You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
All this toss about “drivers will become lazy with too much help, they need to be alert and awesome like me”
all this toss that is someone else’s opinion. And just as valid as some of the the toss that is your opinion.
I am going to say pretty much zero meaning speed is a big aspect in serious accidents.
Of course it is, if the vehicles aren’t moving, they can’t have accidents. There are frequently serious accidents where only one vehicle is involved, and it doesn’t even have to be speeding. I actually witnessed one on the M4 on Thursday. The big hazard signs lit up showing reduced speed, lane blocked, vehicle on its side, and everyone ended up stopped about a mile and a bit short of the A34 junction. The air ambulance turned up, the westbound carriageway stopped, then it started, then it stopped, then started again, there were lots of emergency vehicles going past in both directions. Eventually, after nearly an hour, we all started moving again, and it turned out to be a truck carrying a 15’ container had somehow hit the sign for the A34 and was on the other side of the nearside Armco barrier, with the front end very badly damaged and the screen completely destroyed. No other vehicles appeared to be involved. Trucks like that are restricted in their maximum speed, I believe to 60mph. The air ambulance headed off towards Oxford, probably the John Radcliffe hospital.
So, please explain how a 70mph restriction would have prevented an accident like that, on a fine, dry, sunny morning. Answers on a postcard, please.
So, please explain how a 70mph restriction would have prevented an accident like that, on a fine, dry, sunny morning. Answers on a postcard, please.
Given your very long list of assumptions and no evidence that speed wasn't involved it's only fair to add a few more.
70mph limit means less speeding offences, freeing up roads police to monitor other behaviours, driver gets pulled over a few miles before the crash for being on his phone and it never happens.
So, please explain how a 70mph restriction would have prevented an accident like that, on a fine, dry, sunny morning. Answers on a postcard, please.
Nobody is saying that it will stop all incidents, just that it would prevent a significant number, with little downside.
Nobody is saying that it will stop all incidents, just that it would prevent a significant number, with little downside.
But it wouldn’t though as the majority of accidents happen at low speed in residential areas.
Its very warped that a lot of people think it’s better to save one or two lives on fast roads rather than 100’s on slow roads
Rather than sticking fingers in ears to the real problem, we should have tests every 5 years an automatic bans for those that fail. That would get rid of most of the stay at 70mph brigade who are quite happy to sit at 65 mph on the motorway without a care in the world, and think because they do 35mph in a residential area they are upstanding citizens
Rather than sticking fingers in ears to the real problem, we should have tests every 5 years an automatic bans for those that fail. That would get rid of most of the stay at 70mph brigade who are quite happy to sit at 65 mph on the motorway without a care in the world, and think because they do 35mph in a residential area they are upstanding citizens
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
Not against the idea as loads of people would fail meaning less cars on the road but it wouldn't make any difference to my driving just as doing my test 40 years ago didn't as I drove like a 17 year old **** within a day of passing and thinking back to how I drove is quite scary.
But it wouldn’t though as the majority of accidents happen at low speed in residential areas.
Yes - and the severity AND incidence of those accidents would decrease if no one could speed in town ie automatic speed limiters set to local speed limits
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
there is no real evidence because we have nothing to compare it with - but those bad drivers would fail surely - or at least a % of them.
there is no real evidence because we have nothing to compare it with – but those bad drivers would fail surely – or at least a % of them.
you’re assuming bad driving is a failing rather than a choice.
I don’t think people who drive recklessly or carelessly- especially in relation to speed - do so because they don’t know how to drive carefully and considerately. They know exactly what the rules are and how to apply them They do so as an expression of contempt for others. They’d all be capable of pretending not to have that contempt for half an hour every few years,
Perhaps not - but following to close, not indicating etc etc become habits - so it might break those habits or they would fail. Also those with failing eyesight and reflexes would fail. also those with cars in poor condition would fail
driving tests of course should also be much harder IMO
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
True but we do have evidence that the 70mph limit isn’t the issue
True but we do have evidence that the 70mph limit isn’t the issue
Really? Explain please
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
Not against the idea as loads of people would fail meaning less cars on the road but it wouldn’t make any difference to my driving just as doing my test 40 years ago didn’t as I drove like a 17 year old **** within a day of passing and thinking back to how I drove is quite scary.
I’ve said this several times on threads like these. As part of my job, I drive Mobile Elevated Work Platforms on almost a daily basis for a large part of the year, within a secure locked compound with only other trained staff on the site. I have to be retested every 5years to keep my licence to drive them. If I was seen driving one like a prick after testing, I’d have my arse handed to me “you only had your test last year!” Regular retesting would either improve general driving standards, or could be used as reasoning for tougher punishments if and when people are caught driving contrary to Rule 1. which when we’ll published would force other drivers to be better for fear of big fines/long bans.
Retesting also checks that people have actually paid attention to Highway Code changes and understand them as so many clearly don't.
Start with business drivers, if we can have unauthorised coffee machines in the office banned under PSSR regs then we can surely check that the people who drive during their duties are safe and competent, everything else gets similar refresher training!
What evidence do you have than testing every 5 years makes everyone a better driver?
One thing to consider here is, things change. How many people here, including those whining about "driving gods," passed their test 30 years ago and haven't looked at The Highway Code since? New rules were brought in in the last 12 months or so regarding the hierarchy of road users, I bet most drivers out there don't even know they exist let alone understand what they are.
I did (yes yes) a speed awareness course a good few years ago, I'd recommend one if you need a stark insight into how much there is an education issue.
Really? Explain please
Google "85th percentile" perhaps?
Start with business drivers, if we can have unauthorised coffee machines in the office banned under PSSR regs then we can surely check that the people who drive during their duties are safe and competent, everything else gets similar refresher training!
Good thought, not sure about the practicalities. I assume taxi drivers could be obliged to do an HC retest every five years or so via the licensing authorities but what about parcels/couriers (who probably also need licensing but who currently aren't AFAIK)?
So, please explain how a 70mph restriction would have prevented an accident like that,
It wouldn't. It's not a magic wand. No-one ever said it would prevent every crash.
Good thought, not sure about the practicalities. I assume taxi drivers could be obliged to do an HC retest every five years or so via the licensing authorities but what about parcels/couriers (who probably also need licensing but who currently aren’t AFAIK)?
Do you think HSE care about practicalities when implementing PSSR regs in a place of work?
It would be up to the employer to implement and prove, especially if any drivers can have their records pulled by HSE for any reason (especially if involved in an accident).
We have to do a company driver assessment every year or so, it's a joke tbh. List accidents and infringements since last time, age, frequency of driving on company business and other 'risks' to score the person. Not once does continuous training get a look-in but if you don't do your contaminated area dressing/undressing refresher then they'll freeze your site pass regardless of if you ever go near a C2/3 area!
Like I said, start with business drivers; begin with "professional drivers" in larger vehicle classes down to smaller, then the self-employed, then company car drivers and finally every other chimp on the road. It would require investment and funding but what doesn't?
stay at 70mph brigade who are quite happy to sit at 65 mph on the motorway without a care in the world, and think because they do 35mph in a residential area they are upstanding citizens
you mean 40 mph everywhere, or whatever speed is comfortable then accelerate if some ‘maniac’ has the audacity to overtake them.
One of the reasons I’m against the 70mph limiter is, as I often do cruise @70, I’ll pass a car doing around 65, they’ll then accelerate, subconsciously or not. More than a few times I’ve passed cars and found them to have accelerated up the inside when I’m about to pull across. In a van with large blind spots it’s a pain in the arse/dangerous. Without a limiter I can blip past then pull in.
stay at 70mph brigade who are quite happy to sit at 65 mph on the motorway without a care in the world,
Not me. I care a lot about what I do and how it affects everyone else. That's why I tend not to speed.
One of the reasons I’m against the 70mph limiter is, as I often do cruise @70, I’ll pass a car doing around 65, they’ll then accelerate, subconsciously or not. More than a few times I’ve passed cars and found them to have accelerated up the inside when I’m about to pull across. In a van with large blind spots it’s a pain in the arse/dangerous. Without a limiter I can blip past then pull in.
And a limiter would stop this from happening
Because that scenario never happens with lorries.
they are limited to 56 mph ususally
In Jamso scenario they would not be able accelerate to above 70 to undertake him as he came past
@squirrelking I’d always assumed that LGV a drivers had regular assessments?
I do think anyone who drives like a tw*t in a van vinyl’d up in their employer’s livery needs to give their head a wobble mind you.
And a limiter would stop this from happening
Have a think about that.
Car A is passing car B. Car B matches the speed of car A.
Car B is now travelling at the exact same speed alongside and slightly to the rear car A.
Car A pulls in, thinking it had passed car B .
Yes I did - thats not how you explained it in the first place
More than a few times I’ve passed cars and found them to have accelerated up the inside when I’m about to pull across.
So you have passed them at 70 mph - to get back alongside you they would have to exceed 70 mph
you’re assuming bad driving is a failing rather than a choice.
Exactly, most people could drive properly if they had to, i.e. they had an examiner sat next to them and they would lose their license if they failed.
Seems like a very expensive and bureaucratic idea to test every 5 years when there is zero evidence of it having the desired effect. Propose it to the government, they love that sort of shit.
So long as it's just cars that are limited & not motorbikes 😉
Retests are hypothetical at best anyway. We barely have the infrastructure to test the learners we already have. Think about it, out of the gate you'd have to retest every driver on the road today who passed before 2018. That's tens of millions.
Some countries manage it IIRC.
Yet no country in the world, as far as I know (despite what Brexity types might say) have felt the need to mandate speed limiters on private cars.
I’d always assumed that LGV a drivers had regular assessments?
So did I which was why I assumed some sort of system for regular retests already exists.
Retests are hypothetical at best anyway. We barely have the infrastructure to test the learners we already have. Think about it, out of the gate you’d have to retest every driver on the road today who passed before 2018. That’s tens of millions.
Yup, which was why I suggested phasing it in. You have to stay in ticket for most competencies at work so why not driving? Mandatory retests after accidents or points accrued? You invest and recruit so that you can phase it in with everyone else renewing their licence (paper licences are scrap now, yes?).
I'm not deluding myself that we are anywhere near ready to do this either practically or mentally but it would sure as hell weed out a lot of people who shouldn't be on the road with or without additional training.
Can you imagine sticking to 70mph on the M50? 😂
Can you imagine sticking to 70mph on the M50?
I'm not sure I've ever driven on the M50 but I generally do 50mph on motorways unless conditions dictate otherwise.
Conditions on the m50 are usually those that you could double 70mph and it’d still be perfectly safe.
Conditions on the m50 are usually those that you could double 70mph and it’d still be perfectly safe
I'd stick to 50, saves huge amounts of petrol.
I’m not sure I’ve ever driven on the M50 but I generally do 50mph on motorways unless conditions dictate otherwise
truck driver or causing truck drivers to overtake?
I’m not sure I’ve ever driven on the M50 but I generally do 50mph on motorways unless conditions dictate otherwise.
Lorry drivers must love you. And everyone else for that matter, your rolling roadblock is single-handedly forcing all the regular traffic doing the speed limit into one lane of a three lane motorway.
Lorry drivers must love you
I'm easier to overtake than the other lorries that they try to overtake 🙂
Meh, the Tesco trucks do 50. They also pull away so slowly often only they get through the lights.
It saves fuel, for them and causes more fuel use for everyone else. I am aware drivers for large firms will get pulled up if they use too much go pedal and are strictly monitored.
Retests are hypothetical at best anyway. We barely have the infrastructure to test the learners we already have.
That's a political choice though, not a fact of life.
I’d stick to 50, saves huge amounts of petrol.
Honestly, don't do this, it really ****s the system up for everyone else. Do 58mph with the lorries, you'll still save loads of fuel (perhaps even more than at 50) and traffic will flow so much better.
your rolling roadblock is single-handedly forcing all the regular traffic doing the speed limit into one lane of a three lane motorway.
Very melodramatic.
If we are going to limit cars to 70 then what are we going to limit lorries too. If it’s about getting rid of the kinetic energy in an accident HGVs would have to go much slower than their current limit to get the energy to manage down to that of a car.
Very melodramatic
accurate though (although plenty of trucks run at 50).
but it would sure as hell weed out a lot of people who shouldn’t be on the road with or without additional training.
And again, where is the evidence for this? If testing came in what do you think people would do? They would learn the Highway Code again and they would get a couple of lessons as keeping their license may be one of the most important immediate things to them.
They could then pass the test and within weeks continue to drive as they did before the test or they could drive like angels. I think the former, you clearly have faith in the latter. Needs a bit more than faith...
And again, where is the evidence for this? If testing came in what do you think people would do?
Are you saying that any jobs that require regular certification or training is all just a waist of time ? Let’s hope pilots don’t do this
IMO your statement comes back to the route of the problem. It’s almost like driving is a human right rather than something that requires a standard to be met and maintained. A speed limit is a token gesture to saying that driving a car can be done safely by any numpty.
Would this training involve learning how to drive a car across a stream without wrecking it 🤔
Would this training involve learning how to drive a car across a stream without wrecking it 🤔
touche ! But a good one yes if I had known in advance that it had a shite wading depth then I wouldnt have done it.
Besides which I was going about 3 mph and that didnt save me or the car 😂
Yet no country in the world, as far as I know (despite what Brexity types might say) have felt the need to mandate speed limiters on private cars.
You sure about that?
And a couple of years later the car ****ers are naturally enough up in arms trying to pick holes:
TBF implementation has been a bit underwhelming.
In the future when I'm king, and everybody has to do what I say, rather than limit cars to 70mph, I'd limit licensing. Do the test as it's run now, and it entitles you to drive say; a 1.5lt car. with restricted dimensions (4 people and their luggage kinda size) and encourage tax into lower emissions, You want more than that? Well, to get to 2.0lt it's a £500 additional test, and extra insurance and tax, more than that, again, and additional test and another £500 and increased insurance and tax, and maybe some retesting (at a cost) and so on and on, want a 4*4? show us you live on a farm, or up a dirt track or it's a test with a £1500 price tag, if you live in an urban space you can't have one at all. Want a car that weights more the 2 tonnes?...well, you get the picture
Force folks into smaller cars that are more efficient, and away from status cars, with added benefit of getting rid of the caravans, which I think is something we can all agree on (Molgrips aside, obvs)
Force folks into smaller cars that are more efficient, and away from status cars, with added benefit of getting rid of the caravans, which I think is something we can all agree on (Molgrips aside, obvs)
No we dont all agree. I would prefer someone to have a caravan any day over a campervan/motorhome
My car weighs over 2 tonnes, has many safety features and is more economical than most 1.0 small cars.
Not saying you can't drive it, just that you have to pay for the privilege. Plus all the car manufacturers will start putting building and fitting all that stuff into the smaller cars that everyone will want. (and my Govt will incentive car manufacturers to do it)
If we are going to limit cars to 70 then what are we going to limit lorries too
You mean that thing that already has happened since 1988?
https://www.transportsfriend.org/road-transport-regulation-cu/construction-use-regulation-3/speed-limiters/
But as has been seen many times with lorries, it's not really speed that does the killing. It's long hours, tiredness, lack of concentration, unreasonable demands of employers, etc., etc.
Nah, I don't want that any more than I want manditory Helmets and reg plates for my bicycles.
Motorways are incredibly safe realtive to every other road type, most problems are caused by inatentive drivers who can't be bothered to give enough attention to something they find a chore.
They could then pass the test and within weeks continue to drive as they did before the test or they could drive like angels. I think the former, you clearly have faith in the latter.
People likely drive poorly for one of two reasons: either 1) deliberately or 2) due to ineptitude. Just because driver education and extra training may make little difference to 1) doesn't it's without merit to try to improve 2).
Are you saying that any jobs that require regular certification or training is all just a waist of time ? Let’s hope pilots don’t do this
Pilots have a crew of co-pilots, engineers etc and ATC monitoring them, all of whom would report them if they were observed ignoring procedures. So they'll always do things by the book and CPD is in their own interests.
The issue with re-tests is it would weed out people who are maybe incapable of driving for whatever reason. But wouldn't stop people who can drive perfectly, but willfully don't. They know how to pass the test, they know they should give cyclists 1.5m, they know they should stop before the stop line at lights, they know their exhaust shouldn't pop and bang, they know the speed limit is a limit.
And the next day could go straight back to driving at 90 with one hand on the wheel, not indicating, close passing, making progress and 'enjoying' their own exhaust note.
It's exactly the same in motorbikes. You can have all the graduated licensing, IAM, roadsmart, RoSPA, and whatever else. It won't stop the roads around Ribblehead and Wensleydale being closed seemingly every weekend so far this summer. They know how to ride safely, then they don't.
My car weighs over 2 tonnes, has many safety features and is more economical than most 1.0 small cars.
FWIW, no it's not. The absolute epitome of efficiency (an electric car?) might beat a 2-stroke go kart, but that doesn't mean it beats a similar car in an apples to apples comparison. And all the safety features in the world don't change the physics of a heavier car in a collision or braking to avoid one.
But as has been seen many times with lorries, it’s not really speed that does the killing. It’s long hours, tiredness, lack of concentration, unreasonable demands of employers, etc., etc.
You are conflating incidence and severity.
the other factors you mention influence incidence ie how likely an accident is to happen. speed influences severity ie what the consequences are
But we've already established that lorries are speed restricted and often have trackers! 😜
Do you want them to go even slower on motorways?
The issue with re-tests is it would weed out people who are maybe incapable of driving for whatever reason. But
But, as I said, is that a bad thing?
As the punchline to an old joke goes: "ever go fishing?" - sure - "ever catch all the fish?"
You mean that thing that already has happened since 1988?
https://www.transportsfriend.org/road-transport-regulation-cu/construction-use-regulation-3/speed-limiters//blockquote >
So doing some simple maths. A 40,000kg HGV doing 90kph (56mph) has a kinetic energy of 25,000,000Joules of energy to get rid of in an accident. A 2,000 kg car doing 130kph (80mph) has a kinetic energy of 2,592,000 Joules of energy to dissipate. That goes upto 3,888,000 Joules if the car weighs 3,000 kg which is a very very heavy car. So if it’s safe for lorries to do 90kph why is it not safe for cars to do 130kph in the UK?
I suppose if you're also proposing additional testing, tachographs, lane restrictions, mandatory rest periods etc required of people who want to drive at 80mph, then sure, I suppose I could be convinced.
It's not as easy and cheap are requiring 70mph speed limiters on all new vehicles, of course.
So doing some simple maths. A 40,000kg HGV doing 90kph (56mph) has a kinetic energy of 25,000,000Joules of energy to get rid of in an accident. A 2,000 kg car doing 130kph (80mph) has a kinetic energy of 2,592,000 Joules of energy to dissipate. That goes upto 3,888,000 Joules if the car weighs 3,000 kg which is a very very heavy car.
how much will kill a pedestrian or even the occupant of a stationary modern car? A lot less than any of those figures I'd guess. There's no prize for being more dead (it might actually be less painful).
more important is the stopping distance. which will be greater in a HGV at the same speed, but possibly equivilent when looking at HGV@58 vs car@70... maybe.
<p><span style="font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">There’s no prize for being more dead (it might actually be less painful).<br /></span></p>
In which case there is no point in a speed limit then is there as dead is dead.
Unless of course you propose slowing all traffic down to a survivable speed. For an hgv to have the same kinetic energy as a 2,000 kg car at 50kph it can only do 11kph.
You sure about that?
I was aware of that and also aware it’a limiter you can accelerate past, so not really a limiter at all.
But as has been seen many times with lorries, it’s not really speed that does the killing. It’s long hours, tiredness, lack of concentration, unreasonable demands of employers, etc., etc.
Dunno, it's much harder for a sleeping lorry driver to kill people if they nod off in a stationary cab than if they do it in one moving 60mph towards the back of a traffic queue, of course if you take the limiter off they could wipe out even more people. Brexit bonus?
But we’ve already established that lorries are speed restricted and often have trackers! 😜
Do you want them to go even slower on motorways?
Yeah, why not? they're probably the most dangerous things on the motorways... maybe it could reinvigorate the rail freight industry in the UK? 😉
I was aware of that and also aware it’a limiter you can accelerate past, so not really a limiter at all.
So your previous statement was just a bit untrue then, as you were well aware governments (including ours) had at least considered mandating speed limiters, and just been crap at implementing them...