You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No, clearly a system that made your car slam on into a full emergency stop when it wasn't an emergency would be dangerous.
I think such a system would be much more like:
*beep* *beep* "30 Zone - Speed Limit Exceeded"
*beep* *beep* "30 Zone - Speed Limit Exceeded"
*beep* *beep* "30 Zone - Speed Limit Exceeded"
*beep* *beep* "Warning - Reducing Speed in 10 seconds"
*beep* *beep* "Reducing Speed"
..begins braking gently..
That may seem far-fetched, but autonomous vehicles will have to do something similar.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">They can do 40 in a 60 as much as they want, makes them relatively easy to pass when it’s safe.</span>
Thing is.. [i]sometimes[/i] you need to go over 60 to get past because (maybe bikebouy can explain this, as he's admitted to being one), though they appear to be content going 40 in a 60 (and are upset if someone is following them), they ALWAYS take umbrage at being overtaken.... ALL OF THEM. Some of them just flash when you've passed, others do actually speed up a bit when you begin your overtake. So knowing your car won't go over 60 will mean you probably couldn't take the chance of passing.
So when I drive my German registered car to UK, I’d be well safe, being limited to doing 60kmh in a 60mph zone
My motor has a camera based speed recognition system but it seemingly recognised I was in France and adjusted the warnings accordingly - impressed me!
Proximity cameras on motorways should be the next step, I believe these exist in Germany already and are good at preventing tailgating.
No proximity cameras in Germany, what they do have is cameras that monitor lane hogging and issue fines for doing so.
I don't see there is any reason why your car would have to do an emergency stop any more than it does when you change the cruise control speed. Knowing where the signs are coming up (it's not like their location changes frequently) would make it smoother and safer than a normal driver.
any more than it does when you change the cruise control speed
absolutely. A few cars i've driven have had a dual mode cruise control that can be used as a speed limiter (you set the limit). Seemed completely safe to me, I found it useful. I use cruise in our car on a lot of 30 and 40 limit 'suburban' roads, and on the motorway. Strangely I've never picked up a speeding ticket, through the clever system of paying attention to the speed limit and driving below it.
Self driving cars might be a long way from fully developed but the technological challenges that people are using to argue against must already be bunk. Self driving cars will need (and must already have) an up to date and accurate speed limit map - your sat nav doesn't, it's a secondary feature that gives advice. That said, i've found the limit displayed by our satnav to be remarkably accurate whenever i've used it.
accelerate out of trouble’
All the stuff I've read on Self Driving cars suggests this is just a pistonheads argument (also in the car will have to decide between hitting old lady and group of schoolchildren question). The answer is always emergency stop as the way of causing least harm - if there is a collision it happens at lower speed which is better for all.
The answer is always emergency stop as the way of causing least harm – if there is a collision it happens at lower speed which is better for all.
No, it isn't.
I'll give you an example, as someone else asked earlier too.
Slowing / stopping is almost always the correct course of action - it's what they teach learners to do - but that really only applies if the hazard is in front of you.
Some years ago now, going through a green traffic light at a crossroads, a car coming from the left ran the red light at speed. If I'd dropped anchor he'd have t-boned me; if I'd done nothing he'd still have run into the side of me only further back. I moved over to the right to give myself more space and booted it, basically got the hell out of the way as he shot behind me.
Lesson learned, I always check side roads at crossroads now even if lights are green. But I still hold that if I'd done anything other than stand on the loud pedal that day it would've cost me a car and potentially considerably more than if anyone had been in the passenger seat.
Cougar, can you put some numbers to that example? Ie, what speed were you going, how much time did you have to decide and stand on the pedal?
Also, even if there are a few edge cases where danger is caused by *not* being able to speed how does that compare to the cases where limiting speeds would have save lives (or just improved walking and cycling conditions such that people were less sedentary).
You don't need a limiter, you just need a tamper proof GPS that enables you to be fined automatically, about like the swear ticket in 'demolition man'
after a certain amount or a serious offence you get your license revoked.
It could just work the way speed limiters work at the moment - if you mash your foot to the floor it temporarily removes the limit.
As your foot reduces the pressure slightly the limiter comes back in. Problem solved. You could exceed the speed limit this way but you'd lose your license or destroy the engine before too long.
Thing is.. <em class="bbcode-em">sometimes you need to go over 60 to get past because (maybe bikebouy can explain this, as he’s admitted to being one), though they appear to be content going 40 in a 60 (and are upset if someone is following them), they ALWAYS take umbrage at being overtaken…. ALL OF THEM
Yeah, I can answer this with some certainty.
I fully admit I drive slow, I’ve mentioned it many times in threads on here where the subject on car choices or speeding related questions appear.
I will not drive slow enough to annoy other road users, no. I do drive close to the speed limits, not on the limit but in the main <10mph below the limit so 50 in a 60, 30 in a 40 and 25 in a 30. I once hit 70 in my car last year and I had a nose bleed (I didn’t but it did feel weird) So my motorway driving is most definitely in the slow lane following trucks doing 62 or 56 and I set my auto cruise to 80-100mtrs behind the vehicle in front. I see plenty of people doing the same speeds and rarely do I see angry overtakes, I see plenty of overtakes and that’s absolutely fine.
I changed my driving habits a long time ago, decided that there was no need for speed and wanted to enjoy the drive as much as I can without getting stressed over bad drivers and being caught up in slam breaking situations that often occur on the road network. I chose slow as the new fast. I have timed journeys to often used locations and it takes me on average 15mins or so more to get to the destination. As an example Sotty to Harrogate up the A34/43/M1 takes 4.30 without holdups, it takes me 5hrs doing ave 60 on the motorways. That 30mins makes no difference to me or anyone else on the road..
In town or A road driving, as said, I will drive about 10mph less than the speed limit (same on dual carriageway) and yes often I have been flashed or finger waved or finger jabbed to get out of the way. I simply refuse, mainly because I’m following other vehicles doing similar speed and I flatly refuse to be bullied on the road network.
Yes, yes I have a view to those that drive up my rear end and who try to intimidate me but I have long since given up GAS about thier obnoxious attitude and continue on my merry way. Yes I do pull over to let other vehicles overtake should I find a suitable location to do so. If on country lanes or B roads I will often encounter speed freaks who look like pork chops in blenders sitting in thier driving seat when they encounter me in front of them. I do admit to punishing them if they try to intimidate me by driving slower, I do not slam brake them I simply and safely reduce speed over a section of the road... this cause s one or two actions to those behind.. 1) the pork chop explodes and makes a badly judged overtake manoeuvre in which case I slow right down to let them pass safely so they often end up flooring it and finding they’re 300mtrs ahead and have yet to pull in. I will not accelerate as they pass to intimidate them, nope I slow down to give them room to pull in in front of me. 2) they back off and realise why I’m driving carefully and they relax.
Most truck drivers are ****ing arseholes though and continue to intimidate even though they’ve been given enough room to pull in and yet they seem to insist on swerving as they overtake to prove some point or other. If this happens I make note of the company name and call them up explaining the situation and that I will report the offender to the police.
90% of the time drivers realise the way I drive is not how they want to drive and safely overtake and they’re on thier way, safely. I have no problem with that in the slightest.
I am not a God, I simply refuse to be intimidated whilst driving and going about my business on the public highway.
As an example my trip meter on my car hasn’t been reset and the ave speed reads 32mph. Ok, that in itself isn’t a primer but it does give you an idea of the Speeds I must drive at. And I drive all over the road network on the vast array of roads available.
Does my wife think I drive slowly? Yes, she drives like a looney and we fall out over the same topic every time we are in the vehicle together, we have driven to the same location on the same day in separate vehicles quite often.
IMO, make that what you will.
you just need a tamper proof GPS that enables you to be fined automatically
Problem is GPS is really, really easy to jam since it uses such low signal strength.
Yeah but the solution is that the vast majority would find their driving experience to be improved (including but not limited to the fuel savings) such that most would have no reason to bypass automatic limiters.
I do admit to punishing them if they try to intimidate me by driving slower,
I didn't have a problem with what you posted up until this point. Do you really think that deliberately antagonising people who probably have an attitude problem is a safe way to go about it? Presuambly you believe you are driving slowly in order to make the world a safer place. I really think you need to take a bit of a look at yourself. This is classic passive aggresive behaviour & frankly it is almost as dangerous as outright aggression. Controlling behaviour is not necessarily a great idea in a public space.
<p>Bikebuoy why do you drive so slowly?</p><p></p><p>I mean, 25 in a 30 seems logical as most 30 roads around my home are ridiculous, more often so 20 is safer. However I've yet to see a 40 or 50 limit road that warrants driving 10mph slower. In these cases you are just holding up traffic (failing to make progress) and despite your self proclaimed moral superiority would actually be liable to fail a driving exam if you drove like that.</p>
I will not drive slow enough to annoy other road users, no. I do drive close to the speed limits, not on the limit but in the main <10mph below the limit so 50 in a 60, 30 in a 40 and 25 in a 30. I once hit 70 in my car last year and I had a nose bleed (I didn’t but it did feel weird) So my motorway driving is most definitely in the slow lane following trucks doing 62 or 56 and I set my auto cruise to 80-100mtrs behind the vehicle in front. I see plenty of people doing the same speeds and rarely do I see angry overtakes, I see plenty of overtakes and that’s absolutely fine.
I can see where you're coming from with this and the rest of the post, but I would still like to pass if you're doing 50 on a long straight bit of 60 limit. I'm not going to get angry at you, but I would expect you to cooperate (i.e. not suddenly decide that you must not be passed, and not suddenly accelerate if there's an overtaking lane for a short section etc.) if I decided to overtake - which would be more of a dangerous manoevre if I didn't exceed the limit. I fully accept that if I was subsequently going to stick to the limit my time saved would be minimal but people aren't logical.
I think if I lived down south, I'd probably do the same, I certainly used to do this taking the M1 on a Friday afternoon - absolutely no point in getting in the outside lane to accelerate up to 90 then drop to a crawl, far better to take a less crowded lane and plod away/save fuel and stress.
I can't honestly say I've ever accelerated out of a situation I've not got myself into (I'm not sure if I've accelerated out of one I have got myself into, but it would be harder to overtake if a strict speed limiter was in place). And knowing I couldn't overtake things due to a speed limiter would probably be safer, but more frustrating.
Cougar, can you put some numbers to that example? Ie, what speed were you going, how much time did you have to decide and stand on the pedal?
Not really I'm afraid, it was probably 20 years ago now.
I didn’t have a problem with what you posted up until this point.
+1.
Aside from being selfish, it's really dangerous. Best thing you can do with a road rager is get as far away from them as possible before they cause an accident.
I want this automated system to speed bikebouy up to the speed limit just to see his face 🙂
I didn’t have a problem with what you posted up until this point. Do you really think that deliberately antagonising people who probably have an attitude problem is a safe way to go about it?
Yeah, you are right but after about 3miles of finger wagging being drive up the arse gets on my nerves, so I take the opportunity to find a piece of road that’s open enough for the driver to overtake, then as they do so I slow right down to let them pass.
Hope that clears that point up.
I confess to being someone who likes to "get on with it" although I'd like to think I don't drive dangerously, or inconsiderately, including not getting judgmental or annoyed at people who drive differently (in the main...)
Although different to me, Bikebouys post seemed like a perfectly sensible approach to driving, including the slowing down if someone's getting wound up, to be honest. It seems like he's demonstrating good awareness of what's going on around him, which is sadly lacking in so many drivers.
I don't care what speed folks do, but deliberately slowing down to "punish" people is as bad as the folks tail gating. Both are behaviours designed to wind some-one else up, and it only gets done from the safety of each other's cars. You'd never behave that way face to face with someone, doing it in a car is dangerous, and distracting.
I like the idea of needing proof of VED, MOT and insurance in order to start the engine though
Ignore MOT bit as it's pretty pointless*... but scrap insurance and VED as we know it and alter the tax on fuel to cover VED and insurance. Since all vehicles require fuel, anyone who is driving has already paid their insurance and VED. And those who drive the most (doing pollutes and increasing their risk of having an accident) pay more.
* Only really means the vehicle is 'safe' on the day of the test
IMO, make that what you will.
Well, I read all that, and all I can say is, I have never encountered you or anyone who drives like you in my entire life. Nice to be different, I guess.
Haven’t read all the posts (does anyone these days?) but... it’s not an issue about speeding per se, it’s about the role of government in controlling individual behaviour. No, I’m not a red neck survivalist but where do you draw the line: stopping smokers buying cigarettes, drinkers buying booze, obese people buying chocolate? Best to cajole and manage with taxes and laws, letting the occasional 1% exception slip through, rather than instigate principles and rules that affect the other 99%. Speeding isn’t big and it’s not clever, but treat people as responsible individuals and punish those few that abuse that right.
If bikebouy’s “punishment” is gently lifting off the accelerator when people are dangerously tailgating, is that not the recommended course of action per the Highway Code anyway? Means they can FO and overtake and be dangerous somewhere else.
Well, I’m knew fully as I typed that all out that it would probably provoke consternation and recriminations.
Well I’m used to that.
”punishment” was a bad word to use to describe the action. I’ll freely admit that.
But I will defend my actions. I will not be intimidated into driving “faster” just becuse You want to make progress. So, so back off.
I do slow down Yes, but not immediately nor dangerously. No, I’m not that stupid nor selfish.
I choose an appropriate piece of road whereby I can slowly slow down and that “encourages” the arselicker behind to overtake, once they have started the manoeuvre I slow down fairly rapidly to let them in the space.. by creating space.. in front of me.
HTHs.
You can all now go back to pulling apart every word I’ve written and interpret that at your leisure.
I will continue to drive happily on the road network, and get to my destination calm, collected and without incident.
Enjoy Driving like Gods you lot.
😜🤷♂️
What about the arbitrary self imposed10mph lower speed limit? How confident are you that you pass a driving test doing that?
Fine thanks, you?
I didn’t say arbitrarily, I said that’s what I do and plenty of other people do too.
But clearly I’m amongst driving divas and you need someone to intimidate which confirms my suspicions.
I wish you well in driving to your next destination.
Really, am I intimidating you by pointing out that your behaviour would get you marked down at the very least on a driving test? You were also asked what your logic was, is that intimidating too?
Fwiw I often drive below the limits in 30 zones as I said and NSL roads since there are vehicles with lower limits anyway but I don't hold other people up by driving well below the limit on other roads.
Finally, I'm not sure what you are trying to do by using the "plenty of other people" excuse. If anything is obvious it's that plenty of people are shit drivers but it's always the other people.
Someone so easily intimidated probably shouldn't be driving on public roads.
But clearly I’m amongst driving divas
calling people names for obeying the speed limit isn't giving you the moral high ground you perhaps think it is.
We're not intimidating.
It just looks that way when you're driving, smugly thinking you're a god permanently looking in the rear view mirror, because we'll be doing potentially 30% more speed (but still well within the limit) and have to back off drastically because of your policing.
At least I know who it was that stamped on the brakes at every new speed limit sign, despite already being within the limit for that zone.
Only thing worse than the 45ers* are those that impose 1 speed limit lower than the indicated limit on others.
*45ers... those that do 45 in a 30, 45 in a 40, 45 in a 50 and 45 in a 60.
Really, am I intimidating you by pointing out that your behaviour would get you marked down at the very least on a driving test? You were also asked what your logic was, is that intimidating too?
"It's a limit but not a target" sure, but not driving to the limit without good reason is a test failure. Failure to make progress / hesitant or nervous driving, IIRC.
I've no issues with someone driving slowly. But driving unnecessarily slowly simply "because you can" is just antagonistic. We should drive at an appropriate speed according to the conditions, the fact that many people can't do this is why we need speed limits.
Watch out Cougar, it's going to escalate to "bullying" if mods get involved.
But yes, that.
The whole 'speed doesn' t cause accidents" mantra is a bit like saying that gravity isn't an issue with plane crashes. Ofcourse speeding creates accidents because it changes the whole dynamics of the vehicle, making it less stable more likely to squish the contents or anyone unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place - a bit like the tobacco industry denying for decades that smoking kills people. Bring on full-autonomy and we'll be able to use directed energy weapons to vaporise any ****er - starting with the 3 Brummy knobs on motorbikes in the Brecon Beacons today
Is bold the new caps lock?
Only thing worse than the 45ers* are those that impose 1 speed limit lower than the indicated limit on others.
I actually find the 'constant 40ers' more annoying - those who drive at this speed regardless of whether the limit is 50, or 60, or 30…
It would be pretty easy to hack too.
The Rule 34 of computer systems: ‘if it exists then it’s hackable’. Maybe I’m the only one who can see the terrifying consequences of fully automated traffic guidance systems, when a hacker group introduces a few lines of code that cause vehicles to suddenly alter speed in a random fashion. One only has to look at the sort of shenanigans that hackers get up to now to see that it’s a not unlikely scenario.
Relinquishing all control of a motor vehicle to an automated system while I’m in it, with little or no override scares me shitless.
you just need a tamper proof GPS that enables you to be fined automatically
That's assuming we have access to satellites to run a GPS system:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45336001
Relinquishing all control of a motor vehicle to an automated system while I’m in it, with little or no override scares me shitless.
Especially considering how piss poor the car manufacturers currently are at security.
“It’s a limit but not a target” sure, but not driving to the limit without good reason is a test failure. Failure to make progress / hesitant or nervous driving, IIRC.
You never want to just chill out a bit while driving, you know relax and not drive around as if in a race?
I hope the whole transport issue will evolve enough to make all this seem prehistoric, won't miss driving at all.
Slowing / stopping is almost always the correct course of action
The very last bit of advice that my (excellent) driving instructor gave me was "if you really must crash, try and do it as slowly as possible".
Wow, if bikebouy (or anyone for that matter) wants to drive slowly, then let him and overtake when it’s safe to do so. They are no different from a cyclist or horse rider in that respect.
As a nation of car drivers we generally drive too fast, we drive badly, we don’t pay enough attention, and we do this all with a huge sense of entitlement coupled with aggression.
Maybe I’m the only one who can see the terrifying consequences of fully automated traffic guidance systems
We've all seen the Italian Job - even Bennie Hill could cause traffic chaos.
s a nation of car drivers we generally drive too fast, we drive badly, we don’t pay enough attention, and we do this all with a huge sense of entitlement coupled with aggression.
Weird the stats say we are one of the safest nations when it comes to driving. However lets not let the truth get in the way of a good rant 🙂
Edited to add
3.6 deaths per billion KM driven. Only country better is Sweden with 3.5 deaths per billion KM. We are in a tie with Switzerland they are 3.5 too !!
being one of the safest does not mean we drive well. Just comparatively less badly.
i understand bikebouys approach to driving, and I understand others desire to ‘make progress’. I mostly fall into the making process camp...
What I don’t understand is the approach of getting stuck behind someone like bikebouy, and then tailgating them but not overtaking when there is an opportunity.
being one of the safest does not mean we drive well. Just comparatively less badly.
Only slightly more badly than Switzerland, we drive better than the rest of the world, or are you saying the whole world drives badly 🙂
Thanks for some of the support chaps, it makes me feel normal.
If you disagree with my driving style, please overtake me at your earliest convenience and don’t tailgate.
Thanks.
are you saying the whole world drives badly
That's exactly what I'm saying.
According to the World Health Organisation, more than 1.25 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes
In 2016 there were 181,384 accident casualties recorded on Britain’s roads; 1,792 of these were fatal.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7615
Thanks for some of the support chaps, it makes me feel normal.
If you disagree with my driving style, please overtake me at your earliest convenience and don’t tailgate.
Thanks.
Your'e not normal but you don't deserve to be tailgated or abused 🙂
People need to drive in their comfort zone, no one should be forced to drive faster or do things they don't want to do.
PS Have you considered a caravan 🙂
Cougar, can you put some numbers to that example? Ie, what speed were you going, how much time did you have to decide and stand on the pedal?
Not really I’m afraid, it was probably 20 years ago now.
Thats a shame Cougar, as it seems pretty implausible that you could accelerate sufficiently for the car to go behind but would not have been able to brake sufficiently for it to go in front, given that braking is massively more effective than accelerating in all realistic scenarios.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
According to the World Health Organisation, more than 1.25 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashesIn 2016 there were 181,384 accident casualties recorded on Britain’s roads; 1,792 of these were fatal.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7615
So 1.25 million total only 1800 were here and you think we drive badly. Time you take out those people who have had a medical episode while driving, mechanical failure, trees dropping on cars etc we are probably down to 1000 where bad driving was the cause.
Like I said don't let the facts get in the way of your hatred for motor vehicles. Your stats crush your own argument.
Ooh! Only 1000 people dead. Who cares about them eh? That's less that 3 a day, everything is cool.
Ooh! Only 1000 people dead. Who cares about them eh? That’s less that 3 a day, everything is cool.
Everyone dies Dez everyone dies at some point. Your comment is either trolling or extremely naive. How many lives are saved by motor vehicles each year? We can cut road deaths to zero easily, no motor vehicles. That is the only way to guarantee no road casualties. Then no ambulances, no fire engines no deliveries of drugs. My guess and I admit it is a guess more than 1000 lives are saved by motor vehicles a year. Some of you sound like you have the reasoning of children 🙂
If you want to save lives target the big hitters, this is pissing in the wind.
you seem to think it's a zero sum game - you can only reduce road casualties by reducing vehicles.
As you say the UK has lower death rates than other countries so it's possible to engineer roads and train drivers to reduce casualties. All other people are saying is that there is more that can be done to make roads safer for both vehicle occupants and cyclists/pedestrians.
Just blithely saying 'vehicles save lives so we have to accept a bit of collateral damage' is the same language that the gun lobby in the US use.
Just blithely saying ‘vehicles save lives so we have to accept a bit of collateral damage’ is the same language that the gun lobby in the US use.
Deffo trolling now 🙂
Thing is the government has done lots to reduce casualties you only have to look at the year on year stats over the last 20 years for that.
For instance I would love to see a segregated cycle path system in the UK the one we have obviously to any cyclist does not provide any level of protection. That however is selfish, I know in my heart it would not do much to impact that 1800 people. There are however many ways that money could save 1800 people. Lives are lives better to look on it in the round rather than just pick on one area.
My take on UK drivers is they are pretty safe, however I would not say they are courteous.
Weird the stats say we are one of the safest nations when it comes to driving. However lets not let the truth get in the way of a good rant
Not as simple as that. In car safety and medical care has improved massively over the last few decades - you can drive like a complete dick, total your car and if not walk away from it, at least not be a death stat. The UK is a small country, we have the NHS and response times are good.
Things aren't so rosy if you're not inside a vehicle and the UK has been very good at getting people to sit in a car to drive a mile down the road rather than walking. If there are no pedestrians, you don't get many pedestrian deaths but there are somewhat negative knock on effects in terms of public health.
A lot of people die riding bikes in the Netherlands. That doesn't mean it's dangerous, it means a lot of people ride a lot of miles. The death stats for over 65s riding bikes are shocking - a lot of old people die while riding their bikes, but a lot of them are natural deaths. Old people in the UK don't die riding bikes, they die in their armchair in fron tof the TV (which doesn't mean our living room safety is poor)
seems pretty implausible that you could accelerate sufficiently for the car to go behind but would not have been able to brake sufficiently for it to go in front, given that braking is massively more effective than accelerating in all realistic scenarios.
A disappointingly unimaginative statement. I can easily image such a scenario; Cougar tootling safely away from the line, head of the queue. No need to accelerate firmly, and (he thought) no need to look left as the traffic light had given him priority over traffic from the left. As he commences crossing the junction, he looks left, sees numpty on mobile phone/twiddling with stereo/distracted by squawking kids travelling towards him at or near the speed limit against a red light; obviously not going to stop because they haven’t noticed the red light, let alone the baby blue (with brown rust highlights) Vauxhall Nova our hero is driving. The Nova is already entering the danger zone; stomping the brake would only halt it it prime smooshing territory. Fortunately 1st gear on a Nova is a particularly low ratio, allowing the panicked mashing of the accelerator to be almost instantaneously be converted into a gazelle like leap forward, which, along with a rightwards yank of the leatherette covered steering wheel to the right resulted in our hero cheating death by mere centimetres. Huzzah.
It’s a relatively rare scenario, but far from impossible. People are paying less attention to the road then ever before, I’d rather keep every option open to me when attempting to dodge the dickheads on a day to day basis, thank you.
It’s a relatively rare scenario, but far from impossible
Cougar says it happened to him once, maybe 20 year ago so that seems about right
I wonder how many other 'near misses' Cougar has had in those 20 years that would not have happened if other drivers had been obeying speed limits. How much less delay at junctions if pulling out was easier as vehicles were not approaching so quickly.
An interesting listen on the autonomous vehicle issue. The upshot seems to be that robocars will work best if we get rid of those pesky pedestrians, horseriders and cyclists, etc...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bh5x20
Fortunately 1st gear on a Nova is a particularly low ratio
You got the marque right, I was in a Vectra IIRC. Probably second gear though. (-:
I wonder how many other ‘near misses’ Cougar has had in those 20 years that would not have happened if other drivers had been obeying speed limits.
Who knows, I passed my test in 1990 so have covered a few miles since then. That's just one factor of bad driving though, anecdotally I'd be inclined to say that "not paying attention" would be the primary cause of near misses and not-misses. I've been involved in a number of collisions over the years and offhand I can only think of one where excessive speed was a causal factor (and I was stationary at the time for that one).
In and of itself, driving beyond the posted limit doesn't implicitly cause accidents. What it does do is a) reduce the time available for all parties to avoid a collision and b) increase the severity of a collision, potentially dramatically, should one occur.
sure. so people not paying attention is a problem, but at present most of them are doing it above the speed limit as well.
to that list i'd also add c) tend to worsen congestion
Junctions and roundabouts function better at slower speeds
As I understand it collisions increase when speed differential are high, and flow in congested traffic is better if speeds are lower - it's why variable speed limits on motorways have been introduced. Variable limits tend to be enforced quite strictly - flow and collisions on 70mph motorways should be logically be better if there wasn't a subset of drivers trying to travel at 80mph+ and changing lanes frequently.
trolling
Quick note for bazzer - trolling does not equal disagreeing.
We can go back in circles about 'appropriate speed' and that the driving at the speed limit can be dangerous but the reality is the majority of drivers currently flout limits and most drivers treat the limit as a target (and many drive 'as fast as they think they can get away with" - the best part of 10mph above the posted limit. There are 20mph roads in Lambeth where the 85%ile speed is over 30mph.
The research that justifies 20mph limits - those really simple stats that show a pedestrian has a 3% chance of death if hit at 20mph, 20% at 30mph and 50% at 35mph - means we actually do want people to travel at or below the posted limit and that simply doesn't happen at the moment.
The 'speed as a contributory factor' figures are likely massively understated as illegal speeds are so culturally ingrained. It wouldn't take long to dig out a few court cases where someone has been killed by a speeding driver and they've still managed to avoid a dangerous driving charge or some comment was made by the judge about 'speed not being an issue' when it's clear that it could have been the difference between someone living or dying.
trolling
Quick note for bazzer – trolling does not equal disagreeing.
The analogy with gun lobby in US was aimed at provoking a response and nothing to do with the argument, trolling !!
If we really wanted to reduce accidents we would focus on infrastructure - separation of pedestrians, bikes, cars and lorries, each having their own dedicated space, ideally with traffic only flowing one way. Then if you wanted automatically enforced speeds it would be both easier and more effective for its intended purpose.
ok you might not get to 100% this but if you adopted the separation idea as a general principle when say new roads or major upgrades are built you would get closer over time...
obvs you’d need to decide which way the traffic was going to flow around the uk ie clockwise or anti-clockwise
I am going to put forward a psychological answer from my days at Uni where my third year selections included a module on driver behaviour.
For anyone who is more up to date tell me if this has been debunked ....
Wilde's Risk Homeostasis Theory was broadly that any given human in any given situation will tolerate a certain amount of risk.
Bob drives to work.
Bob is on time and he's not got an important meeting today anyway - he will accept a risk of 6.
Bob is running late, he's on a written warning for tardiness and he has a meeting with his boss at 900. He will accept a risk of 9 on his commute.
In unlimited car land Bob will likely leather it along some empty motorway and be a bit pushy through town.
In limited car land Bob will take other risks that don't exceed his threshold of 9 to make up time. Maybe he'll mount the pavement and drive on it or aggressively tailgate and push into much smaller gaps. He might not check his mirrors as well before driving off and he's sure as hell not going to wait to pass that cyclist with a 1.5m gap or stop for an amber light.
Automatic variable limiting should not be implemented without taking into account of these types of consequences.
Look how dangerously many limited vans and hgvs are driven.
There was someone on here who worked for a haulage company and I'm sure they said that went the put a fuel usage bonus into place for drivers that the number of red light jumping and other offences rocketed as people took more risks to secure the bonus.
I will add that I'm firmly in the law abiding camp for speed (and other stuff) but I'm also pragmatic enough to think I'll take speeding over other dangerous behaviours.
The ‘speed as a contributory factor’ figures are likely massively understated as illegal speeds are so culturally ingrained.
I'm not sure as I follow the logic in that. You're suggesting that the people providing these stats are lying?
I'd have thought the opposite to be more likely. Does "speed as a factor" get included whenever a party was speeding, or only when it was decided to be a causal factor? The former would be considerably easier to count I'd have thought, but if that's the case then it doesn't really tell us much of use beyond the fact that a lot of drivers break the limits (which we know anyway).
The analogy with gun lobby in US was aimed at provoking a response and nothing to do with the argument, trolling !!
No, it was intended to draw a parallel between those advocating 'change nothing, it's not broke' in one context with those doing it in another. Most people in the UK believe that US gun laws are 'broken' and that it's too easy to own a gun, too easy to continue ownership and too many people die as a result of the use of guns.
I was implying that the same thing is true throughout the world for motor vehicle ownership. We've given up our urban environments for vehicle access, we believe we have a right to drive and we, on the whole, drive faster than legally allowed (even before you take into account moderatign speed according to conditions) and without paying sufficient attention. Yet we blindly say 'never mind, it's for the greater good' etc. And it isn't.
Cougar tootling safely away from the line, head of the queue.
Yeah, except (a) he specifically said he was going through a green, not setting off from a standstill and (b) the discussion is over breaking the speed limit which probably means 30mph at least and maybe more. At which point the potential for acceleration is much much weaker than for deceleration and if we're talking about a split second when he was already in front of the approaching car then there wouldn't have been more than a gnat's crotchet of either.
Making progress.....
"There was someone on here who worked for a haulage company and I’m sure they said that went the put a fuel usage bonus into place for drivers that the number of red light jumping and other offences rocketed as people took more risks to secure the bonus."
Wasn't me but at my company there was evidence this happened when we had Telematics devices installed and we were given a beeps per hours driving target for the maximum number of infringements it counted for hard braking, accelerating and cornering. One guy rolled a van straightlining a roundabout after misjudging it and clipping the inside kerb and the number of red light jumps increased by a large margin.
Going through red lights is horrendous in Bristol.
In particular buses and tipper lorries are the ones that nearly collect me as I set off from lights on my commute. I know which junctions are the worst so always have a little glance before I get too far across the junction. A I cringe when I see cyclists get the jump on the amber as I am going to see one get smeared over the road soon.
Well actually I now take a 4 mile longer commute and avoid the centre of bristol full stop and skirt around the country lanes to the south.
As for speed limiters - has anyone here who thinks they are a good idea tried using a speed limiter on the road? It feels horrendously restrictive when you are accelerating to change lane or pull out and the car suddenly feels like it's applying the anchors. I much prefer to be able to accelerate slightly over and then lift and drop back to the limit. I use my limiter all the time on smart motorways, signs lit up or not and in road works mainly so i can sit on the limiter with mr angry bmw/audi sat up my chuff and be all smug that I am bang on the limit.
Just nearly got hit walking up our road by some lifted, light bars discovery 1 having a race with a focus. 30mph village with no pavement and they were doing >50mph by my estimates but the answer to that in my opinion is more police back on the beat to catch them driving like the ass holes they are. There are far more things people do behind the wheel than speed that need stamping out.