You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well quite. But how do “they” define it?
Correctly, also.
Not sure why everyone is coming up with 10 years for anything. I did a SAC 10 years ago and my driving changed for about a week and then was back to how it was before.
Point is, there's a difference between being wilfully shit and ignorantly shit. Whilst you're clearly in the former camp there's a vast number of people in the latter.
Point is, there’s a difference between being wilfully shit and ignorantly shit. Whilst you’re clearly in the former camp there’s a vast number of people in the latter.
Thanks. A vast number of people is not my view on it.
It’s amazing how wrong they can actually be at times. And then baffling to think that they’re actually allowed to drive.
If being a dick commenting on motoring/cycling articles carried points and a fine, congestion would be a thing of the past within a week.
No need when a tracker could be fitted to everyone’s car, had one in my co car with threat of sanctions if flagged up as speeding, did the job
... assuming again that exceeding speed limits is the b-all and end-all of motoring discipline. Is your magic tracker going to stop tailgating, running red lights, inattention, the kids in the back squabbling, being pissed or high, updating Facebook...? Is it going to tell them what the current speed limit is, who has priority on mini-roundabouts, that the middle lane of the motorway isn't the "cruising lane"?
Sure, there are technological solutions for at least some of that lot. My humble Civic (usually) knows what the speed limit is, for instance. But I can't help feel that a bundle of high-tech driver aids isn't a sensible substitute for basic competency. If it were, we wouldn't need driving tests in the first place.
… assuming again that exceeding speed limits is the b-all and end-all of motoring discipline.
Unfortunately many/most do, including on this forum based on the comments on the post.
Some good data here for overall road safety:
Unfortunately many/most do, including on this forum based on the comments on the post.
I don't think anyone does, this is just a straw man created by people who don't like being told not to speed, so they don't have to feel bad about speeding.
… assuming again that exceeding speed limits is the b-all and end-all of motoring discipline. Is your magic tracker going to stop tailgating, running red lights, inattention, the kids in the back squabbling, being pissed or high, updating Facebook…? Is it going to tell them what the current speed limit is, who has priority on mini-roundabouts, that the middle lane of the motorway isn’t the “cruising lane”?
The solution to all that is autonomous cars so quite a way off yet especially to the point where human driven cars were totally removed - 100 years?. Until then we have more and more people driving.
Thread derailment incoming in 3... 2...
We've discussed this to death previously, many times. Excessive speed is often a contributing factor to either the cause or severity of an incident, but it is very rarely the only factor. In obsessing about speed alone (which is something that's really easy to police with automated systems and of course is potentially a large revenue earner) we ignore many other issues. I would welcome a Tailgating camera or a Not Looking Where You're Bloody Going camera. Hell, a RLJ camera on every set of traffic lights would be a positive step and likely equally lucrative simple to implement.
If being a dick commenting on motoring/cycling articles carried points and a fine, congestion would be a thing of the past within a week.
MCTD for Prime Minister
Hell, a RLJ camera on every set of traffic lights would be a positive step and likely equally lucrative simple to implement.
Only if they catch those bloody cyclists as well. Number plates for cyclists?
Speed being an important aspect of accidents is another of those red herrings that requires cars to obey the laws of physics. You only have an accident if more than 1 object occupies the same space at the same time. Speed is not a factor in that happening. Sure speed will make the accident worse / more severe but it wont stop an accident happening
Well quite. But how do “they” define it?
Correctly, also.
Well in that case I'm a bit baffled that anyone could not understand what a dual carriageway is. I was expecting some weird complex definition.
Well in that case I’m a bit baffled that anyone could not understand what a dual carriageway is. I was expecting some weird complex definition.
It's simple because, as this thread demonstrates, a vast quantity of those with licences don't have the ability to process complex stuff and drive! 🙂
Eg, there’s people driving today who demonstrably don’t know how mini roundabouts work because they didn’t exist when they passed their test.
My grandfather drove army trucks around Germany with no license (and I'm not sure how much training on the rules of the road they were given, likely most training was how to operate the truck, and then just told to follow the truck in front).
When he left they gave him a full UK license.
A decade later he was able to afford his own car.
A few years after that he taught my mum to drive.
Luckily my mum saw sense and paid for proper lessons for me.
If being a dick commenting on motoring/cycling articles carried points and a fine, congestion would be a thing of the past within a week.
It'd be very funny - comment on FB "cyclists are scum and should pay road tax" and then a week later receive 3 points and a £60 fine in the post. 🙂
If we had a decent system of law enforcement and didn't treat driving as some sort of divine right, we could slash pollution, congestion and injuries / deaths within weeks.
The tech is all there - you already unlock your phone / laptop etc with a fingerprint or face ID. Same on a car (or some sort of combination of smart licence / integrated breathalyzer) would cut car theft overnight and largely remove uninsured / banned drivers. Speed limit tech. Much more roadside testing (driver for drink/drugs/banned/uninsured and vehicle for road worthiness). Mandatory re-tests every 5 - 10 years.
Going fast is fun though
Speed being an important aspect of accidents is another of those red herrings that requires cars to obey the laws of physics. You only have an accident if more than 1 object occupies the same space at the same time
Someone has no understanding of risk, speeding increases the risk of two vehicles being in the same place at the same time as it reduces the time for a driver to anticipate this eventuality and avoid it. Speed is a contributory factor to many accidents happening and the severity of the accident.
FWIW I'd not retest everyone with the driving test but get everyone to undergo a driving assessment, probably in a simulator with a carefully constructed driving scenario which monitors peoples awareness, where they are looking, road positioning, space to vehicle in front, braking / accelerating etc. If the algorithmic output is below standard I'd then put them on a test with a real person. If they fail that it's licence suspension and training until an appropriate standard of driving is proven. Easy way to gather data about people's driving in general.
Picking up on the comment earlier around the journey times from A-B being only marginally longer when you reduce speed, is there a google maps type routing service that allows you to pick your max speed?
Picking Edinburgh to Bristol as a route at random has the average speed at 55mph as default based on current traffic. This will presumably be based on a max speed of 70mph when possible.
Is there a way to play with this, by setting the max cruising speed of 60mph on motorways to see what the total Journey time would be?
It would be pretty interesting and informative if it were available!
In obsessing about speed alone
We're not
You only have an accident if more than 1 object occupies the same space at the same time. Speed is not a factor in that happening.
Sigh.. it very obviously is. There are many examples I've noticed from nearly 30 years of driving, but one is at junctions. Most drivers look, see a car, and think 'that's far enough away' and then pull out. If that car is going unexpectedly quickly then the gaps and safety margins are all effectively smaller, which means that the speeding car is more likely to perceive that the other car 'just pulled out right in front of me'. By going faster, you increase the size of the area that is 'right in front' of you. This then increases the likelihood of two cars occupying the same space.
Makes me sad that you are presumably qualified to drive yet you don't seem to understand how your conduct affects others and their ability to respond to any given situation.
In other words, speeding actually creates more dangerous situations, all on its own.
Another even more obvious example is that more speed makes it more difficult to stop. So if someone is in your path, you are very much more likely to be occupying the same space as their car eventually. This is absolutely on the driving test and in the highway code.
Speed being an important aspect of accidents is another of those red herrings that requires cars to obey the laws of physics. You only have an accident if more than 1 object occupies the same space at the same time. Speed is not a factor in that happening. Sure speed will make the accident worse / more severe but it wont stop an accident happening
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read on here for ages.
My car is the same size at 150mph, so there is no increased chance of occupying the same space as another car, and I'll get to my destination quicker.
My car is the same size at 150mph
At higher speed the locus of points in space that your car can interact with in a given time is bigger. You might argue that over the course of a faster journey the given time is shorter, but in this case the important time is the period in which you can react and stop. So that area is larger if you are going faster. Therefore, you are more likely to hit things.
Or if you prefer it put another way - the faster you go, the larger the space in which you will need to take action if a hazard is in it.
My car is the same size at 150mph, so there is no increased chance of occupying the same space as another car, and I’ll get to my destination quicker.
...don't forget if you travel even faster you'd be past the point of the incident before the other car has got there. Even quicker 😉
Your car might take off over a roundabout and it’s less likely to hit something in mid-air
You should also note that, at the speeds which I'm capable of driving safely, my car will actually be observed to shrink by other road users, which will decrease the chances of a collision.
Here's a short explanation.
…don’t forget if you travel even faster you’d be past the point of the incident before the other car has got there. Even quicker
I may even arrive before I left. This obviously depends on traffic lights etc.
So that area is larger if you are going faster. Therefore, you are more likely to hit things.
No your not. Your vehicle occupies the same amount of physical space stationary and at 200 mph. The vehicle doesn’t change in size with speeds a car is capable of. I agree you need to look further ahead because you will be at that point sooner at a higher speed but you wont be taking up any more space
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read on here for ages.
I sorry if you think the laws of physics are dumb and don’t apply to vehicles on the road. Please enlighten us on the physics that shows this isn’t true. You are confusing likelihood of having an accident with the severity of the accident if one occurs. Speed impacts on the severity but not the likelihood of an accident.
This is a wind-up.
No, the debate has merely entered some kind of quantum superposition involving genuinely-held views and pisstaking.
I love that Van gif,it's mesmerising.
Speed impacts on the severity but not the likelihood of an accident.
I mean that's just bollocks with bells on.
You are approaching a corner with a "design speed" of 30mph. What is your likelihood of crashing at 40,50 or 60mph versus 30mph.
Speed absolutely impacts both the severity and likelihood in this scenario and lots of others.
There's also some dimension warping with the often repeated statment that driving at 60 rather than 70 hardly costs you any time...
1 hour on the motorway at 60mph is 60 miles. To do those same 60 miles at 70mph is about 51 minutes. thats 9 minutes saved - or a 15% saving.
Now I'll happily drive slower if I'm in no rush to get to my destination, but I'm under no illusions that speed is not linearly related to journey time.
First one I did was a really good use of 3 hours, for all the positive reasons above. The more recent one was shocking. It kicked off about cyclists, I kept my gob shut until right at the end as I just wanted to hear this out.
Like a few people have said I was shocked how little knowledge and how bad some peoples attitude was to other and more vulnerable road users. This explains to me the stuff you have to deal with when riding on the road in the UK
You are approaching a corner with a “design speed” of 30mph. What is your likelihood of crashing at 40,50 or 60mph versus 30mph.
That depends on hundreds of factors. Level of road grip, level of tyre grip, ability of the driver, how far it is until you actually hit something, the ability of the car to take the corner at that speed. How heavy the vehicle is. Most speed limits for corners assume you are in a lorry not a car. How many times do you go round corners on the motorway slip roads that have 40mph signs and the car is fine going round at 70.
1 hour on the motorway at 60mph is 60 miles. To do those same 60 miles at 70mph is about 51 minutes. thats 9 minutes saved – or a 15% saving.
That assumes a completely clear motorway. And these days, you could also factor in how many minutes you'll need to work to pay off the extra cost of that journey in terms of fuel economy, as 70mph is reckoned to be approximately 14% less efficient than 60mph.
You should also note that, at the speeds which I’m capable of driving safely, my car will actually be observed to shrink by other road users, which will decrease the chances of a collision.
😂 I'm surprised you didn't get more bites there.
Anyway, if something is observed to be smaller than it is, then it's bigger than it looks so that's going to increase the risk...
Anyway, if something is observed to be smaller than it is, then it’s bigger than it looks
I feel this gets to the nub of the internal debate that troubles many Audi drivers.
I agree you need to look further ahead because you will be at that point sooner at a higher speed but you wont be taking up any more space
Of course you won't be taking up more space instantaneously because your car doesn't magically change shape, but you will be taking up considerably more space over a given time interval otherwise there'd be no point in driving anywhere.
If Alice drives along a road at 30mph for ten minutes and Bob drives the same road at 60mph for ten minutes, and there is a hazard somewhere hitherto undisclosed along its length, are the odds of them encountering it both equal?
I think I preferred this conversation when it was intentionally silly.
That depends on hundreds of factors....
You didn't answer the question.
All other factors being equal is a car travelling at 60mph more or less likely to crash on a tight bend then one travelling at 30mph?
You didn’t answer the question.
All other factors being equal is a car travelling at 60mph more or less likely to crash on a tight bend then one travelling at 30mph?
Don't you go bringing physics into this - oh no hang on a minute, yeah please do - that was the objector's entire belief system 😆
Obviously the driver going at 30mph will have dozed off from boredom.
60mph will be fully alert and therefore 60mph driver will be safer.
SCIENCE!
All other factors being equal is a car travelling at 60mph more or less likely to crash on a tight bend then one travelling at 30mph?
Don’t you go bringing physics into this
Hang on, I'm just working it out, is it centrifugal or centripetal force? I can never remember.
All other factors being equal is a car travelling at 60mph more or less likely to crash on a tight bend then one travelling at 30mph?
No they aren’t any more likely to crash if the car is capable of taking the corner at that speed. Thats the whole point. A BMW M3 is going to be able to take the same corner at a much higher speed without crashing than a Ford Ka. The risk of the M3 crashing is the same at either speed. The KA will probably crash because it isn’t capable of the manoeuvre. The variable is the car not the corner or speed.
If Alice drives along a road at 30mph for ten minutes and Bob drives the same road at 60mph for ten minutes, and there is a hazard somewhere hitherto undisclosed along its length, are the odds of them encountering it both equal?
That depends where the hazard is. If the hazard is towards the end of Bob’s journey then the odds are staked in Alice’s favour because she wont have travelled far enough to encounter the hazard. Assuming both of them are driving to the same place and the hazard is fixed then the the odds of encountering the hazard are the same. Equally you could argue than because Alice ill take twice as long to complete the journey then she is has double the time to encounter hazards than Bob as he was already at the destination and no longer able to encounter any hazards.
If Alice drives along a road at 30mph for ten minutes and Bob drives the same road at 60mph for ten minutes, and there is a hazard somewhere hitherto undisclosed along its length, are the odds of them encountering it both equal?
well, it'll only take bob five minutes, so if the hazard is contrary mary at 6 mins into this scenario then bob's your uncle etc etc.
Yeah, but I've been living next door to Alice, so I know she's a good driver. My uncle, on the other hand, was a bit rubbish.
I may even arrive before I left. This obviously depends on traffic lights etc.
If you approach a red traffic light fast enough, you will perceive it as green* due to the Doppler Effect (it works on light waves just the same as it does on sound waves, you just have to be going faster to notice it since the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound).
*this was a genuine physics A-level question - what speed would you have to be travelling at to perceive a red light (wavelength 700nm) as green (wavelength 530nm)?
I may even arrive before I left. This obviously depends on traffic lights etc.
You're a cyclist aren't you? Traffic lights are optional even if you've chosen a different mode of transport that day.
what speed would you have to be travelling at to perceive a red light (wavelength 700nm) as green (wavelength 530nm)?
About 122 million mph, so well within reach of my BMW M3. 🙂
Anyway, if something is observed to be smaller than it is, then it’s bigger than it looks so that’s going to increase the risk…
I'll be using that line on the wife tonight 😘
what speed would you have to be travelling at to perceive a red light (wavelength 700nm) as green (wavelength 530nm)?
81000 km/s give or take.
#bloodycyclists
Who the **** is Alice? 🤔
The KA will probably crash because it isn’t capable of the manoeuvre. The variable is the car not the corner or speed.
Christ on a bendy bus.
All. Other. Factors. Being. Equal.
Two Ford KAs approach a tight bend one at 30mph and one at 60mph. Which one is more likely to crash?
Two M3s one travelling at 80mph and one travelling at 60mph hit standing water on a bend, both are on road legal but shallow treaded Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tyres. Which one is more likely to aquaplane into the opposite lane and hit oncoming traffic.
Do you honestly believe in either scenario the car travelling faster is less likely to crash?
If so here is a handy link:
https://www.gov.uk/giving-up-your-driving-licence
Speed per se is not the issue though is it.
Driving at walikng speed, 3mph, and ypu have speed. Albeit very low speed.
Its excessive speed for the relevant conditions tjats the problem.
How mamy drivers, at 0725 in the morning jump into their car and do amy sort of risk assessment?
Are the schools in or off today?
Is it bin day?
Did the overnight temp get down to 1c or below?
Did it rain in tje last 6 hrs, jow heavy was that rain amd how long was the dry period before said rain.?
Are my tyres inflated?
Did i get a reasonable amount of non induced ( alcohol or drugs) sleep last night?
Etc etc, i would think 1% would be generous.
They jump in and roar off as they are
invariably 3 mins late as book face had an article that they had to read.
Then its drive as fast as traffic conditions allow to make up for the 3mins and thus use excessive speeds for the road conditions at that time.
Dial in phones, coffee cups, breakfast snacks, kids and a dozen other external and internal distractions ( short shorts) and thousands of other drivers doing exactly the same thing in close proximity, that's the problem.
Doing 100mph on an empty motorway is safer than doing 40 past a school, in winter, in the rain but the motorway speed will see you in court. 40 past a school = 3 poimts and a fine. Which is more likely to result in an accident, the school zone.
I try and drive with the motto ' 2 second rule but 3 seconds = cool' and still get drivers trying to push me up the road. Got flashed for not acceleratong hard up to the back of a mile queue of standing traffic on a nsl dually as i can look 100mtr up the road and not 6" in front of the bonnet. Its the mgif brigade, you know the type, the ones cutting in amd out of crawling traffic too impatient to just srau in lane. The racing vans on their way to a building site, late mums who habe to drop the kids off first.
Too much to do in not enough time. Then excessive speed for the prevailing condition is applied amd the inevitable inevitably happens.
"1 hour on the motorway at 60mph is 60 miles. To do those same 60 miles at 70mph is about 51 minutes. thats 9 minutes saved – or a 15% saving."
That assumes a completely clear motorway. And these days, you could also factor in how many minutes you’ll need to work to pay off the extra cost of that journey in terms of fuel economy, as 70mph is reckoned to be approximately 14% less efficient than 60mph.
Very true - so I guess the statement should have been (its buried a few pages back now)
"driving at 60 when you want to drive at 60 and all the other cars are doing 60 is less stressful and takes no longer than wanting to drive at 70 but failing to do so as other cars prevent you from reaching your target speed"
I love that Van gif,it’s mesmerising.
I know, I keep wondering if there's a speed at which he'd have ended up hitting the downslope on the other side of the roundabout at the right angle to keep driving.
Doing 100mph on an empty motorway is safer than doing 40 past a school, in winter, in the rain but the motorway speed will see you in court. 40 past a school = 3 poimts and a fine. Which is more likely to result in an accident, the school zone.
Mm so you are saying you should let drivers make up their own minds about how fast they should go?
Given how shit most drivers are, how do you think that'd work out?
Speed is a controllable factor, that needs policing AS WELL as everything else. You don't need to drive at 100mph on a motorway, so don't. End of. If you don't like it, move to Germany and see how relaxing a long drive on a busy 3 lane Autobahn can be.
I love that Van gif,it’s mesmerising.
Hard to blame the van driver though it was clearly inevitable after all:
Speed impacts on the severity but not the likelihood of an accident.
So even if slowed down he would have still hit the roundabout he just wouldn't have flown so far.
Mm so you are saying you should let drivers make up their own minds about how fast they should go?
I don't think that's what he was saying at all, he was making the point that one was safer than the other and not the one you would expect. I'd argue that driving at 30mph past a school in those conditions (assuming it's the legal limit) is more likely to result in an accident than the 100mph on an empty motorway. One is legal, the other definitely not but as far as risk likelihood goes it's arse about tit.
Doesn't make it right mind you but I don't think anyone is suggesting it is (except our resident Light Cycle champion).
Do you honestly believe in either scenario the car travelling faster is less likely to crash?
If so here is a handy link:
> https://www.gov.uk/giving-up-your-driving-licence
Well played.
Well i have driven to Prague a few times, does that count as a long drive on an autobahn
And no. I am not saying everyone should be allowed to choose their own speed limit. That was an example of the speed alone is lethal being untrue. Its speed in conditions which are totally inappropriate where the problem start
Thats why we have blanket speed target
Yes they are targets. They are there as people cannot judge or regulate a speed v application correctly so everyone has the target speed to aim for and they do.
This is tricky problem. Alot of drivers take umbrage if you decide to drive at 90% of the speed targets.
If the speed target boards were simply replaced with a large numbet 3 for example, and everyone was taught, trained or informed thst the powers that be expect you to driving at a speed that begins with a 3 you might change attitudes. So 31mph is as ok as 39mph.. You choose. Harsher penalties and more pro active policing is needed
But why not.
Its a town centre,a speed roundal of 2 is fine, a dual carriage way 6 etc
Not a target but a bracket.
Give the hapless motorist some choice but remove the 33 is as safe as 29mph as i am a good driver mentality. Everyone is anove average, thats why we have to have target speeds for all roads. Ok
And there are very few 3 lane autobahns, amd very few sections of them are de restricted
In fact alot of autobahns regularly go down to 100kmh near towns due to road noise. Which is adhered too and policed with gatso cameras.
Well, blimey, this is still going.
I think, if I were asked the question "which three inventions unwittingly allowed the human race to demonstrate, to the greatest degree, what absolute tits they fundamentally are", I think I'd go with the gun, social media, and the motor car.
“which three inventions unwittingly allowed the human race to demonstrate, to the greatest degree, what absolute tits they fundamentally are”, I think I’d go with the gun, social media, and the motor car.
Nah. Laptop, internet, and forums.
it’ll only take bob five minutes
It'll take Bob five minutes to drive ten minutes?
Mm so you are saying you should let drivers make up their own minds about how fast they should go?
Given how shit most drivers are, how do you think that’d work out?
Based on the number of folk I come across doing 40-50 on 60 limit roads, not much different to at present?
TBH once out of 20/30/40/50 limits I treat the NSL/M-Way as 'advisory'. I may go slower/the speed limit/faster, all depends on the road, conditions and traffic.
So 31mph is as ok as 39mph.. You choose. Harsher penalties and more pro active policing is needed
But why not.
Its a town centre,a speed roundal of 2 is fine, a dual carriage way 6 etc
Not a target but a bracket.
Give the hapless motorist some choice but remove the 33 is as safe as 29mph as i am a good driver mentality.
Or just STICK TO THE SODDING LIMIT. It's really nowhere near as complex as people are making out.
STICK TO THE SODDING LIMIT
Problem is that's too simple because of the case where people are going "too slow" by not going at the limit.
That is the problem with cars having mandatory speed limiters.
Eventually, people will be "trained" to drive everywhere at exactly the limit with their right foot on the floor. Road conditions, and other road users be damned.
A BMW M3 is going to be able to take the same corner at a much higher speed without crashing than a Ford Ka. The risk of the M3 crashing is the same at either speed. The KA will probably crash because it isn’t capable of the manoeuvre. The variable is the car not the corner or speed.
I think you'd be very surprised how well a Ford KA (or Fiesta) with good tyres can handle in the hands of a competent driver. I wager at least as well as a chunky, heavy BMW M3, *on tight British roads*
Problem is that’s too simple because of the case where people are going “too slow” by not going at the limit.
Tough shit. Suck it up, and overtake where you can.
Just because they go slow doesn't mean that there's a problem with having speed limits, or that you can argue your way out of the commitments you have as a driver. Yes, they should be going faster. Also, don't speed.
I wouldn't have mandatory speed limiters; I would however have mandatory black box driving analysis from insurers.
The variable is the car not the corner or speed.
I have to disagree. In an imaginary world that statement is plausible but it doesn't account for variables.
In the event of a mistake by the driver, or a loss of traction, the faster car has more momentum coupled with a much shorter timeframe for the driver to react.
Consequently the slower vehicle is intrinsically safer in your scenario.
It’ll take Bob five minutes to drive ten minutes?
it’ll take bob five minutes to drive the same section of road as Alice does in ten minutes. So is this hypothetical risk in the section they both drive? Or are we comparing apple and bananas?
So is this hypothetical risk in the section they both drive?
You don't know.
And there are very few 3 lane autobahns, amd very few sections of them are de restricted
In fact alot of autobahns regularly go down to 100kmh near towns due to road noise. Which is adhered too and policed with gatso cameras
Yep, only once have I actually been on an Autobahn without restrictions. At 150mph
I swear I could see the petrol gauge needle drop.
Dropped back down to about 80 fairly quickly.