# fuel guage



## Travis Byrne (21 Aug 2005)

This the new fuel guage for small autos in the US. Larger autos will be adjusted accordingly. (Pic snitched from another forum.) Pic was made before the last 5 increases. 8) 







Travis


----------



## Midnight (21 Aug 2005)

<chokin...

I'd need 3 o them t cover the fuel I burned just today.....sheesh...

septics donno when they got it easy....... :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (21 Aug 2005)

Gasoline went to $2.50 per gallon here in Central Iowa (USA.) That's with ethanol added which is the cheapest grade here. Do any of you in other parts of the world care to comment on how much your paying now?


----------



## Jake (21 Aug 2005)

We're paying about 90p per litre, which works out at about $6.10 per US gallon I think.

Combination of Kyoto and a political system that has always liked fuel taxes.


----------



## trevtheturner (21 Aug 2005)

:shock: $45! Filled my car today, cost me £60 = approx. $108.

*Travis,* is the reason for the costings on the guage because you pay in advance at the kiosk for how much gas you want to purchase, to prevent 'drive-offs', compared to the UK where we fill up first and then pay? (I recall experiencing that system a while back on a visit to the US.)

Cheers,

Trev.


----------



## Travis Byrne (21 Aug 2005)

Trev

In the smallish town (28K) where I live, we still fill up and then pay. Some of the service station have signs saying "After dark, pay first".
In the larger cities, Dallas or Oklahoma City, a lot of pay first signs even during day light hours. As the prices continue to rise I expect to see more and more of the Pay First signs, even in my small world.
This high price of fuel is one of my pet peeves. I would like to talk to someone toe to toe about this, but who? If they are smart enough to rob us then they are smart enough to hide themselves. Ranting and Raving mode off. :evil: 

Travis


----------



## Jake (21 Aug 2005)

I think you want to have a good shout at those depleting reserves. Supply and demand and all that, Iraq war hasn't helped in the short term as well, and they are having to spend ever more money on finding and extracting more marginal stuff. Better get used it to it, and some (including me) would say in your nation faster than most. It sounds too cheap to me, and frankly it little no wonder your country won't sign up to Kyoto if you are complaining about those prices.


----------



## PowerTool (21 Aug 2005)

NorthEast England - 90p/litre (sorry,89.9 :wink: )

I remember when fuel started being sold in litres and every petrol station had conversion charts on the pumps to compare price per litre to price per gallon - think the scale went up to about 46ppl :shock: (If only it still was..)

So how come a couple of years ago,we had blockades on oil refineries because of the price,but now we just seem to accept the continual rise ?


----------



## Alf (21 Aug 2005)

Tsk, chaps. You're not looking for the positives here. Fuel prices going up, yep? So the cost of tools and timber will go up too, yep? So every excuse to *buy now* and patiently explain to TPTB's that you are, in fact, _saving money_ in the long run. 

Just trying to be a fuel-tank-half-full kinda person. :roll: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Argee (21 Aug 2005)

93.9p per litre for diesel here! The excuse is that we're not making enough - how does that work?

Ray.


----------



## RogerS (21 Aug 2005)

With my gas guzzler (20mpg) it's almost cheaper to fly Ryanair or Easyjet than go by car!


----------



## Knot Competent (21 Aug 2005)

I saw diesel at 98.9p per litre in the London area last week. I'm glad I filled up at home in sunny Devon (94.9p at Morrisons) before I set off! It still cost me £80 to fill my Frontera.

Any way, the £1 litre is very close, and probably won't stop there.  

Getting depressed now,

John


----------



## chiba (21 Aug 2005)

61p a litre for high octane here in Japan. Britain's more expensive than _Tokyo_. Congrats... 8)


----------



## Gill (21 Aug 2005)

It's a nice sunny day for a bicycle ride 8) .

Gill


----------



## Steve Maskery (21 Aug 2005)

Travis
Are you simply gloating about how cheap your petrol is? You've come to the wrong place if you are looking for sympathy, mate, you have the cheapest petrol in the western world.

Whatever one's party political affiliations, it's difficult to avoid the 
conclusion that the United States is a very large part of the problem, and will probably remain so until ordinary Americans start paying the full economic price of the policies of the government it elects (I use the term loosely), in the same way that the rest of have done for years.

I'll fill your tank if you fill mine.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Knot Competent (21 Aug 2005)

Gill said:


> It's a nice sunny day for a bicycle ride 8) .
> 
> Gill



Thanks for that, Gill. Gets it in perspective.

But you can't carry much wood home on a bike!

Regards, John


----------



## beech1948 (21 Aug 2005)

Hi,
The UK issue is that the cost of petrol is mostly TAX.

With petrol near me today at 91p/litre or about £4.55 per gallon...really 5 litres but close enough....the actual cost of petrol is only about 28p per litre delivered to the petrol station. The remainder is tax going to that well known puritanical, thief Gordon Brown in the Treasury.

The time has come to begin to object, to not vote for Labour or Conservative or Liberal until we get smaller, cheaper government and lose about 50,000 civil servants to go into useful employment.

regards
alan


----------



## Anonymous (21 Aug 2005)

I didn't intend to gloat that our fuel is cheaper than yours. My wife and I have to about 350 miles per week to go to work.  I use my van for work and I drive another 100 miles in town -- stop and go traffic. It is to the point that I am going to have to find a different job as I am losing money doing this one.

I know you are right when you say politics has alot to do with energy costs. 

Anyway, I'd like to apoligize if I offended anybody.


----------



## Alf (21 Aug 2005)

<Moderator hint>*Kids! *Don't play with politics; you'll only hurt yourselves. [-X 

The novelty of having to keep reminding folks of this is starting to wear a little thin here, chaps...

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Steve Maskery (21 Aug 2005)

Alf
Is it not possible to discuss this as adults? I don't think anyone has been childish here.

I certainly am not offended. Exasperated, maybe, but not offended. But surely it is only by dialogue on difficult subjects that we get to understand the other guy's viewpoint. I can see, for example, that it can't be easy for anyone having to drive 350miles a week just to go to work. But then that leads to question of why we have built a society where people have to do that to earn a living. I would rather ordinary people engage in a non-personal rantette than their countries do, well, what's been done throughout history, and is still being done today I won't mention the I word). Or is that too political a statement?

As far as I can see, this has not been Political at all, (Labour, Tory, Democrat, Republican etc.) more a discussion on the reasons why we are in the position we are and how each of us is experiencing it differently in the wallet.

Shall I shut up now? OK, fair enough.

Cheers
Steve, no offence intended nor taken.


----------



## Alf (21 Aug 2005)

<sigh> I wasn't suggesting anyone was being childish - I was just trying to say the *same boring thing about not getting political* in a different way to amuse my numbed brain.

My post was in particular response to Alan's post, which was starting to go from legitimate POV's to a comment that could easily kick off something less desirable. The aim is to nip this stuff in the bud _before_ it gets political and hope you all will take the hint and tread with care. If anyone's already crossed the line before a Mod can give that hint then you'll know by the screams and collateral damage to the thread... :wink:

Anyway, what I should have posted, and will boringly do so every time henceforth, is the following:


> There is a danger that this thread is veering into territory that involves politics which could all too easily result in argument and a breakdown in the harmony of this forum. Please will all posters take care in their posts to avoid this happening or the moderators will have to take steps. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> A moderator.


Boring, ain't it? :roll:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## CHJ (21 Aug 2005)

Alf...snip...[quote:3lx6vtcg said:


> There is a danger that this thread is veering into territory that involves politics which could all too easily result in argument and a breakdown in the harmony of this forum. Please will all posters take care in their posts to avoid this happening or the moderators will have to take steps. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> A moderator.


Boring, ain't it? :roll:

Cheers, Alf[/quote]

Yep it is. Have you been a spin doctor in a former life *Alice*? the jargon smacks of former civil service training. (Chas. ex CS)


----------



## Alf (21 Aug 2005)

Too much "Yes, Minister" in my yoof in all likelihood, Chas.  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## beech1948 (22 Aug 2005)

Hi All,

I was not being political at all. In fact I thought that by tarring every political party with the same brush I was being apolitical. That is non-political.

However, to prevent ALF from getting bored, I will try to refrain in future.

I used the UK party names merely because I did not know what the equivalent was in each EU country, the US, Japan etc etc. 

I hope that the main point of smaller government, reduced taxation and more efficiency from governments was OK.

regards
Alan


----------



## Alf (22 Aug 2005)

> that well known puritanical, thief Gordon Brown in the Treasury


'Nuff said I hope.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## beech1948 (22 Aug 2005)

Alf,
Thanks for reply.

We will just have to disagree then.

I think that we are in danger of becoming overly sensitive and far to PC in approach. 

I will comply

regards

alan


----------



## RogerS (22 Aug 2005)

If we can't have a discussion on these issues on 'off-topic' then where can we air any views, contentious or otherwise?

Or is it the 'general' consensus that any strongly held views are too 'dangerous' and, as Alan suggests, too non-PC?

If the latter reason then that is, IMHO, a great shame. What happened to 'freedom of speech'? 

Roger


----------



## CHJ (22 Aug 2005)

Roger Sinden":3q3hgcw5 said:


> If we can't have a discussion on these issues on 'off-topic' then where can we air any views, contentious or otherwise?
> 
> Or is it the 'general' consensus that any strongly held views are too 'dangerous' and, as Alan suggests, too non-PC?
> 
> ...



I am with *Roger* here, just as long as it is kept in the realms of generalizations and across international divides type comparisons another persons views do not offend me.

I for one feel much better after a "Putting the world to rights" session, be it with friends or a complete stranger, as long as it is done with respect for the other persons views.

*Party* Politics is another matter as is *Religion*, where IMOHO the cause is invariably spoilt completely by the controlling body and is buried in so much spin as to be beyond cool and calm discussion unless instantaneous qualification/clarification of views is available.


----------



## cambournepete (22 Aug 2005)

I have a feeling that if 


> The remainder is tax going to that well known puritanical, thief Gordon Brown in the Treasury.


had been written as 


> The remainder is tax going to the treasury.


then the mod hat wouldn't have appeared. :-k 

Anyway, much as we might not like it there is an argument for high tax on fossil fuel as an attempt to reduce it's consumption as it is believed to be a major cause of global warming.
It's just a shame there's no readily available viable alternative in the form of a non-polluting engine or even public transport (not that you're likely to be able to take your auction-bargain-wood on the bus even if there was a bus :wink.

Pete (ducking for cover)


----------



## RogerS (22 Aug 2005)

cambournepete":vfwnne0v said:


> Anyway, much as we might not like it there is an argument for high tax on fossil fuel as an attempt to reduce it's consumption as it is believed to be a major cause of global warming.



Sadly that will only work when ALL countries adopt the same policy. Given the lack of buy-in to Kyoto by some countries that are both high in fuel consumption per capita and also very low in fuel tax, then I think the future is bleak.

Other significant contributors are jet aircraft. Do we as a society _really_ need all those cheap flights?

How about a global ban on advertising? I think that that would yield huge benefits in reducing the 'wanna have it' mantra.

Perhaps fruit and vegetables should have little stickers on them saying ' this apple has only travelled 20 miles from orchard to store'.

Many potential ways to reduce consumption but most, if not all, too bitter a pill for the majority of society to swallow and/or politicians to advocate


----------



## Gill (22 Aug 2005)

I'm looking forward to the day when our vehicles are powered by fuel cells and our electricity comes from fission. Does anyone know how close these experimental technologies are to becoming practical realities?

Gill


----------



## Chris Knight (22 Aug 2005)

Gill,
I think you mean fusion rather than fission..

This quibble aside, I think it won't happen in the next 100 years.

1. Fuel cells.

Nice idea but the cost of implementation is so high that almost anything else beats it to the post. First there is the cost of design, construction and maintenance of the powerplant/vehicle itself as well as the trade-offs in packaging (ie how much space the passengers have at their disposal). Then there is the cost of the infrastructure - the thing still needs fuel (typically hydrogen or methanol) that have to be piped or trucked around the country and put in your car - virtually none of the present infrastructure allows for it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.. The "traditional" petrol engine gets evermore efficient and can deliver ample power with almost no noxious emissions at a fraction of the price for these other technologies.

2. Fusion.

Demonstrated in the lab but virtually nothing more. It is mostly clean, producing unreactive helium as a waste but there is also the continual production of small amounts of tritium - a form of hydrogen- that ain't so great and which would restrict the unrestrained growth of fusion power.

Neither of these technologies will make a haporth of difference to anyone alive today - except for the distortionary effects of large scale government intervention - my prediction!


----------



## Gill (22 Aug 2005)

Hi Chris

You're right, I meant 'fission'  . I'm sure I heard a radio interview recently in which the head of Iter said that fission could be available within 30 years. Perhaps I mis-heard him.

Oil isn't going to last forever, though. We need some sort of viable alternative and we need it quickly.

Gill


----------



## Jake (22 Aug 2005)

Fusion is a way off. They've just agreed to start building the first commercially viable sized pilot reactor, but they are still having difficulties in making it pay off, I think. It takes an awful lot of electricity to keep the plasma suspended in the torus and not melting its way through the reactor walls.

We'll need at least another generation of dirty old fission, I think, unfortunately

Fuel cells are here already, in the form of London buses, they seem to be piloting at least one because I've seen it many times. Eerily silent, but good to see the white water vapour exhaust. Big infrastructure changes required to roll it out more widely though, as Chris said.


----------



## MikeW (22 Aug 2005)

> > Anyway, much as we might not like it there is an argument for high tax on fossil fuel as an attempt to reduce it's consumption as it is believed to be a major cause of global warming.
> 
> 
> Sadly that will only work when ALL countries adopt the same policy. Given the lack of buy-in to Kyoto by some countries that are both high in fuel consumption per capita and also very low in fuel tax, then I think the future is bleak.


Ok, is this discussion about high costs of fuel, or about the ecological impacts of fuel, or both?

Seems it started out as fuel costs. I guess discussions are dynamic that way.

Concerning reducing consumption, that'll only happen when there is a viable alternative, regardless of which country is being discussed, or slammed. Tax never really has reduced consumption, nor is it (reducing consumption) really a government's reason for its high taxation of fuels. That, I believe, is too altruistic of a country's governing body's motivations.

As regards fuel costs themselves, every country has its own mixture of reasons the cost is so high. Some countries rely more on imported fuel than others. This affects cost greatly. Also, many/most of the oil producing countries have a stranglehold on its cost. Most of those countries' own residents cannot afford fuel either.

The relatively few "families" that control oil are unbelievably wealthy, all the while their own countrymen do without certain things we all take for granted.

It is not so, though, in every oil-producing country. Argentina for example has laws ensuring their country's inhabitants are not gouged for fuel costs. Mere pennies on the gallon (in comparison to even the US). Still below 20 cents US a gallon last time I bothered to look (which was a little while ago). Should they be penalized? Should they join some multi-national effort to reduce something that may have an effect on global warming and raise their taxes against their own people in order to reduce consumption? Or is this "solution" only for the wealthier nations to do?

The US produces a lot of its own oil. Much of it goes into reserves to cushion rises and production issues, if the leaders that be choose to dip into them, which they do from time to time.

The real issue regarding costs is, with each country paying about the same for crude oil, why is it that some people pay so much at the pump? It was stated early in the thread. Taxes mainly. Which gets me full circle in this response.

It would be good to determine what each of our own country's motives are for the taxes before we point the finger at other countries and declare they are a global "problem."

Taxes penalize the least able to pay them. Taxes are rarely a solution to any problem. Taxes to lessen consumption will never work in the larger scheme of things. It may lessen how much you or I drive for personal reasons. It will only increase the cost of living in every other area of living. Again, this will hurt most those that cannot afford it.

Ok, now I'll go away. I should stick more to the really important things in life. Things like, should I cut pins first, or tails?

Mike


----------



## Gill (22 Aug 2005)

MikeW":27hzh0qv said:


> Ok, is this discussion about high costs of fuel, or about the ecological impacts of fuel, or both?
> 
> Seems it started out as fuel costs. I guess discussions are dynamic that way.



Just so long as the discussion doesn't turn to politics again, Mike




 .

Gill


----------



## MikeW (22 Aug 2005)

> Just so long as the discussion doesn't turn to politics again, Mike


Think I kept it fairly clean of that arena. At least as much as I could and still reply. But that'll be all I have to say on it anyway.

It's more worthwhile for me to just go measure my saws and decide how big I want to make a saw till. And if I want drawers in it to hold the sets and files. Decisions, decisions.


----------



## Travis Byrne (23 Aug 2005)

Hello Everybody
Here's all I know about this fuel stuff
I filled up my tank today and now look at my pig.





Travis


----------



## trevtheturner (23 Aug 2005)

Nice one, Travis. :lol: :lol: 

Unfortunately, over here the cost of (highly taxed) fuel is such that we have no alternative but to eat the empty, skinny pig!  Otherwise, how would we afford to fill our 'shops with ww machinery and buy all the latest L/N and L/V and other kit? :? 

I think, anyway, it's just in the nature of us Brits to moan about the cost of fuel, without being prepared to do anything positive about conserving it. Just watch them out there - foot hard down to get past at all costs (when I'm driving at the prevailing speed limit), only to use up a load of tyre rubber braking hard just up the road to stop at the next set of t/lights. Then scream away from the lights, usually on the red/amber before they actually change to green, off he goes again. If everybody were to drive economically and remove the 'competition' from their efforts there would be a significant saving in vehicle fuel usage. It amazes me how people moan about the high cost of fuel, fill their tank then seem to try to waste the stuff as quickly as they can!

Not trying to be 'holier than thou' here - just how it seems to me to generally be. And, yes, I do like driving fast in the right place at the right time (best place to do that being on 'N' and 'D' roads deep in the French countryside on a two-wheeler). :wink: 

Cheers,

Trev.


----------



## dedee (23 Aug 2005)

Would we not be better to reduce the cost of fuel, reduce taxes on non efficient combustion engine vehicles and give air flights away with a packet of cornflakes? As a result the oil reserves will all used much quicker and only then will viable alternatives be seriously developed.

The downside of course is the affects on the environment - but again this will not be taken seriously until there is no environment left.

ever so slightly cynical Andy


----------



## RogerS (23 Aug 2005)

dedee":1zwunfk4 said:


> .... only then will viable alternatives be seriously developed.



Lots of those, IMHO, in other areas. For example, drugs. Make them free-issue and decriminalise them. Those that are currently taking drugs will not stop (vast majority won't). Agreed that there will be a very small increase in numbers perhaps who will now take them as a result of this policy BUT the nett result to society is huge. Massive reduction in petty crime, assault, burglary, muggings etc that occur as a result of addicts having to pay high prices for drugs. 

Massive reduction in insurance claims. Massive reduction in hospital costs as a result of injuries (ofvictims). Take a large amount of this money saved and invest in more opportunities for rehabilitation. 

Only people who lose out are the drug barons/dealers


----------



## Gill (23 Aug 2005)

You're singing my song Roger  .

Okay, we've moved off topic again; forgive us [-o< .

Gill


----------



## CHJ (23 Aug 2005)

Roger Sinden":2j0as4cd said:


> [quote...snip..Take a large amount of this money saved and invest in more opportunities for rehabilitation. ...snip..



I sometimes even question the necessity for the this action, (rehabilitation) the disproportional effort and expenditure that is put into helping individuals who are in the main suffering from a self inflicted injury be it from drugs (be it via chemical/tobacco/alcohol etc.)
There are millions of human beings on this planet who daily do their best on a self help basis to survive who would make far better use of any modern society surplus resources.

I say this having lost several close members of my family from tobacco related illness (they did come from an era before danger was recognized and deserved help) but currently watching another die slowly over a 3 year period who is still smoking heavily.

Off topic? just me putting the world to rights I'm afraid, please excuse.


----------



## RogerS (23 Aug 2005)

Chas, actually I'm with you on this but, fearing the PC lobby, wasn't as brave as you in stating the obvious. 

Ultimately we are responsible for our own actions and there are plenty of people who have had a bad start in life/poor parenting/bad influences etc etc etc and yet are able to rise above these. So why can't the rest?


----------



## Les Mahon (23 Aug 2005)

Chas / Roger / Gill

I'm not from the PC lobby by any stretch, but I see some fundemental flaws in that way of thinking, excluding tobacco all other addictions mentioned are considered a medical condition and recogised as such by the medical council - that are categosised the same as diabetes.

just a couple of points:


> I sometimes even question the necessity for the this action, (rehabilitation) the disproportional effort and expenditure that is put into helping individuals who are in the main suffering from a self inflicted injury be it from drugs (be it via chemical/tobacco/alcohol etc.)


The only known solution to addiction is 12 step programs, which by their nature cost nothing, there is no actual cure to addiction, it is a fatal disease. 



> Massive reduction in petty crime, assault, burglary, muggings etc that occur as a result of addicts having to pay high prices for drugs.


Unlikly as addicts tend to be unable to function in society hence will still turn to crime to finance there addiction - I have often heard this point of view, but usually linked to "drug" addiction, in fact the most financially ruining addiction is gambling.

Addiction affects all levels of society, it is seen as being an underpriviliged / deprived areas problem only because addicts from those areas turn to crime to fund their addiction, rich addicts can afford to "get away with it" untill the addiction kills them. 

I'm not trying to get on a soapbox here, just putting accross some alternative view on a subject very close to my heart - and also way off topic.

Les
BTW the reason I specific excluded tobacco was because I am a smoker and did not want to hypocritical!


----------



## beech1948 (23 Aug 2005)

Hi,
I agree with those who say that Taxation of fuel will not assist the resolution of the problems.

Governments simply exist in a way that major corporations do. Detached from the majority and doing whatever they think they need to do. I won't quote examples here because I do not want to politicise the thread. However, Governments do not exist to benefit me or you directly. They are like the utilities which continue to raise costs, like local authorities which raise costs.

Others have said that we should drive more slowly, less competitively etc etc.

It's amusing to hear. A caring government would insist that all vehicles allowed onto its roads would automatically observe the countries set speed limits. As much for energy conservation as the protection of life. yet I am permitted to buy a car easily able to exceed the speed limit by 100% without any check or hindrance. Did the government then give me permission to speed and waste fuel/energy...I think so.

At least as an unintended side effect of a lack of governmental thought or control.


----------



## StevieB (23 Aug 2005)

Goodness beech, are you really saying that you would like the government to directly control your speed at all times, and your rate of acceleration :shock: There are only 2 ways to do this, either allow only the sale of vehicles that cannot exceed government set limits, or allow the sale of anything but fit them with a data monitor to allow detection of breaking government set limits. Either way seems a little Orwellian to me. Sadly its not speed that kills, but rather the inappropriate use of speed - a message both governments and safety campaigners continually ignore. 70mph on a motorway in heavy snow or rain is legal but not advisable!

This thread seems to be evolving nicely from its original topic, and just shying away from politics, but lets not get started on speed cameras or that might change :twisted: 

Steve


----------



## Alf (23 Aug 2005)

StevieB":704tufj9 said:


> Goodness beech, are you really saying that you would like the government to directly control your speed at all times...


No plans _yet_, but they've certainly been looking into it... :?


----------



## beech1948 (23 Aug 2005)

Stevie,
I'm not making any point just saying that if you have speed limits then there is a strange dicotomy whereby you can actually exceed that by any amount you wish....odd of government to install speed limits but not the means to enforce it even though it is possible.

Orwellian...who cares. My point is only that it is strange to forbid a thing and then permit it at the same time.

eg you have my permission to go buy a car able to do 165 mph but I will not restrict you in getting to that speed, I will take revenue from you if caught, I will set arbitrary limits which I try to enforce for the supposed sake of life and limb but I will not prevent you from doing it. 

Its not even about freedom of choice or just fredom its about a lack of consistency and logic and application.

SOoooooooooo I could believe that the government has given me permission to travel at 165mph because it is legally permissible to buy and use the gadget which can do this.



Now what is that all about do you think. Joined up Government.


----------



## beech1948 (23 Aug 2005)

Alf,

My guess is that in another 20 years or so, when I am 77, all cars will have a limiter as to speed or at the least all major motorways, roads into and out of large population zones will be speed controlled.

In 75 years we will probably have a different power source. The return of steam maybe or something new. At least let us hope it is ecologically sound...energy returned to water after consumption.

Individual cars will travel on small scale rail like track at upto but not more than 70 mph on all major routes but not on local routes.

Car speed in cities will still be below 10 mph due to congestion because government have not learnt to spread jobs, offices and work across the country fairly.

The south east will sink below the sea under the weight of concrete and housing. The south west will then be a mountainous country.

ha!!!!!!


----------



## beech1948 (23 Aug 2005)

StevieB,

Sorry but you are wrong... in fact dead wrong...speed kills. Inappropriate use of speed kills faster is all.


----------



## RogerS (23 Aug 2005)

Mmmm..interesting point, Beech...so if you follow your logic then cars should only be sold in this country with speed limiters...but then what do I do when I want to take my car onto the track? 

Totally agree that it's not speed for speeds sake..but inappropriate use of speed...wrong place, wrong time, wrong speed. Many more other dangerous activites IMHO such as tailgating but I've never heard of anyone being done for this....falls into the 'too hard' category maybe?

I know that they tried a scheme in France when one of the autoroutes was opened up (main reason being to take heavy goods traffic off the other roads/towns/villages). On this particular autoroute, from the toll gates they were able to track the time taken between toll gates and since the vehicle had travelled a known distance in that time, speed was easily calculated and a ticket simply issued by computer..not a human or frog leg in sight. Truckers rebelled by reverting back to driving through the towns and villages and so they dropped the scheme.


----------



## beech1948 (23 Aug 2005)

Hi Roger,

The solution to the problem is that all vehicles should be fitted with speed limiters which are sensitive to the speed limit being imposed and that vehicles should be sold with the control sealed inside somewhere.

To your problem of using your car on a race track then some form of official removal and resetting of the limiter should be possible so that you can race. I have no problem with your right to enjoy yourself or to maim, kill or damage yourself or others whilst you all pursue private enjoyment.

The French story is quite interesting. I deduce that the problem was that trucks were still controlled by humans and not by a restrictor so that any scheme which thwarts only individuals but not all people equally was bound to fail. Infact any scheme which permits human judgement to decide what speed to travel at is doomed to failure. We will all try to travel as fast as we think we can get away with. In the French case a speed restrictor set at the motorway maximum(?62mph in France) would prevent the arguement of speed fines being appropriate.


----------



## Jake (23 Aug 2005)

beech1948":ht1unq4q said:


> We will all try to travel as fast as we think we can get away with. In the French case a speed restrictor set at the motorway maximum(?62mph in France) would prevent the arguement of speed fines being appropriate.



You'd need to link it to a rain sensor. 80mph in the dry, 62ish in the wet. I think. You still get just as many people dying on motorways. Stupid drivers are the real danger, not necessarily fast ones.


----------



## Guest (23 Aug 2005)

I know. Why don't we get a man to walk in front of cars with a red flag?


----------



## Midnight (23 Aug 2005)

> No plans yet, but they've certainly been looking into it...



I heard on the radio the other week that HMG are looking closely into a varient of that... GPS trackers to assist in calculating road tolls... wouldn't take too much tweaking to add a facility to detect breaking speed limits...

I choked when they said the motorist would be expected to stump up the cost of the "black box"...


----------



## beech1948 (23 Aug 2005)

Midnight":32ttnjj8 said:


> > No plans yet, but they've certainly been looking into it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CHJ (23 Aug 2005)

I was once told by relatives in Western Australia travelling some 400 miles along a newly upgraded road through Geralton and down to Margaret River that they were policed and subsequently fined if not in compliance for speeding, by noting time of entering the route and leaving it. 'Speeding' being the offence not 'to short a journey time' which would have promoted safety.

Everybody soon overcame the boredom of travelling at the monotonous sleep inducing speed by going like h**l for a fair distance and then stopping for a coffee break, it certainly reduced the accident rate but the conclusion was that it was more to do with driver fatigue reduction than the speed of travel.

I can see that satellite monitoring could enforce maximum speed compliance, but where do you stop in dictating the movement of the vehicle, will we see satellite monitoring of HGV hours enforcing vehicle shutdown if not in compliance? enforced journey breaks on your trip to scotland/cornwall*, or the requirement of alternate driver PIN entry to allow vehicle progress? (*although M5 traffic volumes do a good imitation of this most holiday periods)

None of these measures tackle the silly person who refuses to drive within the limits of the road conditions or with due thought for other road users.

I try hard to comply but admit to making mistakes/misjudgements, I only hope that I do not do it at the same time as someone else.


----------



## StevieB (24 Aug 2005)

*Beech wrote:*



> StevieB,
> 
> Sorry but you are wrong... in fact dead wrong...speed kills. Inappropriate use of speed kills faster is all.



Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Beech :wink: I stand by my comment.

The German Autobahn are some of the safest roads in Germany yet they have no speed limits. If your claim that speed alone kills, why is it not in the top 5 reasons for fatality in Road Traffic Accidents from the governments own official figures? Sure, I am happy to agree that speed is certainly a contributing factor, just that its focus as the be all and end all of bad driving is incorrect. Even a chief constable agrees with this:

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...w.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ncam07.xml
[/url]
Does your claim 'the government allows me to buy it so must condone it' argument apply to other items? The government allows me to buy alcohol, it allows me to buy cigarettes, it allows me to buy all the ingredients to make explosives. Does it therfore condone lung cancer, alcoholism and blowing things up? 

Apologies, this is not a rant or personal attack - just something that I feel is badly reported and handled by the government. I ride a motorbike through London and M25 rush hour traffic daily, usually at speeds less than 30mph due to built up traffic. Bad driving and impatience causes far more accidents and fatalities than speed does. Until speed cameras (sorry, safety cameras) can spot tailgating, lane changing without indicating, and people doing the myriad of things they do while trying to drive at the same time (including phoning, texting, reading the paper, and even playing a computer game!) then these are far more serious offences than doing 75mph on the motorway :shock: 

Steve.

Edited 1 time to include url. the comment about accident causes and speed not being in the top 5 reasons was taken from a big report at motorcyclenews.com. Unfortunately I cant find the report now they have revamped their site so cannot post a link at present :roll: .


----------



## Gill (24 Aug 2005)

StevieB":3jrkxfmu said:


> Bad driving and impatience causes far more accidents and fatalities than speed does.



Would it not be accurate to say that bad driving causes practically _all_ accidents?

It strikes me as logical that a bad driver who hits another vehicle at 20 mph will inflict less damage than a bad driver who hits another vehicle at 120 mph. That's why it must be true that bad drivers cause accidents but speed kills.

We'll never be able to outlaw bad drivers or eliminate non-attributable failures, but we can all do something to curtail our speed. It's the prospect of having a puncture (or similar mechanical failure) at high speed that makes me keep my speed down.

Gill


----------



## StevieB (24 Aug 2005)

> It strikes me as logical that a bad driver who hits another vehicle at 20 mph will inflict less damage than a bad driver who hits another vehicle at 120 mph. That's why it must be true that bad drivers cause accidents but speed kills.



Nope, that is bad driving that caused the fatality, it was speed that was a contributing factor.

I conceed that this could almost be an argument about semantics, and that both bad driving and speed need to be adressed to bring down accident statistics. It is the blanket message that 'speed kills' which irks me since as a motorcyclist I am faced with far worse dangers than speeding by motorists. If only the public were allowed to fine others £30 for using a mobile - I could retire within the year :twisted: 

Steve.


----------



## beech1948 (24 Aug 2005)

StevieB":2jztbps3 said:


> *Beech wrote:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



>>>Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Beech :wink: I stand by my comment.<<<

Thats fine. I would agree that speed + stupidity kills probably more efficiently than speed alone. But a motorway crash caused by speeding and tailgating could have been avoided or minimised by slowing cars down just as much as preventing tailgating.

Saying its stupidity not speed that kills seems to my mind to be introducing an excuse and a poor one. One does not cancel the other out. We might prevent speeding but I could not imagine legislation to prevent terminal stupidity. What is really the root cause....stupid speedsters or speeding stupidly...isn't it kind of irrelevant....speeding is the root casue. Stupidity just gets you in trouble faster.

>>>The German Autobahn are some of the safest roads in Germany yet they have no speed limits. <<<

Untrue. The German AutoBann has the highest rate of fatal accidents in Europe....

>>>If your claim that speed alone kills<<<

I did not say that. Those are your words and not mine. I have come to believe that speed is the factor which contributes most to accidents and deaths on roads. It is not the only factor. One might consider frustration, anger, drugs, insensitivity, crassness, cruelty, poor education, a lack of feeling for humanity etc etc.


>>>why is it not in the top 5 reasons for fatality in Road Traffic Accidents from the governments own official figures? Sure, I am happy to agree that speed is certainly a contributing factor, just that its focus as the be all and end all of bad driving is incorrect. Even a chief constable agrees with this:<<<

Again, I have not said that speed is the only factor...it just seemed to be the focus of the thread. 

>>>Does your claim 'the government allows me to buy it so must condone it' argument apply to other items? The government allows me to buy alcohol, it allows me to buy cigarettes, it allows me to buy all the ingredients to make explosives. Does it therfore condone lung cancer, alcoholism and blowing things up? <<<

Actually...... YES although explosives are a controlled substance and quite hard to get. But alcohol, cigarrettes etc are sold on a use me, abuse me at will basis but pay the tax and enjoy it. Governments condone the lung cancer caused by fags because they allow them to be sold. They knowingly are permitting the sale of something which will kill humans. Outrageous. For Government the issues around drink and fags are that they want the tax..they don't want to pay for the NHS costs to mop up the problems......its simple selfishness at the heart of this by "our" government.

>>>Apologies, this is not a rant or personal attack -<<<<


Not taken as such

>>> just something that I feel is badly reported and handled by the government. <<<


Agreed

>>>I ride a motorbike through London and M25 rush hour traffic daily, usually at speeds less than 30mph due to built up traffic. <<<

No comment. Thats your personal world.

>>>Bad driving and impatience causes far more accidents and fatalities than speed does. ........... phoning, texting, reading the paper, and even playing a computer game!) then these are far more serious offences than doing 75mph on the motorway :shock: <<<

Yes. Yes. But look here. Its possible to place a phone signal squelcher in a vehical to prevent calls being made. So why is it not mandatory. Why. I run my business by being mobile all the time. I do not have my mobile phone on in the car at all...thats what message services are for...but others use their phones in cars without a hands free kit all the time. Why am I being put at risk by these people when it could be prevented.

Its because government is scared to impose the solution because it will lose votes. Governments do not have integrity, honesty and goodwill to all.


----------



## CHJ (24 Aug 2005)

StevieB":11kzffr9 said:


> ...snip..
> The German Autobahn are some of the safest roads in Germany yet they have no speed limits. ...snip...



Not True re: speed limits.
The maximum national speed limit is 130 KPH.
However it is not enforced during normal driving conditions on the Autobahn. Have an accident however and you will find that the estimated speed of your travel is balanced against the road/traffic conditions at the time.
Further more ALL Autobahns have sections where lower speed limitations are applied due to road limitations or in foul weather conditions, often with cameras or monitored by unmarked cars. And enforcement levels can be quite high. France has an automatic 10 kph reduction of all speed limits in wet conditions. 

After spending a month at a time travelling to and in Germany, at times well above 105 mph where tolerated, I often compare the speed limits and roads with the road conditions here on return. On the M4, M5, M6 (which I regularly use) I do not encounter a stretch of road that would not have a 120, 100 or even an 80 KPH restriction applied if it had been an autobahn. (we have far more bends and undulations to hide traffic ahead) So although whilst traveling at 70 mph on a northern section of the M6 at night travelling to scotland with not another car light in sight seems ridiculous my trips on the M5 in Worcestershire,Gloucestershire,Somerset,Devon etc. seem to be pushing my luck at anything much in excess of 70 in all but a few sections.


----------



## trevtheturner (24 Aug 2005)

But what a misnomer this term 'accidents' is - most, something like 99.9%, are not accidents at all when they are caused by human behaviour/failing in one form or another.

The interesting exchange of views here shows what a complex issue this is, in which speed or excess speed is just one factor - there are many other causation factors. One of the main factors in fatal 'accidents' is still consumption of alcohol.

Cheers,

Trev.


----------



## Anonymous (25 Aug 2005)

German roads are far better maintained than british roads and so potentially safer at elevated speeds above 70. I regularly see complaints in the monthy Audi owners magazine, from tetsers and owners about the suspension being designed for smooth, well maintained German autobahns rather than our potholed, poorly maintained and underfunded excuses.


----------



## RogerS (25 Aug 2005)

Tony":19sz97fk said:


> rather than our potholed, poorly maintained and underfunded excuses.



ditto rail. When Siemens (I think it was) won the contract to supply us with rolling stock for our rail operators, they had to make a special dedicated test track to match the appalling conditions of our own rail network. They a special truck over that recorded every bounce, bump, grind and other rail nasty. Their proper test track was just too smooth.


----------



## CHJ (25 Aug 2005)

Tony":xskmzzrs said:


> German roads are far better maintained than british roads and so potentially safer at elevated speeds above 70. .



Not in my experience *Tony*, in the Nuremburg, Regensburg and Munich areas I regularly travel on several hundred kilometers that are degraded enough to make you take your foot off the pedal at 50mph due to discomfort created by bad surface.

Some of the autobahns have road signs posted warning of broken surfaces and applying speed limits for 20-30 kilometers that have been in position for at least 10 years to my knowledge.



Tony":xskmzzrs said:


> I regularly see complaints in the monthy Audi owners magazine, from tetsers and owners about the suspension being designed for smooth, well maintained German autobahns rather than our potholed, poorly maintained and underfunded excuses.



One of the factors that critics here fail to take into account is the response time of the suspension damping. If you are travelling above 100mph and nearer the 158mph design limitation built into all the cars, (most German drivers seem to use the later figure as their norm) then the suspension does not have time to respond to the broken/rough surface and the tyres just settle at a mean height riding the crests of the undulations. This is one of the reasons that cause a steady stream of accidents every time light rain falls, the drivers fail to realise the limited road contact that they actually have. It is not unusual to see a car parked in an adjacent field after light rain, having failed to negotiate a bend, in heavy rain about 60% of them will slow down.


----------



## Noel (25 Aug 2005)

Tony has a very fair point. It's been long accepted that European designed cars that have had no developement, suspension/damping wise, on UK roads simply suffer from a poor quality ride. About the only company that I know of that has addressed the issue is Audi with the recently released A4 & A6 models. Although handling and roadholding has alway been good, now the ride is also good.
I'll not mention Irish roads...

Noel


----------

