your argument would be valid if we were only considering motoring "enthusiasts"
You can factor for unknown risks in your decision making as a driver. Something we all do subconsciously on roads that are unknown to us, for example.
Soldato
Speed limits are obviously a necessity, but the method of speed enforcement is questionable.
It'd be interesting to see if speed enforcement has any bearing on accident rates.
It'd be interesting to see if speed enforcement has any bearing on accident rates.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread, since the introduction of increasing speed enforcement accident rates have actually increased in the UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html
It will bring accident rates down and should also reduce fatalities when you adjust for drink-driving, etc.
What I would want to see is variable speed limits on motorways depending on traffic and road condition. Doing 90 on an empty motorway is much safer than doing 70 at rush hour.
What I would want to see is variable speed limits on motorways depending on traffic and road condition. Doing 90 on an empty motorway is much safer than doing 70 at rush hour.
Last edited:
It does, and the statistics are clear. Speed enforcement has increased accidents and increased the fatality rate. The speed industry calls it the 'fatality gap', so much so the DfT have distanced themselves from the whole thing. I've written a long reply addressing each of the points above, but unfortunately two babies (2y and 9mo) are taking up most of my attention and the thread is moving faster than I could finish it. Drivers do tend to drive within their abilities and conditions, else the roads would be carnage. As it is the roads are amongst the safest even with the 'speeders' (about 96% of accidents - including KSIs - include NO excess speed at all...). As has been established by a few posters above, it's those driving without due care who cause the problems, and that won't change regardless of the imposed limit. What's needed is better driver education and a change in culture. Passing your test is not the end.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
true that, our current driving test doesn't cover anywhere near what you need really, it's all about safe and careful driving while within the limits of physics, but people really need to be shown how easy it is to get a car to slide and how you deal with that rather than letting people find out only after hitting their first patch of black ice in winter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Not at all.
I'd suggest that most drivers out there only do so because they have to. They just want to get from A to B and don't care how, so long as they get there. The number of poorly maintained vehicles and number of people who don't even know how to do their POWER checks is evidence, since people might think twice if they knew what can (and does) happen when a vehicles goes out in that sort of state. From low tyre tread, to improperly deiced screens... and that's without all those drives who think they can put on lipstick, comb their hair, shave, eat breakfast, Tweet and whatever else while also driving...
We can... doesn't mean we do.
I'm often remarked upon as being a very cautious driver and rider. Not lacking in confidence by any means, especially the remarks regarding my handling, but definitely cautious... That I seem to leave plenty of room for those unknown factors and it seems unusual to my passengers, I take as evidence that perhaps not everyone does this to a particularly great extent.
This needs to be correlated with things like how often people actually watch their speed instead of the road around them, how many more vehicles join the roads, how often people are on their phones or fiddling with SatNavs, and so on.
So making people drive slower has made them crash more.... ?
Nothing to do with higher volumes of traffic going at the slower speeds, around which people are still trying to hoon?
The most common cause of motorcycle accidents is another vehicle pulling out on the bike. The second most common is the rider overcooking it on a corner, usually a country twisty.
Neither of those particularly suggest either party is within their ability or appropriate to the conditions.
My one big accident occurred while I was stationary, bright brake lights on and indicator flashing, for a good 9 seconds beforehand on a straight stretch of road with perfect visibility. By the time the vehicle behind had slowed, it still hit me at around 60mph in a 40 limit. Police officers (two lovely WPCs from a Forensics unit) who witnessed the collision estimate she'd been doing at least 80mph. Hardly within the driver's ability or appropriate to the conditions.
But lower speeds do give you more time in which to correct things, which won't save everyone but will still save some.
For most drivers, it is the end.
Many do not even care what all the different buttons in their car are for, never mind the correct way to use them... why would they care about advanced driving details like weight transfer, forward observation and planning?
Most of them don't look further ahead than the tail of the car in front.
There isn't really such a facility readily available.
Already they made changes to the motorcycle licence to add certain factors, but even though that was more viable due to them having private compound areas in which to practice manoeuvres before taking it to the public road, the costs have gone up a good amount.
Now imagine having to apply that to every car driver...
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
true, but that doesn't detract from it being a good idea.
Associate
Most of the Facebook posts are cringe. Usual brigade just repeating "speed kills" like mindless zombies, whatever that's supposed to mean, none of them seem to even understand the new rules only apply to court. Try bring up statistics and all hell brakes loose.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 4,819
Those who say that, usually don't drive. I have noticed that on my Facebook anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Never said it wasn't a good idea... it just ain't gonna happen if all these new drivers have to attend a specially designed training/test compound in which to demonstrate these added requirements, like they did (or were planning) for the bike test.
Why?They should make speeding fines more if you drive a diesel and give you 2 free speeding fines for electric cars.
According to those at work that have one, 'leccy cars are massively faster than my diesel... and they already get away with paying no tax, the rotten dodgers!!
Diesels are the devil accord to the masters. You should pay for your sins
Soldato
I wouldn't mind an 10-20mph increase on motorways/dual carriageways in theory but I have zero confidence in other road users. The amount of people I see blasting past at 90+ as it is in appalling conditions is unreal.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
The Masters should perhaps consult their accountants and their marketing department, then... I have a diesel because I cannot afford anything else. So until they stop charging ridiculous amounts for the green solutions, they leave me no choice.
On the topic of signage/ speed limits aren't there cities around Scandinavia with zero signs/ traffic lights, etc. Accidents rates are almost non-existent?
I find that having so much signage means people go on auto pilot and don't use common sense. Some country lanes have the national speed limit signs everywhere, so people drive at 60 and take do not take into account the hairpin that is fast approaching... BUT BUT THE SIGN SAID 60!!11!!!!
Also I find that at a local high street, which has a mainline station, it is notoriously busy during rush hour, understandably, and has a cross junction that creates huge tailbacks. When these traffic lights are not working I find the traffic management a lot better and it cuts journey time considerably.
I find that having so much signage means people go on auto pilot and don't use common sense. Some country lanes have the national speed limit signs everywhere, so people drive at 60 and take do not take into account the hairpin that is fast approaching... BUT BUT THE SIGN SAID 60!!11!!!!
Also I find that at a local high street, which has a mainline station, it is notoriously busy during rush hour, understandably, and has a cross junction that creates huge tailbacks. When these traffic lights are not working I find the traffic management a lot better and it cuts journey time considerably.