# Mobile speed Camera Vans



## Lons (2 Dec 2013)

I've never been "caught" by one of these vans and am in favour of speed checks where there is a road safety issue especially in built up areas however am totally against these vans being used to make large profit gains - Our active local councilor is of like mind and has unearthed some pretty damning evidence of this practice which is the reason a majority of people view the authority motivations with suspicion and undermines any good that they might do.

We have a very busy local country A road with a poor accident record. Loads of bends, hilly and subject to speeding motorists, motorcycle riders especially love the fast bends and are often on the wrong side of the road, over the double whites on blind bends :shock: 

There has been an ongoing campaign for regular checks by the vans (NSRI - a partnership of police and 6 local councils which costs mine £120,000 pa). Chasing the stats my councillor eventually found that in the past 6 months the van has NOT ONCE been deployed on this road despite regular, sometimes serious incidents.

In contrast a road approaching our local market town drops from 60 to 30mph on a stretch for no obvious reason as it has only a few properties set way back from the highway. That's a seperate issue but there is a disused petrol station immediately past the speed signs which provides a perfect "hiding place" for the vans and there have been many complaints regarding this.

The figures for the same 6 month period show the van was "hidden" there 18 times, issuing 2300 tickets which at £70 a pop has generated £161,000. OK they were over the limit and culpable but from my experience I doubt if many were over 40mph in what should still be 60. Visitors in particular come round a long safe bend at 60 and either have to slam on the anchors which could cause accidents or commonly let the car slow which means they are doing 35 - 40 in the detection zone. Locals of course know about the trap!
There has never been an accident on this stretch of road to the best of my knowledge in the 30 years I have lived in the area. Cash cow or what :roll: Bearing in mind the cr*p these people give out is that the vans are there purely for road safety and this stretch was safe long before the vans were a twinkle in anybobys eye it rather leaves a bad taste.

Rant over, I feel better now :lol: 

Bob


----------



## themackay (3 Dec 2013)

I could not agree more cash cow and very little to do with road safety,same with bus lane cameras.
Alan


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2013)

themackay":ljmbj14f said:


> I could not agree more cash cow and very little to do with road safety,same with bus lane cameras.
> Alan



Bus lane cameras are not so much do about safety as keeping the traffic flowing.

Lons...agree with you 100%. Couldn't you apply to the council under FoI to specify the rationale for placing the cameravan in the garage in the absence of any accidents ?


----------



## DrPhill (3 Dec 2013)

I have a different opnion. Probablyt contraversial, but here goes:

I do my best to obey the speed limit at all times. I have spent much skull sweat trying to justify why I, out of all road users, should be allowed the discretion to disobey them. Despite thirty years of effort I have not managed, and so have resigned myself to compliance.

This has the benefit of leaving me totally imune to speeding fines. Each time someone else gets fined that is a little less tax for me to pay, and a small deterent to dangerous driving. I benefit all ways. So where and when they park the vans is a non-issue for me.

There is one way to ruin their plans for revenue generation.........


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Dec 2013)

I regularly drive on a country road that has only a few houses on it, is virtually never walked on. It's about three miles, and I can often go from one end to the other without seeing a car or a pedestrian. Due to self righteous local councillors who love to be seen to be doing something, this is a 40mph limit. People happily obey laws they see as being fair and right, but things like this just encourage people to ignore limits.


----------



## mseries (3 Dec 2013)

phil.p":3bsuudz6 said:


> .....People happily obey laws they see as being fair and right, but things like this just encourage people to ignore limits.



it's a good job everyone doesn't think like that. It's always the minority that spoils it for everyone else. The issue with your scenario that irks me is this. You and other motorists will happily ignore this limit and speed through because most of the time you don't see anyone else. Then, one day someone steps out and you can't stop in time before you kill him.


----------



## mseries (3 Dec 2013)

if you don't want to pay a fine for speeding, or driving in bus lanes, don't do it. It is really really easy. I presume the fine is what people are worried about rather than killing someone.


----------



## bugbear (3 Dec 2013)

DrPhill":31zaoev1 said:


> I have a different opnion. Probablyt contraversial, but here goes:
> 
> I do my best to obey the speed limit at all times. I have spent much skull sweat trying to justify why I, out of all road users, should be allowed the discretion to disobey them. Despite thirty years of effort I have not managed, and so have resigned myself to compliance.
> 
> ...



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Works for me too.

BugBear


----------



## MMUK (3 Dec 2013)

DrPhill":1psmqdi4 said:


> Each time someone else gets fined that is a little less tax for me to pay
> 
> I benefit all ways.




You really think it works that way? You must be totally delusional! Everyone down the line suffers without exception whoever breaks the rule, that includes you, you're not immune from increased costs.

I'm assuming you pay VED, insurance, etc?


----------



## Jinx (3 Dec 2013)

What annoys me is the lack of logic in some of the speed limits. Where I live the road goes from 60, to 40, to 30 then back to 40, with negligible changes in the type of road or the amount of houses etc. What I would like is to just say the whole stretch is 30 and then it is easier for everyone, the 40 stretch is only about a quarter of a mile long so why is it even there. Then I can just hit the 30, set my cruise control and not worry about the speed changes. Jinx


----------



## mseries (3 Dec 2013)

Jinx":2zla0pwq said:



> What annoys me is the lack of logic in some of the speed limits. Where I live the road goes from 60, to 40, to 30 then back to 40, with negligible changes in the type of road or the amount of houses etc. What I would like is to just say the whole stretch is 30 and then it is easier for everyone, the 40 stretch is only about a quarter of a mile long so why is it even there. Then I can just hit the 30, set my cruise control and not worry about the speed changes. Jinx



Just do that anyway.


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

mseries":2xjtm1jz said:


> Jinx":2xjtm1jz said:
> 
> 
> > What annoys me is the lack of logic in some of the speed limits. Where I live the road goes from 60, to 40, to 30 then back to 40, with negligible changes in the type of road or the amount of houses etc. What I would like is to just say the whole stretch is 30 and then it is easier for everyone, the 40 stretch is only about a quarter of a mile long so why is it even there. Then I can just hit the 30, set my cruise control and not worry about the speed changes. Jinx
> ...


Exactly! I got caught out twice in a local stretch like that so I now go slow all the way. It seems to annoy following drivers but soddem I'm not going to get 3 more points for nothing.
Speed cameras are a damn good thing and save a lot of accidents.


----------



## MIGNAL (3 Dec 2013)

It's actually pretty difficult to obey the 30 (or 40) MPH speed limit without turning your fellow drivers into seething, demonic idiots. They consider that travelling at 35 MPH in a 30 zone is FAR too slow. Just one of the reasons I gave up driving years ago. Too many nutters. Putting people in a car is the fastest way of creating more nutters.


----------



## Jinx (3 Dec 2013)

Trouble with that mseries and Jacob, is I used to have a driving school in Cambridge many years ago and one of the things your teach day in day out is driving to the speed limit when safe to do so, so as to not, 'waste road space'. Same as crossing my hands, ha ha, still cannot do it. Jinx


----------



## Baldhead (3 Dec 2013)

I am 53 been driving since I was 17 and picked up my very first speeding ticket in October, something I'm not proud of, I was caught by a mobile camera on a duel carriageway which has a limit of 30 and I was doing 37.
First off, I'm guilty, I've got no excuse for doing that speed, I was not in a hurry, it was a silly lapse of concentration.
I was given the option of, paying a speeding fine (£100) and getting 3 points on my licence, going to court to fight the speeding ticket or attending a speed awareness course(cost £85 and lasted 4 hours) I chose the latter. 
I actually found the course very informative, the trainer (a driving instructor) was a nice chap, he tried the shock tactics, ie showing us several photos of the aftermath of RTC's where people had lost their life (I'm not heartless but this had no effect on me, my job before being pensioned out was a fireman, my first station covered an large area of the A1 the majority of which is single carriageway, so I've seen probably more accident scenes then he has) what he also did was teach, I had no idea what the proper stopping distances are for any given speed, TBH I wasn't sure about repeater speed signs on lamp posts, I learned a lot.
Now I use the speed limiter on the car, I get threatening looks from other motorists who have been 'stuck' behind me when they get the chance to overtake, I get headlights flashed when I break on the approach to a 30 sign, I've had lots of hand gestures etc etc but what I haven't got is 3 points on my licence.
I hate mobile speed cameras, I think they should be painted canary yellow so we can spot them, just like fixed cameras.
I do think they are sited more to make money rather than save life, there is certain criteria laid down for the siting of fixed cameras but not for mobiles, now I wonder why that is.

Baldhead


----------



## bernienufc (3 Dec 2013)

Baldhead
After doing the awareness course do you still have to declare the speending incident to the insurers? it was a topic that came up at work and nobody knew.


----------



## Baldhead (3 Dec 2013)

bernienufc":5jzi678j said:


> Baldhead
> After doing the awareness course do you still have to declare the speending incident to the insurers? it was a topic that came up at work and nobody knew.


No you don't, we were told it doesn't show up anywhere other than police records so that should I be caught speeding again within 3 years I will not be given the option of a course, I will get a fine and 3 points.

Baldhead


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Dec 2013)

mseries":y0vfsou1 said:


> phil.p":y0vfsou1 said:
> 
> 
> > .....People happily obey laws they see as being fair and right, but things like this just encourage people to ignore limits.
> ...



It's a wide open country road with good visibility - there isn't anyone there to step out.
P.S. besides which, you are presuming too much. Nowhere did I say I exceeded the limit. It was an observation. There was no need to be so self righteous.


----------



## markturner (3 Dec 2013)

Some interesting reactions here..........I guess it comes down to what type of person you are - someone who obeys the law, no matter whether its ill thought out, inappropriate, or illogical, or whether, like me, you take a view that you are intelligent and skilled enough ( in this case we are talking about driving) and can make your own decisions about what's safe. If I don't agree with a law about something, I don't comply, but that's just me, I am not judging anyone else. So, yes, I speed when I want to...not always, but sometimes and I always drive extremely safely, plenty of space between cars, never overtake without perfect visibility, never speed in urban ares, etc etc. I have been driving over 30 years and have a clean licence and never had a serious accident. 

In relation to the question in the post, it's all about appropriate speed for the situation.......you drive at 70mph on the motorway, but if road conditions etc were bad, it would be unsafe. So blindly following the limits is not right. I ride a motorbike as well as driving a car and you need to read the roads, read the surroundings and the conditions. If the road is not busy, visibility good and you wanted to drive at say 80 or 90 mph...whats the harm? of course, if the conditions change, you adjust accordingly. Also, you should never speed in built up areas. But on the open roads, it's a different story. Plus, you have to remember, the technology and performance of modern cars, with ABS, airbags, great tyres, etc makes them and driving much safer and also the speed limits on open roads much less relevant. Look at Germany - do they have a problem there? No.......

Speed itself is not the problem, is when it is combined with the wrong conditions and a lack of skill and ability to determine what is safe. We are fed the line about safety so much, but these cameras are all about revenue raising - if they were not, then why hide them? Also, the law is designed to fit the lowest common denominator, so unfortunately, its one size fits all. 

Bottom line, use your own discretion, and be prepared to deal with the result if you choose to speed and get caught. And if you do speed, then you need to be bringing your A game to the table, as a motorcyclist, I always assume the other people on the road are idiots and have not seen me. So you assume the worst may happen, be prepared and cover the brake etc..By the way, I would totally not condone a lot of the riding I see many bikers doing, I use trackdays now to get my kicks, and drive pretty sedately on the roads when on the bike.


PS, the bit about someone stepping out - do think they will be any less dead if you were doing say 60mph ( national speed limit) instead of say 70mph? or 80mph ? If someone steps out into a busy road unexpectedly, then pretty sure its going to be messy, even with everyone obeying the limits.


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

markturner":rcspghf3 said:


> ..........
> PS, the bit about someone stepping out - do think they will be any less dead if you were doing say 60mph ( national speed limit) instead of say 70mph? or 80mph ? If someone steps out into a busy road unexpectedly, then pretty sure its going to be messy, even with everyone obeying the limits.


At lower speed it makes a huge difference, being hit at 10, 20, 30mph etc but in any case it's more about stopping distances i.e. avoiding hitting anything at all.
At higher speeds a pedestrian most likely has had it, but both you and he have had less chance to avoid the hit, and all the other consequences of a collision are greater in proportion to the speed, other vehicles and your own safety. You don't want to lose control or have a dead body hitting your windscreen at 90 mph. :roll:


----------



## KevM (3 Dec 2013)

markturner":16gbxexh said:


> If I don't agree with a law about something, I don't comply, but that's just me, I am not judging anyone else.



Hmm, that sounds like fighting talk, and I'm sure isn't intended as such. Re-read it and tell me your views on a member of an anarcho-syndicalist collective making off with your car/bike/tools/TV because they don't "agree" with property laws. There are some laws which I find inconvenient, gravity for one, do I consider breaking it? Only in my dreams...


----------



## bugbear (3 Dec 2013)

Baldhead":3p055vsc said:


> bernienufc":3p055vsc said:
> 
> 
> > Baldhead
> ...



Presumably each insurer can make up it's own rules on this?

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Dec 2013)

Jacob's point that speed cameras save a lot of accidents is dubious - the last report I read stated that there was a 60%+ increase in personal injury accidents where cameras were installed. This was thought to be because people drove with their eyes on the speedo instead of the road.


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

phil.p":i3x434l3 said:


> Jacob's point that speed cameras save a lot of accidents is dubious - the last report I read stated that there was a 60%+ increase in personal injury accidents where cameras were installed. This was thought to be because people drove with their eyes on the speedo instead of the road.


Not true if you search a little further. There's plenty of evidence in favour.


----------



## markturner (3 Dec 2013)

KevM":3ri76v8w said:


> markturner":3ri76v8w said:
> 
> 
> > If I don't agree with a law about something, I don't comply, but that's just me, I am not judging anyone else.
> ...




Of course I am not suggesting general anarchy..or disobeyance of the law.....although having been the victim of tool theft, bike theft and car theft at various times, it does not seem to make much difference what I do or think....... Like I said, some people think the law is umuteable - I think it's full of irregularities, injustices and plain daft rules....As well of course many very good ones - I respect the ones I agree with and not the ones that are plainly drafted by people with no grip on reality. If everyone never opposed a law, where would this country be now? Think womens votes, slavery etc I could go on.......

However, the laws of the land will only be respected and upheld if they are right and proper . Unfortunately there is already way too much bad legislation about so many things, let alone the parlous state of our criminal justice system that seems to value the "rights" of the criminal over and above those of their victims....but that's another thread.....


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

markturner":2ji20vpr said:


> KevM":2ji20vpr said:
> 
> 
> > markturner":2ji20vpr said:
> ...


Except for yourself we see. :lol:


----------



## KevM (3 Dec 2013)

_"Think womens votes, slavery etc I could go on......."_

Mark, I hadn't realised your crusade against traffic laws, and those others which you personally consider to be tosh, was a noble campaign to be judged alongside universal suffrage and emancipation; now I see that you're a true and selfless campaigner I doff my cap to you sir - vive la revolution!

Now, where did I leave my Camberwell carrot? :wink:


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to drive motor vehicles as fast as they can go..


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... V3C4gQq.99


----------



## KevM (3 Dec 2013)

markturner":2znvhli4 said:


> Look at Germany - do they have a problem there? No.......



Problem? Maybe not, worse than UK, yes. For road fatalities in 2010 Germany had more fatalities by all three measures used in the RAC report "Road Safety: A review of UK and European data", January 2013

45% higher per million inhabitants
38% higher per 10 billion passenger km
33% higher per million passenger cars

Source: http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac ... -jan13.pdf

"Lies, lies and damned statistics" aside I was quite surprised by some of the numbers, particulalry considering the reputable source. I think the RAC foundation must clearly be considered to be a pro-motoring organisation and not a rabid anti-car pressure group.


----------



## DrPhill (3 Dec 2013)

markturner":2ua9f2en said:


> Of course I am not suggesting general anarchy..or disobeyance of the law....





markturner":2ua9f2en said:


> I respect the ones I agree with and not the ones that are plainly drafted by people with no grip on reality



I cannot reconcile these two quotes.

I feel your pain, as I spent many years trying to find an argument that justified my picking and choosing the laws I had to obey that did not give leeway to all those irresponsible scrotes that would make ridiculous choices. I failed. If you have discovered the secret, please share it so I can break laws with a clean conscience too.

Thanks


----------



## Baldhead (3 Dec 2013)

bugbear":1p03gnan said:


> Baldhead":1p03gnan said:
> 
> 
> > bernienufc":1p03gnan said:
> ...


Obviously, but I was asked a question which I answered giving the information which I learned on my speed awareness course, in all my years of driving I have never been asked by any insurance company if I have attended a speed awareness course. 

Baldhead


----------



## RogerS (3 Dec 2013)

markturner":3n2gkteu said:


> Some interesting reactions here..........I guess it comes down to what type of person you are - someone who obeys the law, no matter whether its ill thought out, inappropriate, or illogical, or whether, like me, you take a view that you are intelligent and skilled enough ( in this case we are talking about driving) and can make your own decisions about what's safe. If I don't agree with a law about something, I don't comply, but that's just me, I am not judging anyone else. So, yes, I speed when I want to...not always, but sometimes and I always drive extremely safely, plenty of space between cars, never overtake without perfect visibility, never speed in urban ares, etc etc. I have been driving over 30 years and have a clean licence and never had a serious accident.
> 
> In relation to the question in the post, it's all about appropriate speed for the situation.......you drive at 70mph on the motorway, but if road conditions etc were bad, it would be unsafe. So blindly following the limits is not right. I ride a motorbike as well as driving a car and you need to read the roads, read the surroundings and the conditions. If the road is not busy, visibility good and you wanted to drive at say 80 or 90 mph...whats the harm? of course, if the conditions change, you adjust accordingly. Also, you should never speed in built up areas. But on the open roads, it's a different story. Plus, you have to remember, the technology and performance of modern cars, with ABS, airbags, great tyres, etc makes them and driving much safer and also the speed limits on open roads much less relevant. Look at Germany - do they have a problem there? No.......
> 
> ...



At last....someone speaking commonsense.

Wrong speed for the wrong conditions.


----------



## KevM (3 Dec 2013)

Hands up, who's an above average driver? I know I am. :roll:


----------



## mseries (3 Dec 2013)

"Speed itself is not the problem, is when it is combined with the wrong conditions and a lack of skill and ability to determine what is safe"

I am inclined to agree but sadly many many drivers misinterpret the conditions or over estimate their skill and ability. How many times do we read about multiple vehicle pile ups in fog. These are due to people not being able to stop in time, because they were either going too fast or not paying attention.


----------



## RossJarvis (3 Dec 2013)

KevM":13j8fqzx said:


> Hands up, who's an above average driver? I know I am.



I'm above average and have evidence to prove it. Am I a good driver? probably not


----------



## mseries (3 Dec 2013)

KevM":1xth7qo8 said:


> Hands up, who's an above average driver? I know I am. :roll:



How is this worked out ? What is the average driver ?


----------



## KevM (3 Dec 2013)

Irony alert.

The point is we all believe ourselves to be endowed with better than average skills and judgement, it's all the other nutters that are the problem...


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

markturner":17ggqmk5 said:


> ........you drive at 70mph on the motorway, but if road conditions etc were bad, it would be unsafe. So blindly following the limits is not right.


I think we understand that. We do realise that the 70 is not a compulsory minimum speed


> .... Look at Germany - do they have a problem there? .......


Yes they do. Do a google and find out for yourself


> .... Also, the law is designed to fit the lowest common denominator, so unfortunately, its one size fits all.


I think this is the funniest bit - the rules are just for the riff raff, not for J Clarkson fans :lol: :lol: Sounds like the wit and wisdom of Boris Johnson. :roll: 


> .. as a motorcyclist, I always assume the other people on the road are idiots and have not seen me.


Quite right too. This is normal practice. But it could be you as the silly person one day, if you are speeding and meet another silly person coming the other way


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Dec 2013)

Jacob":327xvtz7 said:


> phil.p":327xvtz7 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob's point that speed cameras save a lot of accidents is dubious - the last report I read stated that there was a 60%+ increase in personal injury accidents where cameras were installed. This was thought to be because people drove with their eyes on the speedo instead of the road.
> ...


I've just googled "do speed cameras stop accidents" - the surveys that say no out number the ones that say yes about 3 to 1. There's plenty of evidence not in favour. The first one in favour is an international survey, which of course may or may not be correct in any given country.
How can it be proven the they save accidents, when authorities have admitted they have been placed where there had been no accidents?


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

Just did the same
Unfortunately it's mostly b......x from silly person sources - Mail, Telegraph, Tax payers alliance etc.

The fixed cameras which have nabbed me 3 times so far (only 35 in a 30 zone etc) were all very sensibly situated in built up residential areas with busy straight roads going through, which look fast, until someone is backing out of a drive, crossing the road etc.
The mobile cameras around here crop regularly on several roads notorious for motor bike accidents and you can be sure they are saving lives. Derbyshire that is. Swarms of bikers every weekend going to Matlock Bath or racing past the Cat and Fiddle - or were doing until the crackdown.
We often hear sirens at the weekend and it's usually another biker in the Via Gellia being over confident. Not kids, often beardy old geezers on posh bikes too fast for them.


----------



## JustBen (3 Dec 2013)

You've got a real hatred for blue haven't you Jacob.

Funny.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Dec 2013)

Sorry they weren't all from the fount of all truth, the Grauniad. I keep forgetting that the rest of the country is wrong.


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

benjimano":365cqyo4 said:


> You've got a real hatred for blue haven't you Jacob....


The right? Certainly have! Not alone either. Pleased to see Boris coming out of the closet as a typical very thick and unpleasant old etonian! We know where we are with Boris!


----------



## RossJarvis (3 Dec 2013)

benjimano":1s88qd8y said:


> You've got a real hatred for blue haven't you Jacob.
> 
> Funny.



Nothing wrong with hating blue, as long as you recognise all the others are just as bad. Probably the odd few with integrity and sense in all parts of the House, shame about the rest.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Dec 2013)

The best speed control of all (apart from your right fist or foot) is a traffic light that goes red it you approach too quickly. Foolproof, but not good for revenue.


----------



## Jinx (3 Dec 2013)

I think an important point has been lost along the way here, even used Markturners thread as a negative rather that what I see it as, a positive. 'Laws are written for the lowest common denominator' What's wrong with that? Not everyone can drive as well as everyone else can they, for example a person who has only passed their test for a few months, or perhaps a person with reduced reaction time due to older age etc etc, and we all have to use the same roads. Making the safest laws for the greatest number seems a good solution to me. There will always be super brilliant drivers around like Markturner and there are facilities provided to match his needs too - fines and prisons. Jinx


----------



## Jacob (3 Dec 2013)

:lol: :lol: Agree.


----------



## JustBen (3 Dec 2013)

Jacob. Please don't confuse my post as me being blue.
I see no colour, only lies. I couldn't give two hoots as to what colour they are.
I do find it amusing that you appear to instantly disregard any evidence/reference/survey etc as being B.S if the authors are blue.
Makes me chuckle.


----------



## DrPhill (3 Dec 2013)

phil.p":11yuh3ah said:


> The best speed control of all (apart from your right fist or foot) is a traffic light that goes red it you approach too quickly. Foolproof, but not good for revenue.



Very interesting 'experiment' a while back where town planners timed the traffic lights so that someone travelling at the speed limit would see all green lights. They might get stopped by the first, but then, if they drove sensibly, they would see green lights all the way. Sprinting away from the lights and breaking the speed limit would just lead to a wait at another red light while the sensible driver caught up.

It seems that the locals all caught on quickly and adjusted their driving for ease rather than fun. I think the approach is being used as a standard nowadays within practical limits. Certainly my (anecdotal) experience is that, where there are lots of lights in succession on a major route then the sensible speed gives most green lights.

Anyone else noticed something similar?


----------



## Flynnwood (3 Dec 2013)

DrPhill":257yrygk said:


> Each time someone else gets fined that is a little less tax for me to pay.



100% untrue.


----------



## Lons (3 Dec 2013)

Well it seems I've opened a can of worms! 
Strange how certain people can turn the original content into a hate the Telegraph and Boris campaign (on second thoughts not strange at all :wink: ), Strange also that in my case for instance having a blemish free licence for 47 years covering considerable mileages up to 50,000pa at one stage, compares to one who advocates rigid adherance to speed limits but has been,


> "nabbed me 3 times so far (only 35 in a 30 zone etc) were all very sensibly situated in built up residential areas with busy straight roads "


 - Is your eyesight defective? :lol:

I drive quickly at times though rarely above the speed limit except on motorways where the majority of normal trafic flow is around 80 and it's surely preferable (and safer) than sitting at 50 or 60 in the middle or outside lane with a jam of vehicles bumper to bumper. I do rigidly adhere to the limits in built up areas despite the fact that it's blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that some of the limits are not justifyable. I also drive defensivelyu and firmly believe that it should be a mandatory part of learning to drive.

Those 2300 caught by the camera deserve it irrespective of the limit being wrong for the road, they exceeded the limit and got zapped. The speed signs are actually in an unsafe position and should be extended further around the bend to give motorists more time to brake safely or or taken another 50 metres back to serve the same purpose (but then the van would have nowhere to hide / no revenue :roll: ). It isn't that many years ago that the vans were white with only a tiny logo and when approaching looked for all the world like a builders or delivery van. Only after a huge outcry about them having nothing to do with safety and everything to do with finance were they reluctantly signwritten to make them conspicuous - hence the need now to hide.

I don't need to chase the local authority regarding the hidden van as our councillor is doing so but perhaps not for the reason members here might think.
The campaign by our councillor is to discover why the camera is deployed there instead of the unsafe, main A road with regular speeding and a poor safety record and to correct that action and deploy where they will save lives and injuries =D> It's indisputable that the reason is purely revenue - end of story (hammer)

Bob


----------



## Baldhead (3 Dec 2013)

Bob this will be of use to you 

http://safespeedforlife.co.uk/contact/

Play around with this site, it actually tells you where the mobile cameras will be.

Baldhead


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Dec 2013)

:lol: If you think cameras are about safety, try standing a couple of hundred yards in front of one and waving speeding motorists down. See what plod'll do. After all, you're only thinking about public safety.


----------



## markturner (3 Dec 2013)

Jinx":3jmp6ojv said:


> I think an important point has been lost along the way here, even used Markturners thread as a negative rather that what I see it as, a positive. 'Laws are written for the lowest common denominator' What's wrong with that? Not everyone can drive as well as everyone else can they, for example a person who has only passed their test for a few months, or perhaps a person with reduced reaction time due to older age etc etc, and we all have to use the same roads. Making the safest laws for the greatest number seems a good solution to me. There will always be super brilliant drivers around like Markturner and there are facilities provided to match his needs too - fines and prisons. Jinx



Oh, I was wondering when the first one of these would appear.......you missed the whole point completely...do you think I am that conceited and full of myself that I am incapable of recognizing my own limitations or those of others? 
I have driven high performance cars and motorbikes to their limits, I have competed in races and regularly attend trackday events. I am a skilled and accomplished driver and much better placed than you to judge what I can and cant do safely thanks......
My 30 years plus experience of the roads, from behind the wheel of a car, handlebars of a bike, or a van have shown me that indeed, yes, I can drive safely yet fast, analyze the situations and act appropriately, without endangering other people. I dread to think what your idea of excitement involves if you want to see me jailed for exceeding the speed limit safely on a few occasions.......

I got stopped the other day doing 85 in 50....... they let me off with a warning, as "they could see I was not a danger to other road users" what does that tell you? Its all about the situation.

I did not expect my view to be popular, I was just wanted to express my deep held belief that the individual is often better placed than the state to decide whats right, sensible, and appropriate..........


----------



## Lons (3 Dec 2013)

Baldhead":13dl550l said:


> Bob this will be of use to you
> 
> http://safespeedforlife.co.uk/contact/
> 
> ...



Thanks Stew
I've seen that before though I never bother as I said I'm careful anyway. It is however not accurate e.g. It shows "active" mobile sites but the one on the stretch of road I refer to (outside a well known garden centre where there are regular serious accidents) has not been deployed in that 6 month period - why not?
Interesting also that is the only active site in a 30 mile stretch of the road :shock: 

Another interesting fact is that the fixed camera in our village caught so few speedsters that they removed the camera and it was only after a lot of campaigning that they recently put one back in. Before someone says nobody is speeding because they think theres a camers, that's rubbish as the road is used mainly by regular travellers and it's very common knowledge - bush telegraph and all that ( #-o don't mention Telegraph #-o )

Bob


----------



## Lons (3 Dec 2013)

phil.p":1zw57p8x said:


> :lol: If you think cameras are about safety, try standing a couple of hundred yards in front of one and waving speeding motorists down. See what plod'll do. After all, you're only thinking about public safety.


Somebody did that in Northumberland a few years ago if I remember, was arrested and charged with some sort of public order offence I think. Actions likely to endanger or distract motorists?
I don't know if he got off or not but the powers that be certainly stopped him doing it very quickly.

Bob


----------



## markturner (3 Dec 2013)

Jacob":q12cfpgg said:


> markturner":q12cfpgg said:
> 
> 
> > ........you drive at 70mph on the motorway, but if road conditions etc were bad, it would be unsafe. So blindly following the limits is not right.
> ...




I thought you would like that jacob........... :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jinx (3 Dec 2013)

markturner":2l736bkg said:


> Jinx":2l736bkg said:
> 
> 
> > I think an important point has been lost along the way here, even used Markturners thread as a negative rather that what I see it as, a positive. 'Laws are written for the lowest common denominator' What's wrong with that? Not everyone can drive as well as everyone else can they, for example a person who has only passed their test for a few months, or perhaps a person with reduced reaction time due to older age etc etc, and we all have to use the same roads. Making the safest laws for the greatest number seems a good solution to me. There will always be super brilliant drivers around like Markturner and there are facilities provided to match his needs too - fines and prisons. Jinx
> ...


I welcome your views, but do not feel obliged to agree. 

Kind regards, Jinx. :ho2


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

> I did not expect my view to be popular, I was just wanted to express my deep held belief that the individual is often better placed than the state to decide whats right, sensible, and appropriate..........


But who is to decide which individuals can make these wise decisions? You may just be a deluded silly person but not realise it. I think there a quite a few dangerous drivers who live in a little fantasy world of their own making.


----------



## markturner (4 Dec 2013)

Well, we seem to have touched on several points here, but clearly there are many of you here who feel feel very strongly that its morally wrong to break the law, any law. And there are many who are taking the moral high ground on the safety issue. Your choice, and I don't criticize you for it. We all live our lives how we see fit. But don't make me out to be some kind of anti social moron, just because I decide that I can drive my car to my own limits. I have never put anyone else's life in danger doing this, that's the whole point...I would only speed where it's SAFE !!!!!! Your problem is that you blindly accept that ALL speeding is unsafe.....ITS NOT!!!!

But , at some point, we all would break a law if we disagreed with it... You made light of my comparison with slavery and women's rights as a comparison with speeding and sure, they don't compare directly, but I was just using it as an example of laws being changed by public pressure when they are generally held to be wrong. Please, all those who pour down their disapproval and self righteous comments, can you honestly sit there and tell me YOU have NEVER broken the law? If the answer is yes, hats off to you and I am sure you must feel very warm and smug about that. However, can you honestly tell me you not oppose an unjust law, that was plainly wrong ? It's a peculiarly English malady, we seem to blindly accept whatever legislation is handed out to us, no matter how badly drafted, ill thought out or inappropriate it may be. And anyone who even questions this, is deemed to be irresponsible, antisocial and selfish. I include many road safety laws in this - for example, the plan to ban hands free phones....whats the difference between conducting a conversation with your wife and kids in the car, or listening to the radio and having a phone conversation? None...yet one is to be banned.......

Anyway, it's a moot point, I feel no need to justify my actions or views, simply putting them out there. I have always done whatever I consider to be the right thing for the situation and it's got me through life fine so far....without leaving a trail of bodies and maimed innocent children behind me......

And Jacob..."deluded silly person"? you can kiss my pineapple mate....


----------



## RogerS (4 Dec 2013)

Oh my...I hadn't quite realised that we had so many sanctimonious finger-wagging tsk-tsk'ing trilby-wearing goodie-goodies. 

Presumably these are the same folk who accelerate at a glacial pace. 

The same folk who will sit behind a lorry doing well under the speed limit but at such a distance that it prevents anyone from overtaking safely. Well, can't have that happening, can we. After all, to overtake that lorry safely would mean breaking the speed limit temporarily ...can't have that now, can we?


----------



## wizard (4 Dec 2013)

I think if anyone gets caught speeding three times they should bring back the reliant robin and make them drive one for three years while being banned from driving any other car. :lol:


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

markturner":1bqng2cl said:


> ........I would only speed where it's SAFE !!!!!!


That's what they all say. Roger is saying it too. It'd do you both good to get nabbed and have to do the speed awareness course


> Your problem is that you blindly accept that ALL speeding is unsafe.....ITS NOT!!!!
> .......


Nothing blind about it. Speed limits may often seem to be wrong but think of a better system of regulating speed.
In fact the cameras always seem to be sited where there is most risk such as straight suburban roads which look safe but are not.

What about driving on the left? Does that annoy you too? Another unnecessary rule for brilliant skilled drivers in their fast cars? :lol:
We get a lot of dead motorbikers around here, they thought they were top notch too and had big bikes and all the kit. It's been reduced a lot by 50 limits all over the place and camera vans. I was nearly witness to one a bit back - he shot past me at about 70 in a 50 zone - quite safely as the road was empty, but 5 miles on he smacked into the side of a reversing bin lorry.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Dec 2013)

RogerS":3flg1rgr said:


> Oh my...I hadn't quite realised that we had so many sanctimonious finger-wagging tsk-tsk'ing trilby-wearing goodie-goodies.
> 
> Presumably these are the same folk who accelerate at a glacial pace.
> 
> The same folk who will sit behind a lorry doing well under the speed limit but at such a distance that it prevents anyone from overtaking safely. Well, can't have that happening, can we. After all, to overtake that lorry safely would mean breaking the speed limit temporarily ...can't have that now, can we?


The same people who sit for a mile at 68mph trying to overtake someone doing 67mph.?


----------



## John Brown (4 Dec 2013)

Markturner, you only speed when it's safe!? What rubbish.
No, you only speed when you think it's safe. What happens if I start to think like that, when I am a terrible driver?
In my experience, the people who believe themselves to be good drivers are the ones I'd like to keep a good way away from. They may be better at fast cornering or overtaking, but they still scare me.
As to all the cr*p about more accidents because drivers are too preoccupied while looking at the speedo, are these same people who are such good drivers that the law doesn't apply to them? Strange, because I can stick to a pretty much constant speed using my ears, eyes and some sort of feedback mechanism from my right foot, and I'm one of the bad drivers. And anyway, if sticking to 30 is too hard because you have to speedo-watch, what's the solution? No limits at all? At least then you wouldn't be distracted by the dashboard.

Whoever said, earlier in this thread, that putting someone behind the wheel turns them into a nutter really nailed it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Dec 2013)

J.B. - what do you do then in 85mph nose to tail motorway traffic in bad weather? stop because you don't like it?
I know the speeding shouldn't happen, but it does.
It's the wrong speed in the wrong place at the wrong time that causes accidents, not just speed.
In the majority of accidents, bad driving is deemed to blame, not excess speed.


----------



## KevM (4 Dec 2013)

Wind the clock back a few years, substitute drink for speed, and the same arguments and opinions were rife. Drink drivers are now rightly seen as scum of the Earth.


----------



## John Brown (4 Dec 2013)

"J.B. - what do you do then in 85mph nose to tail motorway traffic in bad weather? stop because you don't like it?"

No, I call you or MarkTurner on my cellphone and ask what the correct speed should be for the prevailing conditions.

But seriously, are you suggesting that I should let the vehicle behind me dictate my speed?
Seriously?
That I couldn't just slow down to a speed that I think is safer(OK, I realize that I am now hypothetically relying on my judgment, but it's my judgement as to how much slower than the limit, rather than how much faster).

I'd love to see you defend yourself in court with that logic:
"Yes, thick fog, but the car behind was doing 85, so I had to keep up".
Seriously?


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

phil.p":31icjrft said:


> J.B. - what do you do then in 85mph nose to tail motorway traffic in bad weather? stop because you don't like it?.......


I slow down to a suitable speed. Not a problem but you do tend to get tailgated by tw|ats and I slow down a little more. And make for the inside lane if possible.


----------



## wizard (4 Dec 2013)

Still driving with 42 points on her licence: Woman is among nine motorists who have 30 or more and are still on the road

Despite being three times the ban threshold, the woman is still driving
Another eight have 30 or more points
7,621 people are still driving with 12 points or more on their licence
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...2-points-license-Woman-motorists-30-road.html


----------



## MARK.B. (4 Dec 2013)

In the not to distant future you will not be able to speed even if you want too because all vehicles will be controlled by big brother via satellite ,but look on the bright side by then only the wealthy will be able to afford to take a car on the road and most if not all of us will be dead n buried :ho2 :ho2 :ho2


----------



## dc_ni (4 Dec 2013)

MARK.B.":13hcpb89 said:


> In the not to distant future you will not be able to speed even if you want too because all vehicles will be controlled by big brother via satellite ,but look on the bright side by then only the wealthy will be able to afford to take a car on the road and most if not all of us will be dead n buried :ho2 :ho2 :ho2




Big brother won't be controlling the car via satellite, the car will be driving itself. Lot of the car companies are doing research into autonomous vehicles.


----------



## markturner (4 Dec 2013)

@ John Brown - if you* are* such a rubbish driver, get off the road, and make it safer for people who can actually manage to co ordinate brain and body properly and drive a car as its supposed to be driven. That's half the problem with the roads as well, they are full of really rubbish drivers.....You think just because you drive slowly, you are safe??? WRONG, WRONG WRONG you have probably been the cause of many accidents, as you potter along in your little bubble of non awareness.....

I give up.........


----------



## bugbear (4 Dec 2013)

John Brown":qwyz4uq8 said:


> In my experience, the people who believe themselves to be good drivers are the ones I'd like to keep a good way away from.



Science!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

BugBear


----------



## John Brown (4 Dec 2013)

markturner":2s6hrfox said:


> @ John Brown - if you* are* such a rubbish driver, get off the road, and make it safer for people who can actually manage to co ordinate brain and body properly and drive a car as its supposed to be driven. That's half the problem with the roads as well, they are full of really rubbish drivers.....You think just because you drive slowly, you are safe??? WRONG, WRONG WRONG you have probably been the cause of many accidents, as you potter along in your little bubble of non awareness.....
> 
> I give up.........



You're making a lot of assumptions there with your ad hominem ranting!  

But you haven't really addressed the problem of what you think I should do if it's foggy and the car behind me is doing 85.
It was you, after all, who conjured up this scenario.
[Edit] Just realized that it was not you, but Phil.P who made that remark. Sorry for the misattribution, and over to you, Phil, for the answer please.[/Edit]


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Dec 2013)

If you are in the middle of hundreds of cars doing 85mph, and you think you can be self righteous and slow everything to 70mph I hope I'm nowhere near you. And as for getting into the inside lane, how is it proposed that that is done? The lanes inside you are doing 85mph. In these circumstances there is only one safe speed - 85mph. Reality happens. Sorry.
I'm sure you'd get a round of applause after the multiple pile up.


----------



## KevM (4 Dec 2013)

How do you find yourself in the middle of a group of cars doing 85 in fog, unless your judgement is faulty? I thought the 'uberdrivers' among us were omniscient and could perfectly judge events and conditions, and thus would never find themselves driving inappropriately. If a driver can't predict that pockets of fog can develop then that driver has no place on British roads, also anybody who can be bullied into driving inappropriately certainly doesn't belong behind the wheel.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Dec 2013)

I can easily be bullied by several hundred vehicles around me. I would be insane to think any other.
You find yourself in that sort of traffic primarily because you wish to go where they are heading, and a motorway isn't the best place to do a "u" turn if you don't like the situation.


----------



## KevM (4 Dec 2013)

Interesting, so you're relying on their judgement to make your driving decisions, sounds like you might make an ideal candidate for a self-driving car.


----------



## John Brown (4 Dec 2013)

phil.p":2szvkzsq said:


> If you are in the middle of hundreds of cars doing 85mph, and you think you can be self righteous and slow everything to 70mph I hope I'm nowhere near you. And as for getting into the inside lane, how is it proposed that that is done? The lanes inside you are doing 85mph. In these circumstances there is only one safe speed - 85mph. Reality happens. Sorry.
> I'm sure you'd get a round of applause after the multiple pile up.



I have to say that I've never found myself in that situation, for which I'm grateful. Probably because I'm not such a good driver as you. I'm the one driving at 25 MPH in a bubble of non-awareness, causing accidents all around me

But are you not presenting a good argument for obeying the speed limits, in the first place?


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

phil.p":2xf8qibt said:


> If you are in the middle of hundreds of cars doing 85mph, and you think you can be self righteous and slow everything to 70mph I hope I'm nowhere near you. And as for getting into the inside lane, how is it proposed that that is done? The lanes inside you are doing 85mph. In these circumstances there is only one safe speed - 85mph. Reality happens. Sorry.
> I'm sure you'd get a round of applause after the multiple pile up.


What happens as you slow down is that the car behind slows down as well (and the one behind that etc). In fact most of us slow down not just to avoid hitting the vehicle in front but to maintain the 2 chevron gap, as a matter of course without giving it a thought. Eventually there will be a gap if you want to switch lanes.
If you find this problematic I suggest you avoid fast roads altogether you don't seem to have had much experience of this sort of thing - or have a practice in fine weather.


----------



## Jinx (4 Dec 2013)

Call me naïve or simple minded but none of the comments so far have changed my opinion from my first thoughts, that there are drivers of various skill levels, experience and aptitude on the roads and the laws need to cut across every drivers ability. But either end of that spectrum is catered for that way too. 

The exceptionally good drivers will need to be patient with the less skilled - if they choose not to then so be it, if they feel they are too good to be restricted by the law then bring on the day when they need to explain that to a Magistrate. I think we all know that whatever bluster they publish on here they will not act the same if taken to Court about their driving 'skills'. 

And at the other end there is a driving test - which requires the minimum allowed driving standard to be evidenced during that test, which enables one to continue to develop driving skills without a qualified driver with them after then.

The 'P' plates are a good idea for those who have recently passed their test, perhaps there should also be a 'A' plate for the very very very good drivers, the 'A' could stand for 'Accomplished', or perhaps something else? Jinx :wink:


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

The 2 chevron gap...... I've never seen anyone follow that rule, even traffic cars.


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

RogerS":2hrayhuc said:


> Oh my...I hadn't quite realised that we had so many sanctimonious finger-wagging tsk-tsk'ing trilby-wearing goodie-goodies.
> 
> Presumably these are the same folk who accelerate at a glacial pace.
> 
> The same folk who will sit behind a lorry doing well under the speed limit but at such a distance that it prevents anyone from overtaking safely. Well, can't have that happening, can we. After all, to overtake that lorry safely would mean breaking the speed limit temporarily ...can't have that now, can we?



Don't forget the fog lights. They must be on AT ALL TIMES, no matter what time of year it is.


----------



## markturner (4 Dec 2013)

I always keep at least 2 cars distance.....one of my pet hates is being tailgated. But then, I am a "superbrilliant driver"


And what about all those Police, Ambulance and Fire service drivers who break speed limits when in the line of their duties? Are they "Unsafe" ? What is your judgement on their skills? Does the fact that they are "the law" suddenly make them OK to do the same thing I was doing? Ah, but I hear you say, they have training and are skilled drivers.........So that's OK? Surely all the same reasons why you consider it unsafe for me apply to them?


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

The problem with the 2 car/2 chevron gap is that it only works in theory.

If you leave a gap, some pipper will pull into the gap. 
So you ease back and recreate the gap. Then someone else pulls in.
Before you know it, you're back on your driveway.
Lol


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

benjimano":e29kir3m said:


> The 2 chevron gap...... I've never seen anyone follow that rule, even traffic cars.


Time you started doing it then. It's safer and it makes driving more relaxed as you don't have to react quite so fast if brake lights go on, or accelerate to get back to bumper to bumper (saves fuel) , which means in turn gives the driver behind some extra thinking time. No brainer really. 
The only drawback is you get super brilliant uber drivers (my buttocks!) overtaking and undertaking to get into your gap so you have to stay cool, back off and just feel sorry for them.


----------



## KevM (4 Dec 2013)

markturner":1hr93i2c said:


> I always keep at least 2 cars distance.....one of my pet hates is being tailgated. But then, I am a "superbrilliant driver"



And clearly as a "superbrilliant driver" you scale this up to the recommended 24 car lengths at 70 mph, or never exceed 20mph?

Source: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg ... 188029.pdf


----------



## John Brown (4 Dec 2013)

markturner":30w6wni5 said:


> I always keep at least 2 cars distance.....one of my pet hates is being tailgated. But then, I am a "superbrilliant driver"


You must be some sort of film star then, surrounded by stretched limos. The recommended gap is two seconds, which at 70MPH(assuming you ever drive that slowly) is about 200 feet. Talking of feet, I think you've just shot yourself in yours.


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

KevM":3fsxw2aw said:


> markturner":3fsxw2aw said:
> 
> 
> > I always keep at least 2 cars distance.....one of my pet hates is being tailgated. But then, I am a "superbrilliant driver"
> ...




Unless the car in front has the ability to stop dead in less than 1 second, then this graph is redundant as a 'recommended gap distance' guide, which it doesn't even say it is.


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

Jacob":23bcyc01 said:


> benjimano":23bcyc01 said:
> 
> 
> > The 2 chevron gap...... I've never seen anyone follow that rule, even traffic cars.
> ...




Like I said above, it only works in theory.


----------



## markturner (4 Dec 2013)

I beg your pardon, I meant 2 seconds, not 2 car lengths..... I think if you count the two chevrons it's approximately that.....When I did my advanced driving course with a police instructor, that's what he recommended......it was however over 25 years ago, so recommendations may have changed. Anyway, common sense dictates whatever speed you are doing, you allow room to stop if the car in front does so. Simples


----------



## KevM (4 Dec 2013)

benjimano":1ljgrakb said:


> Unless the car in front has the ability to stop dead in less than 1 second, then this graph is redundant as a 'recommended gap distance' guide, which it doesn't even say it is.



Clearly you've never seen a tractor shoot onto the road from a field without warning. Also, quite clearly, the graph doesn't apply to uberdrivers, just the poor schmoes they're forced to share a road with.


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

benjimano":1uc41wu4 said:


> Jacob":1uc41wu4 said:
> 
> 
> > benjimano":1uc41wu4 said:
> ...


It works in practice, but only for those who do it!
I take it you are another inexperienced motorway driver like phil.p. Have a bit of practice in fine weather but read the highway code first!


----------



## joethedrummer (4 Dec 2013)

Hello,,
Just had a quick scroll thro" to see where you fellas live,, so assuming you primarily drive in your own locality mostly,,It will only be BugBear and Jinx (who has only just come down here so must fit in with us), who I might come across when out giving the mighty Kawasaki an airing,,,,,,makes me feel better not having to contend with the rest of you,,,,
,,,,joe,,,,


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

No, I'm your worse nightmare.
You would be tutting like there was no tomorrow.


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

Graph is OK in moving traffic but might not help if something in front is stationary, or crossing the road, but that is very unlikely on a motorway.

"Some motorways may have special
chevron markings in the centre of the
traffic lanes. These are spaced 40 metres
apart, and keeping two marks between
your vehicle and the one in front will
provide a safe driving distance at 70 mph.
There will be signs advising you to check
your distance, keep two chevrons apart
and keep your distance."


----------



## markturner (4 Dec 2013)

KevM":sc0ya1iv said:


> benjimano":sc0ya1iv said:
> 
> 
> > Unless the car in front has the ability to stop dead in less than 1 second, then this graph is redundant as a 'recommended gap distance' guide, which it doesn't even say it is.
> ...




So whats the minimum recommended speed you should be doing to avoid these dangerous sounding tractors? 20? 30? 10? I am curious. 

Again, you miss the point.....if you were on a road where there was for example, an opening, or a junction or something that indicated a possible hazard, you cover the brakes and slow to a speed that will enable you to react safely if someone or something pulls out of said junction. Same with any potential hazard on the road...a cyclist, a slow vehicle etc........If you are on a motorway, it's empty, the weather is good and you want to put some speed on, you could very safely drive at 90 or 100 mph in complete safety....then, lets say the weather changes or the road gets crowded etc...you slow down to the appropriate speed.....did you notice that word ? Appropriate ?* Its all about reading the conditions and possible hazards on the road ahead. *No one is suggesting that you can drive fast everywhere and nor would I....Just where its SAFE.....and APPROPRIATE...Got it?????????? and if that happens to be a little above the recommended speed limit for that bit of open road...So What!!!!!

I have to say though that in all my years, I have never seen a tractor leave the field as described...but I do live in London, so maybe that's why.


----------



## John Brown (4 Dec 2013)

" Anyway, common sense dictates whatever speed you are doing, you allow room to stop if the car in front does so."
Well, I'm glad we agree on something. Maybe you'd like to tell 90% of the drivers in the right-hand lane of the M25 about this, as they seem to think it's one car length at 80MPH.


----------



## markturner (4 Dec 2013)

Exactly, the roads are choc a bloc with bad and inexperienced drivers


----------



## Jinx (4 Dec 2013)

Hi Markturner, You likely have gone past some tractors as described but you were probably going too fast to notice... And instead of the chevron markings it is good to use the phrase, 'Only a fool breaks the 2 second rule'... And regarding your question about the minimum speed, 'to avoid the dangerous sounding tractors' when I used to teach Advanced Driving Skills the answer to such questions was always, 'You need to be able to stop in the distance you see to be clear' so it will vary depending on the road conditions. And you are never 'Completely safe' but you are safer when, 'Driving at a constant speed in a straight line'. Jinx


----------



## powertools (4 Dec 2013)

Looks like this thread could well get longer than a sharpening thread with as much bull s**t thrown in.


----------



## KevM (4 Dec 2013)

markturner":1ipx0nud said:


> Again, you miss the point.....



I don't miss your point - I simply reject it as self-justifying rot, there's a difference. You choose to disregard those laws that you find inconvenient, stop whining about it and crack on!



markturner":1ipx0nud said:


> I have to say though that in all my years, I have never seen a tractor leave the field as described...but I do live in London, so maybe that's why.



All too common around here I'm afraid, and all too frequently accompanied by mangled cars and bikes. Personally, my worst encounter was with a tractor that parted company with its transporter on the Autobahn one wet and windy night - surprisingly bouncy!

You seem to have developed a problem with your keyboard sticking - have you tried Spleen-O-Cleen? :lol:


----------



## MMUK (4 Dec 2013)

KevM":2lk2mbue said:


> benjimano":2lk2mbue said:
> 
> 
> > Unless the car in front has the ability to stop dead in less than 1 second, then this graph is redundant as a 'recommended gap distance' guide, which it doesn't even say it is.
> ...



I can relate to this one KevM. My ex-fiancee was wiped out by a tractor & trailer pulling out without looking, she had no time to avoid it and went straight into the side. I managed to drop my bike and avoid it myself but unfortunately my bike slid on into her at a rapid rate and killed her  I've never been to that stretch of the A483 since. It still haunts me 8 years later.


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

I once followed a police traffic car who in turn was following a 'Jacob' for about 5 miles.
I don't know who was more agitated, me or the police officers.
When an opportunity to overtake came, they passed very slowly and gave him the strongest 'Paddington Bear Hard Stare' I've ever seen.


----------



## MMUK (4 Dec 2013)

I've some mates in the Met, some are even as high as Inspector in rank. you know what they tell me every now and again when we get onto the subject of "road racing"?

"If you want to drive/ride like a cock (ie; too fast) take off your numberplate and don't stop. If you can get onto the motorway and into three figure speeds then traffic won't pursue you due to H&S."

I don't know how true all of that is but I do know that some of them do it, especially the ones with high end bikes.


----------



## joethedrummer (4 Dec 2013)

MMUK":2uydc573 said:


> KevM":2uydc573 said:
> 
> 
> > benjimano":2uydc573 said:
> ...


MM,, no words are adequate,, sorry,, wish I hadn"t been flippant earlier,, 
,,joe,,,,,


----------



## MMUK (4 Dec 2013)

joethedrummer":18gjfopg said:


> MM,, no words are adequate,, sorry,, wish I hadn"t been flippant earlier,,
> ,,joe,,,,,




Don't worry about it bud, you weren't to know. If I was to take offence at every comment someone made because they didn't know, I'd be in a rubber padded room by now.


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

MMUK":3fnxbgwc said:


> I've some mates in the Met, some are even as high as Inspector in rank. you know what they tell me every now and again when we get onto the subject of "road racing"?
> 
> "If you want to drive/ride like a cock (ie; too fast) take off your numberplate and don't stop. If you can get onto the motorway and into three figure speeds then traffic won't pursue you due to H&S."
> 
> I don't know how true all of that is but I do know that some of them do it, especially the ones with high end bikes.



I should imagine it's quite true. Once they get into the 'silly speeds' the cars back off and the chopper takes over, providing there is one available.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the eurocopter does 170mph or there abouts.
There is no outrunning one of those.


----------



## MMUK (4 Dec 2013)

benjimano":37oy48s6 said:


> I'm sure I read somewhere that the eurocopter does 170mph or there abouts.
> There is no outrunning one of those.




I don't know. The Hyabusa in unrestricted form does well over 200mph, insane I know! I also had my Thunderace tuned and saw an indicated 194mph at Santa Pod.


----------



## Baldhead (4 Dec 2013)

Hey Bob, my god 7 pages and most of it rubbish, I am qualified to say its rubbish because I'm the best driver here, I was until recently trained to the highest standard available. I wasn't a police pursuit driver, nor was I an advance driver, no I was a fire engine driver, so I was trained to drive at high speed on both country and town roads, a vehicle which weighed several tons, now that must mean I'm the best driver here, surely............. well it doesn't, I am human like us all, I broke the law by speeding, which I have no doubt many of us are guilty of, I have also seen the aftermath of so called 'good' drivers mistakes, and had the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces ( and I mean that literally). I have been shocked by people saying, they are good enough drivers to exceed the speed limit, that they are safe to do so because they used to race cars and or motorbikes, on the track everyone is going the same way, there will be no diesel spills, and the other drivers are possibly as good if not better than you are.
Someone said they were caught doing 85 in a 50 limit, if that is true and I must say I doubt it, (but unfortunately neither of us can prove the other is wrong) my understanding of the law is if your caught doing 30mph over the speed limit for that road it brings with it an automatic ban, which it should.
I would welcome some comments from anyone who has recently attended a recent speed awareness course, because quite frankly, I think there are several previous posters that need to do one (speed awareness course I mean)

Baldhead

Edit: it's now 8 pages!


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

MMUK":2ef4msf6 said:


> benjimano":2ef4msf6 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I read somewhere that the eurocopter does 170mph or there abouts.
> ...



A helicopter doesn't have to slow or go round corners. It also has a heat signature camera on board.

As for the 'busa, I read an article about one of them and a blackbird racing a TGV train France. They were modified and overtook it. Nuts.


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

Baldhead":c5w4xin2 said:


> ......
> I would welcome some comments from anyone who has recently attended a recent speed awareness course, because quite frankly, I think there are several previous posters that need to do one (speed awareness course I mean)
> 
> Baldhead
> ...


I agree. 
I had to do speed awareness course. I was quite impressed by the quality of the presentation and the information put out. I was never a "clever" :roll: driver like Mark but had been caught doing 35 ish in a 30 zone. Lack of attention I admit. I drive much more carefully, use cruise control a lot, and annoy Clarkson fans behind me. I once made the mistake of doing a V sign over my shoulder at a tailgater but he got extremely angry and there could have been a very unpleasant incident. Some people shouldn't be on the roads at all.


----------



## Lons (4 Dec 2013)

benjimano":2z1cmiuj said:


> The problem with the 2 car/2 chevron gap is that it only works in theory.
> 
> If you leave a gap, some pipper will pull into the gap.
> So you ease back and recreate the gap. Then someone else pulls in.
> ...




:lol: :lol: But true :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

Lons":1o6em4z2 said:


> benjimano":1o6em4z2 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the 2 car/2 chevron gap is that it only works in theory.
> ...


But it's not true, it works really well. I do it all the time and yes you do occasionally get the odd nutter, but not so many as to cause a problem. 
You obviously haven't tried it.


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

I drive over 100,000 miles a year so I see a fair amount of the road and it happens all the time.
You leave a gap and they're in.
Even when there is no gap, they're in.


----------



## markturner (4 Dec 2013)

Jinx":jq6g5yt3 said:


> Hi Markturner, You likely have gone past some tractors as described but you were probably going too fast to notice... And instead of the chevron markings it is good to use the phrase, 'Only a fool breaks the 2 second rule'... And regarding your question about the minimum speed, 'to avoid the dangerous sounding tractors' when I used to teach Advanced Driving Skills the answer to such questions was always, 'You need to be able to stop in the distance you see to be clear' so it will vary depending on the road conditions. And you are never 'Completely safe' but you are safer when, 'Driving at a constant speed in a straight line'. Jinx





Ummmmm...wasn't that what I just said? If there is a potential hazard ahead, I am ready.....maybe why in over 35 years of driving and hundreds of thousands of miles , I have never had anything more than a 15 MPH rear end shunt and one very minor spill on my bike on cold tyres.....

What if, say next year, they decided to make the speed limit 50 on motorways and 30 everywhere else for example. All you people who argue sticking to the limit is safe and exceeding it is not........for the last X years, you have been driving on the road at a "safe" higher limit...now, its suddenly cut by what I described. Does that suddenly make all that driving you did at the previous limit "Unsafe"? And you Unsafe drivers? And what if they INCREASED the limit to say 100 mph on motorways.....(hypothetical I know, but its the logic in your arguments I am trying to understand) Would you all suddenly agree that it was safe? 

Just because someone draws a line in the sand and says this side is safe and that side is not, it does not make it so. Its just what that person said, nothing more.


----------



## Jacob (4 Dec 2013)

benjimano":f0n8qr9h said:


> I drive over 100,000 miles a year so I see a fair amount of the road and it happens all the time.
> You leave a gap and they're in.
> Even when there is no gap, they're in.


It happens, but not all the time.


----------



## Lons (4 Dec 2013)

> I have to say though that in all my years, I have never seen a tractor leave the field as described...but I do live in London, so maybe that's why.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All too common around here I'm afraid, and all too frequently accompanied by mangled cars and bikes. Personally, my worst encounter was with a tractor that parted company with its transporter on the Autobahn one wet and windy night - surprisingly bouncy!



Maybe we're looking at this from the wrong angle and it's the tractor drivers who should be targeted.

We get a lot of tractors around here and I've never seen one pull out without due care but they, along with JCBs are a real nuisance. Drove just this evening at rush hour in very heavy traffic along A1 dual carriageway to encounter huge tailbacks, cars and lorries braking suddenly and very unsafe situation (reality - not theory is what happens day to day). Cause was a JCB driver doing 20mph, headphones on and oblivious to the problems he was causing. Clearly wasn't in a hurry to get home :lol: 



> Jacob: I was never a "clever" driver like Mark but had been caught doing 35 ish in a 30 zone.


 * Ahem - 3 times * :shock: 



> Jacob: But it's not true, it works really well. I do it all the time and yes you do occasionally get the odd nutter, but not so many as to cause a problem.
> You obviously haven't tried it.



Nothing obvious about it Jacob, you're spouting self righteous bullsh*t as usual. Of course I've done it and I try to keep a safe distance at all times. The 2 second rule and the chevrons are there as a guide only anyway. Stopping distances are dependant upon several factors such as:- driver reaction ability, road conditions, type and age of vehicle, type and codition of tyres and brakes etc. It isn't a rule it's a one size fits all and I know my car and my ability allow me to stop quicker than many on the road whilst not as good as others. e.g. My 2 wheel drive Audi is good but not as good as the quatro version of the same car.

Bob


----------



## Lons (4 Dec 2013)

MMUK":35qamegl said:


> I can relate to this one KevM. My ex-fiancee was wiped out by a tractor & trailer pulling out without looking, she had no time to avoid it and went straight into the side. I managed to drop my bike and avoid it myself but unfortunately my bike slid on into her at a rapid rate and killed her  I've never been to that stretch of the A483 since. It still haunts me 8 years later.



That's a truly awful thing to happen, I hope they prosecuted and jailed the tractor driver for dangerous driving. 
Just shows how vulnerable bikers are, it probably wouldn't have been fatal on 4 wheels. I hope the haunting fades with time.

I had / have a full motorcycle licence but it's a very long time since I took to 2 wheels and no way I would on todays roads

Bob


----------



## MickCheese (4 Dec 2013)

Does anyone know if the cost of maintaining a 60mph road is more than maintaining a 40mph road. Is the level of maintenance more stringent?

I suspect dropping the speed limits has something to do with cost saving. 

Mick


----------



## Lons (4 Dec 2013)

benjimano":1kb1r7e1 said:


> I drive over 100,000 miles a year so I see a fair amount of the road and it happens all the time.
> You leave a gap and they're in.
> Even when there is no gap, they're in.



Well not near _Middleton by Wirksworth_ apparently :lol: :lol:


----------



## Walter Hall (4 Dec 2013)

Hmmm. Eight pages of people attempting to justify their own driving styles mostly by means of spouting either pompous tripe or self righteous tosh. 

Bob's point in the opening post surely is that the deployment of the mobile camera appears to be targeted at income generation rather than safety. I know the roads he refers to very well and can only agree. The camera would, as he suggests, be better located near accident black spots within a mile or so of its location in the disused petrol station. 

It might then deter the shever clites from doing 80mph past the garden centre in question. It would not however prevent dozy old buffers from pulling out in front of traffic doing the legal limit of 60mph.


----------



## JustBen (4 Dec 2013)

Some of the road laws are out of date and nonsense.

For instance.
All vehicles over 7.5t are restricted to 60/56mph (I can't remember which)..... Except for buses and coaches which weight 18t+
How is that logical?
Presumably they are restricted to reduce damage that would occur in an accident so how is a bus or coach different?

So it's ok for 18t+ of coach to be flying down the motorway at 70mph but not the little 7.5t flatbed.....hmmm


----------



## Lons (4 Dec 2013)

Baldhead":474r8ejd said:


> Hey Bob, my god 7 pages and most of it rubbish, Baldhead Edit: it's now 8 pages!



It's going to go around in circles until a mod says "enough"

My original point that a camera van is being used in a "safe" but profitable area instead of a less profitable but unsafe road to save lives and injuries seems like a million years ago  

Bob

Edit: Sorry Walter, just seen your post which must have crossed mine. Have been working in Morpeth today. have a long wheelbase van and an 8 x 4 twin axel trailer. Was doing 55 past Heighleygates when a souped up corsa (well tiddly engine but bodykit and soilpipe exhaust) overtook me across toi chevrons with oncoming traffic. Four young lads very lucky not to have caused a major accident. Speed van or patrol car would have been in the old entrance and caught him. You will know well just how many incidents there are at that location :?


----------



## Walter Hall (4 Dec 2013)

Yep, At Heighley Gate we have long slope up from the A1 in one direction with slow lorries ( and sensible van drivers) for the speed merchants to overtake and a long straight from the other direction for them to get up to three figure speeds as they overtake the 40mph sloths that have been frustrating them for the last ten miles. The location itself is a staggered junction with a garden centre full of pensioners and mums taking their kids to see Santa Claus on one side and a fair few tractors thrown into the equation. 

At the disused petrol station we have a long sweeping curve with wide verges and good visibilty for half a mile in both directions and much lower traffic volumes.

Where would you (any of you, not just Bob) put the camera to have the greatest impact on safety?


----------



## Baldhead (4 Dec 2013)

Lons":306e26lf said:


> Baldhead":306e26lf said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Bob, my god 7 pages and most of it rubbish, Baldhead Edit: it's now 8 pages!
> ...


Bob I had the misfortune of being in duty one morning when a taxi driver went underneath an HGV which had parked up in the lay-by opposite the garden centre waiting for it to open, two or three kiddies in the car, one in a child seat so they were sitting at the same height as the driver, the outcome was horrible, the HGV driver was crossing over the road and the taxi's roof was ripped off by the chassis, police blamed HGV driver saying he should not have turned right out of the lay-by and also said the taxi was possibly speeding (no skid marks)
One part of the job I don't miss.

Baldhead


----------



## RogerS (4 Dec 2013)

Here's a thought. The country lane that our track exits onto has a speed limit of 60mph. No-one but a lunatic would drive at that speed. They could though because that is the speed limit. But most people don't. Most people exercise their commonsense and judgement and drive at a more suitable speed. A speed to suit the road and weather conditions. A speed to be able to see far enough ahead to stop if needed. So the 60mph speed limit is irrelevant.

Now apply the same argument to the rest of our roads.

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## Lons (4 Dec 2013)

Baldhead":2yz0csqy said:


> Bob I had the misfortune of being in duty one morning when a taxi driver went underneath an HGV which had parked up in the lay-by opposite the garden centre waiting for it to open, two or three kiddies in the car, one in a child seat so they were sitting at the same height as the driver, the outcome was horrible, the HGV driver was crossing over the road and the taxi's roof was ripped off by the chassis, police blamed HGV driver saying he should not have turned right out of the lay-by and also said the taxi was possibly speeding (no skid marks)
> One part of the job I don't miss. Baldhead



I don't envy you one bit, horrible job especially if like me you can't stand the sight of blood :lol: Just one of the many and regular accidents on that few hundred yard stretch.

As an aside, it's about 13 or 14 years since my daughter was quite badly injured in a serious accident at the top of the moor which closed the road for several hours. The firemen had to cut her out, were you at the scene?
The worst part of that accident was that she was late from her shift at the hospital and we saw the blue lights from our house. My wife "knew" it was her and was really panicked until we managed to get to the scene and found she was alive. A week or so in ICU is bearable as are scars - she was so lucky!

Speed wasn't an issue in that accident BTW as the police estimated she was doing about 40mph but it was her fault as she was extremely tired following a 12 hour shift at the hospital and drifted just over the white line as an oncoming van did the same. Her reactions were impaired and she wasn't quick enough to avoid a collision.

Bob


----------



## MMUK (4 Dec 2013)

benjimano":1667imha said:


> Even when there is no gap, they're in.




I have to admit there are plenty of times when I have to do this myself to get anywhere. So many people resent you filtering in in front of them :roll: 

Of course it's always handy having either a big white van or my Twingo 133 shoebox. I'm either driving something big enough to make people think twice or small enough to fit under a Landy bumper :lol:


----------



## MMUK (4 Dec 2013)

MickCheese":3v28h2gw said:


> Does anyone know if the cost of maintaining a 60mph road is more than maintaining a 40mph road. Is the level of maintenance more stringent?
> 
> I suspect dropping the speed limits has something to do with cost saving.
> 
> Mick




On the 60/70mph roads there's the cost of safety barriers to consider that you don't normally get on lower limit roads


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Dec 2013)

It's not constant speeds that cause the wear, it's rapid acceleration and hard braking. Exactly what varying speed limits in many areas do.


----------



## Walter Hall (5 Dec 2013)

RogerS":2a0bnnw3 said:


> Here's a thought. The country lane that our track exits onto has a speed limit of 60mph. No-one but a lunatic would drive at that speed. They could though because that is the speed limit. But most people don't. Most people exercise their commonsense and judgement and drive at a more suitable speed. A speed to suit the road and weather conditions. A speed to be able to see far enough ahead to stop if needed. So the 60mph speed limit is irrelevant.
> 
> Now apply the same argument to the rest of our roads.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.



A valid point Roger, but I regret that you are premature in awarding yourself game, set and match for it. Why? Because it relies upon people exercising their common sense and judgement. Even if most do there will always be those who either have none or choose not to exercise it. Hence the speed limits remain a necessity.


----------



## Jacob (5 Dec 2013)

RogerS":bi0j6cyn said:


> Here's a thought. The country lane that our track exits onto has a speed limit of 60mph. No-one but a lunatic would drive at that speed. They could though because that is the speed limit. But most people don't. Most people exercise their commonsense and judgement and drive at a more suitable speed. A speed to suit the road and weather conditions. A speed to be able to see far enough ahead to stop if needed. So the 60mph speed limit is irrelevant.
> 
> Now apply the same argument to the rest of our roads.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.


Specific speed limits are applied on roads which are prone to accidents, which of course are made worse by high speeds. Your lane isn't prone to accidents, hence the absence of a limit. If there was a problem with accidents (funny bends, narrow bridges, whatever) you might expect appropriate notices, not necessarily speed limits if speeding isn't an issue.


----------



## RogerS (5 Dec 2013)

Walter Hall":3bg004vg said:


> RogerS":3bg004vg said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a thought. The country lane that our track exits onto has a speed limit of 60mph. No-one but a lunatic would drive at that speed. They could though because that is the speed limit. But most people don't. Most people exercise their commonsense and judgement and drive at a more suitable speed. A speed to suit the road and weather conditions. A speed to be able to see far enough ahead to stop if needed. So the 60mph speed limit is irrelevant.
> ...



No, you're not following my line of reasoning. It is perfectly clear to me that in the example I have provided that the speed limit is irrelevant. If anyone does not exercise their common sense then they are also going to ignore the speed limit. The speed limit is irrelevant. It is driving at the right speed for the road and weather conditions.


----------



## Walter Hall (5 Dec 2013)

RogerS":zsqlhpdq said:


> Walter Hall":zsqlhpdq said:
> 
> 
> > No, you're not following my line of reasoning. It is perfectly clear to me that in the example I have provided that the speed limit is irrelevant. If anyone does not exercise their common sense then they are also going to ignore the speed limit. The speed limit is irrelevant. It is driving at the right speed for the road and weather conditions.



OK fair enough. In the example you have given the speed limit is most probably inappropriate and thus irrelevant in the context of travelling safely along that stretch of road. I also agree that in the wider context of driving safely speed limits and speed itself are only two factors amongst many. 

My point however is that this does not render all speed limits irrelevant _per se_. If we did not have speed limits then, in the event of an incident occurring, the decision as to whether or not the speed someone involved was travelling at was appropriate or not would then come down to the subjective judgement of the law enforcement agencies against that of the person involved. An unnecessary strain on the enforcement system and your and my taxes that is avoided by the blunt but necessary instrument of speed limits. Speed limits also give a broad indication, to those who are unable to judge sensibly for themselves, of what might approximate to a reasonable speed on a particular stretch of road. 

And once again we are digressing some way from Bob's original point about the appropriate location of temporary cameras. I apologise for my part in this digression.


----------



## bugbear (5 Dec 2013)

RogerS":8wb0qkq0 said:


> No, you're not following my line of reasoning. It is perfectly clear to me that in the example I have provided that the speed limit is irrelevant. If anyone does not exercise their common sense then they are also going to ignore the speed limit. The speed limit is irrelevant. It is driving at the right speed for the road and weather conditions.



The speed limit is extremely relevant to the possibility of bringing them before a magistrate for breaking the law, and giving them large fines and ultimately taking away their license.

BugBear


----------



## RogerS (5 Dec 2013)

bugbear":2c2ngg9a said:


> RogerS":2c2ngg9a said:
> 
> 
> > No, you're not following my line of reasoning. It is perfectly clear to me that in the example I have provided that the speed limit is irrelevant. If anyone does not exercise their common sense then they are also going to ignore the speed limit. The speed limit is irrelevant. It is driving at the right speed for the road and weather conditions.
> ...



No it isn't. Please read what I posted.


----------



## JustBen (5 Dec 2013)

Whilst the topic of speed cameras and other things partly related are being discussed, could anyone tell me exactly how average speed cameras work?

ie... How do they calculate it?

For example if there are 4 cameras on a stretch (A, B, C & D) 

If you go through camera A to D, do they calculate your average between A & D or A-B B-C C-D?


----------



## RogerS (5 Dec 2013)

benjimano":2l4ptkvr said:


> Whilst the topic of speed cameras and other things partly related are being discussed, could anyone tell me exactly how average speed cameras work?
> 
> ie... How do they calculate it?
> 
> ...



I'd guess that it is average speed between any two cameras. They really are a pain in the butt when you are driving down a motorway at 5am on a Sunday morning and nary a workman to be seen. No other drivers either. But I guess someone will come along and say that a tractor might pull out or a rabbit jump out onto the carriageway. 

More info here


----------



## Harbo (5 Dec 2013)

Roger you are mixing up Speed Limits with safe/sensible/suitable driving speeds?

On Derestricted Roads the Maximum Legal speed for Single Carriageways is 60mph for Dual Carriageways the limit is 70.
This does not mean that you should travel at these speeds whilst travelling on them - you should drive according to the conditions, and at a speed that you can stop safely within the area you can see.

Other speed limits are brought in for safety reasons - decided by the local Highway Authority in consultation with the Police. 
Lots of factors are taken into account including location ( most urban roads have a 30 limit for example), topography, accident record, traffic figures and typical speeds.

With regard to maintenance costs - the most expensive to maintain are Motorways due to their high standards - the cheapest are country roads which probably only need a surface dressing every 10 yrs? Most damage is caused by Heavy Goods Vehicles and PU's digging up the roads.
Junctions are generally treated with a high skid resistance expoxy surfacing.

Rod


----------



## Harbo (5 Dec 2013)

Average Speed Cameras are the only system that the Highway Agency will admit, without reservation, actually work in reducing speeds.
They have made working on live highways much, much safer.
Although very annoying, it's just not feasible ( both in economical or safety reasons) to take up and remove the numerous signs whenever there's nobody working.

Rod


----------



## Finial (5 Dec 2013)

This is a really depressing thread to read. My views on speeding changed when I started cycling. On the bike, I get dangerously close passes and tailgating, as well as hornblowing and abuse from too many drivers, every one of whom is no doubt convinced that he or she is more than usually competent. There are lots of places where there is not enough room to overtake a bike safely in accordance with the Highway Code, but almost every single driver will squeeze past. Since one hit me, I try to prevent overtaking. 

Look at any width restriction post in the road - it will probably be covered in scraped-off paint. Look how often island bollards are knocked over, or how many roadside railings get bent out of shape. Look at all the people who drive while phoning or texting. How many of those drivers think themselves highly competent? I want these dangerous lawbreakers caught and fined, with bans if they keep offending. Many drivers are in my view temperamentally unfit to hold a licence. 

Some here think it is ok to speed, justified by saying things like a road is virtually never walked on so there is no need to worry about pedestrians. Has it not occurred to them that people don't walk along fast and busy country roads because drivers speed? Think of two villages half a mile apart, with a through road without pavement, lighting, enforced speed limit or bus connection. Children in one are unable to visit their school friends in the other unless someone gives them a lift. Few adults will dare to walk or cycle on that road, which is full of people doing the school run, because the road is too dangerous.

I use my own judgement about speed. I don't keep to the speed limit. I aim always to drive under the limit, whether or not there is a queue behind me. It adds little to the journey time. The idea that it's unsafe not to do 85 in bad weather on a motorway because there are drivers following is lunacy. I drive at the speed I wish to, and if others can't overtake, they can wait.


----------



## RogerS (5 Dec 2013)

Harbo":3qo6xtw5 said:


> Average Speed Cameras are the only system that the Highway Agency will admit, without reservation, actually work in reducing speeds.
> They have made working on live highways much, much safer.
> Although very annoying, it's just not feasible ( both in economical or safety reasons) to take up and remove the numerous signs whenever there's nobody working.
> 
> Rod



They could easily put up those temporary signs that say 'cameras not working'. Not that hard.


----------



## RogerS (5 Dec 2013)

Harbo":z1qmrv83 said:


> Roger you are mixing up Speed Limits with safe/sensible/suitable driving speeds?
> 
> ....
> Rod



Not at all. You confirm what Mark, I and others are saying. That it is the wrong speed for the wrong road and weather conditions. Walter Hall makes a very good point in that it is so much easier to say "You have broken the speed limit" than to say someone was driving like a plonker....regardless of the actual road and weather conditions at the time. 

"I was driving at 30 mph, officer, in the 30 mph zone and I didn't see the child run out". Maybe because one was complacent. Brain in neutral.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Dec 2013)

Finial":3ace5m94 said:


> This is a really depressing thread to read. My views on speeding changed when I started cycling. On the bike, I get dangerously close passes and tailgating, as well as hornblowing and abuse from too many drivers, every one of whom is no doubt convinced that he or she is more than usually competent. There are lots of places where there is not enough room to overtake a bike safely in accordance with the Highway Code, but almost every single driver will squeeze past. Since one hit me, I try to prevent overtaking.
> 
> Look at any width restriction post in the road - it will probably be covered in scraped-off paint. Look how often island bollards are knocked over, or how many roadside railings get bent out of shape. Look at all the people who drive while phoning or texting. How many of those drivers think themselves highly competent? I want these dangerous lawbreakers caught and fined, with bans if they keep offending. Many drivers are in my view temperamentally unfit to hold a licence.
> 
> ...


It must be nice on your planet. To drive at 85mph with several hundred (thousand) drivers in front driving at 85mph and several hundred (thousand) behind driving at 85mph is not lunacy. It's common sense and self preservation. It shouldn't happen, but hey ho, it's reality! Sorry.
I drove on the M4 going in to London, my mother kept her eyes shut for 40 miles because it frightened her witless. At 85mph, I couldn't see from one end of an artic to the other, but there was someone 20yds in front and someone 20yds behind. Of course it shouldn't happen, but it does - what should I have done - prayed to the sky fairy?


----------



## Jacob (6 Dec 2013)

phil.p":xdym6ngz said:


> ...........
> It must be nice on your planet. To drive at 85mph with several hundred (thousand) drivers in front driving at 85mph and several hundred (thousand) behind driving at 85mph is not lunacy. It's common sense and self preservation. It shouldn't happen, but hey ho, it's reality! Sorry.
> I drove on the M4 going in to London, my mother kept her eyes shut for 40 miles because it frightened her witless. At 85mph, I couldn't see from one end of an artic to the other, but there was someone 20yds in front and someone 20yds behind. Of course it shouldn't happen, but it does - what should I have done - prayed to the sky fairy?


What should you have done? Answer: slow down to 70. The_ several hundred (thousand) drivers in front_ then disappear into the fog, the driver behind you slows down to 70 and the _several hundred (thousand) behind_ do what they want it's no concern of yours. 
Then you could relax a bit and your mother could open her eyes as she would no longer be scared of your manic style of driving.


----------



## DrPhill (6 Dec 2013)

To the OP, yes it would be nice if they sited cameras in the best places to increase safety. Maybe they think that they do. But I am not that vexed if they site them elswhere. 

I am in the minority called 'below average drivers'. I have at times in my life driven cars, bikes and even small trucks on a regular basis. Some of my vehicles were above average performance. I have at times succumbed to the illusion that confidence, an expensive vehicle, and a bit of luck proved me a superior driver, but I have got over that.

I also realise now that pure technical ability is only a (minor) part of the skill set needed to share the roads with other users (and by that I include pedestrians, cyclists, livestock and wildlife - even tractor drivers). Consideration for others of varying degrees of skill and confidence is at least as important; as is treating other road users with respect and politeness. In my view these later traits far exceed the importance of technical ability. In fact, politeness and consideration are transferable skills well worth cultivating.

In the 35 years that I have been driving I have had no major accidents, no fines, no points. In my early days this was probably dumb luck and empty roads, latterly I put it down to dumb luck and careful driving (and avoiding the M25).

Drive safe, drive considerate......


----------



## Lons (6 Dec 2013)

DrPhill":1e2zqxx0 said:


> To the OP, yes it would be nice if they sited cameras in the best places to increase safety. Maybe they think that they do. But I am not that vexed if they site them elswhere.



Hi Phill

Yes I think this thread has gone so far off the track of my original post that however entertaining and enlightening it may (or not) be, it has surely run it's course. Starting to get boring now - someone start a sharpening thread - please :lol: 

As to your part reply above, where they site them doesn't really bother me too much either in as much that I try to stick to the limit so don't get zapped however I do, unless conditions dictate otherwise, drive at the limit i.e. 60 in a 60 zone and get irritated by drivers dawdling at 30 or 40 in front of me, usually a line of 2 or 3 when it's unsafe to overtake. They seem to have all the time in the world - I have to work!

I am annoyed that the authorities blatently lie about the cameras and my post highlights that as anyone who knows this area of road would, and have testified. Why don't they just hold their hands up and admit that it's taxation, I can live with that as like you I haven't paid any of it.

The real campaign by locals and our councillor is for a greater police presence on the road to pick up not only speeding but the careless drivers who are the cause of the vast majority of the accidents. He unearthed the van stats as part of that and the authorities were reluctant to disclose the figures. I wonder why? :roll: 

Bob


----------



## markturner (6 Dec 2013)

Well said, DrPhill, I completely agree and I can't see anywhere in any of my posts where I advocated doing anything dissimilar. I am only saying a speed limit is an arbitrary line in the sand that can in the right circumstances, be stepped over, if you are happy to take the risk, WITHOUT endangering yourself and anyone else.

I cant see why that makes a person out who does this, some kind of Mr Toad hate figure to so many of you here........I am not advocating dangerous, inconsiderate or inappropriate driving, or doing this all the time, simply if the conditions are right and safe, then often, no harm is done by driving at more than the limit. Similarly, its often sensible to drive at below the limit, if conditions dictate.


----------



## John Brown (6 Dec 2013)

phil.p wrote:
"I drove on the M4 going in to London, my mother kept her eyes shut for 40 miles because it frightened her witless. At 85mph, I couldn't see from one end of an artic to the other, but there was someone 20yds in front and someone 20yds behind. Of course it shouldn't happen, but it does - what should I have done - prayed to the sky fairy?"
So that's about a half a second gap according to my calculations.
Maybe you could let us all know where and when you are planning to drive in the future.
I can honestly say yours is the strangest justification for speeding, that I've ever heard. Not just speeding, but downright dangerous driving.
"I had to drive at 85MPH with a half second gap between me and the car in front(in bad conditions), because the driver behind was doing the same thing."
I'd like to be a fly on the wall if you ever try to use that logic as an excuse in court.


----------



## Finial (6 Dec 2013)

> _It must be nice on your planet. To drive at 85mph with several hundred (thousand) drivers in front driving at 85mph and several hundred (thousand) behind driving at 85mph is not lunacy. It's common sense and self preservation. It shouldn't happen, but hey ho, it's reality! Sorry.
> I drove on the M4 going in to London, my mother kept her eyes shut for 40 miles because it frightened her witless. At 85mph, I couldn't see from one end of an artic to the other, but there was someone 20yds in front and someone 20yds behind. Of course it shouldn't happen, but it does - what should I have done - prayed to the sky fairy?_



No it's not nice here, on account of your planet's careless, reckless, arrogant and aggressive drivers with their over-inflated sense of entitlement. If visibility were that bad I would slow down to about 20 before I got to the pile up! The loons behind could do as they like.


----------



## whiskywill (6 Dec 2013)

A 30mph limit was imposed on a local, previously unrestricted rural road, presumably because of the contruction of an access road for the installation of wind turbines. This limit was there for about three months before reverting to unrestricted.

The silly thing is, the limit didn't start until about two months after the turbines were installed and commissioned.


----------



## doorframe (6 Dec 2013)

Never in the forums of UKworkshop was so much bullshame spouted by so few to so many.

Unbelievable claptrap.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Dec 2013)

Of course it's dangerous to travel at 85mph in bad weather - in those circumstances there probably should have been a 30mph limit. But there wasn't. I would love to have slowed down, but the loons behind would have become the loons on top of me. The only safe speed to be was exactly the same speed as everyone else. No one in their right mind drives like that for fun, but unfortunately one driver cannot dictate the speed of hundreds of others. If anyone thinks they can, I'd very much like not be anywhere near them when they try.


----------



## Finial (6 Dec 2013)

So is there any speed that you would balk at? There has to be a limit even if you are caught up with a lot of lemmings. I would rather they overtook me. Better to have them in front than behind.


----------



## Jacob (6 Dec 2013)

phil.p":1t3qo10y said:


> ... but unfortunately one driver cannot dictate the speed of hundreds of others. .....


You only want to dictate the speed of the one behind you, the others don't matter. You do it by slowing down. It works every time. Try it!

I have been passenger with a driver like you Phil. Can be a nerve wracking experience - too fast, too close, too much braking and accelerating. No wonder your ma keeps her eyes closed!


----------



## MMUK (6 Dec 2013)

Looks like I need to settle back again for some entertainment.


----------



## Baldhead (6 Dec 2013)

Jacob your right, it is you the car in front that dictates the speed of the car(s) behind you. 
Let's put this to bed eh, it's done it's course.
Anyone want to know about my early Christmas present? :ho2 

Baldhead


----------



## MMUK (6 Dec 2013)

If it involves the wife and a pot of Nutella, I don't think I want to know


----------



## JustBen (6 Dec 2013)

MMUK":weitnrv3 said:


> If it involves the wife and a pot of Nutella, I don't think I want to know



Ha ha ha.


----------



## joethedrummer (6 Dec 2013)

MMUK":mp9di6av said:


> If it involves the wife and a pot of Nutella, I don't think I want to know


Well I sure do !!!!!!


----------



## Baldhead (6 Dec 2013)

MMUK":vq4y811m said:


> If it involves the wife and a pot of Nutella, I don't think I want to know


Is it ok to tell if it involves your wife and a pot of Nutella :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Baldhead


----------



## Lons (6 Dec 2013)

What's with the nutella :? I've led a sheltered life :wink:


----------



## MMUK (6 Dec 2013)

Baldhead":18zrhm0h said:


> MMUK":18zrhm0h said:
> 
> 
> > If it involves the wife and a pot of Nutella, I don't think I want to know
> ...



If that's the case, I need to find another wife cuz I'm sure as hell not getting the Nutella treatment :lol:


----------



## dann (6 Dec 2013)

Ive never been done speeding, i sat at 55 in my camper van... if i need to be somewhere in a hurry i set off in good time.


----------



## blackrodd (6 Dec 2013)

I run a Boxer van, a Berlingo car a Kawasaki Motorbike. 
I have frequently driven between 1 and 4 hundred miles a day to work, sometimes daily.
I have, over the years had some close"calls" but have been lucky and survived, up to now, untouched.
Whatever you say speed kills and I would not like to face any relatives having been driving like a Pratt and killed their Son, daughter or family.
Regards Rodders


----------



## markturner (7 Dec 2013)

Speed kills.......OK, so let's introduce a blanket limit of 20MPH everywhere.......No one dies, simple......

Hang on, 20mph is speed, surely? so is 30mph....? What you meant to say was INAPPROPRIATE speed kills wasn't it? If you speeding INAPPROPRIATELY, then you are indeed, driving like a pratt........

Why does no one who is against "SPEEDING" seem able to understand this simple point????????


----------



## MMUK (7 Dec 2013)

It's not speed that kills. It's the silly person who thinks he's Sebastian Vettel but hasn't in reality got a clue or the ability (both physical and mental) to drive to that sort of standard. Speed related accidents are 99.9% of the time down to human error, hence my point.


----------



## Jacob (7 Dec 2013)

MMUK":1qk3wr2r said:


> It's not speed that kills. .....


Yes it often is. Even if it's not the cause, the consequences are worse as the speed is higher.


----------



## John Brown (7 Dec 2013)

I think we all know that it's the sudden deceleration that does the damage. Speed by itself actually makes you live longer, at least it does when you approach the speed of light. So it won't affect me much.


----------



## Finial (7 Dec 2013)

Inappropriate speed is any speed that is unsafe and always any speed above the legal limit for the location. Almost all drivers exceed the limit, even if only occasionally, because they believe they can do it safely and get away with it. Strangely, there are thousands of accidents. It can't be left to individuals to decide. We need enforced limits with more speed cameras. The 85 mph motorway already discussed might be a good place for them.

Jacob is right, speed does kill. Some urban areas are moving towards default 20 mph zones, and it's about time. A good driver keeps within the limit.


----------



## Jacob (7 Dec 2013)

John Brown":3jajcdal said:


> I think we all know that it's the sudden deceleration that does the damage. Speed by itself actually makes you live longer, at least it does when you approach the speed of light. So it won't affect me much.


Sudden deceleration. :shock: That puts a completely new light on it.


----------



## MMUK (7 Dec 2013)

Finial":1d1k7gm5 said:


> Inappropriate speed is any speed that is unsafe and always any speed above the legal limit for the location.



Breaking the speed limit may be inappropriate but it's not always unsafe to do so (not that I'm defending breaking the speed limit, just stating fact).

Also, whilst I can see your point about the 20mph limits, until there is a vast improvement in the standard of driving in the UK, and letting less idiots pass their tests, then lowering speed limits won't make much difference to the accident rate.


----------



## Jacob (7 Dec 2013)

MMUK":3stks9pd said:


> ..... lowering speed limits won't make much difference to the accident rate.


It makes a huge difference. That's the whole point.


----------



## MMUK (7 Dec 2013)

Jacob":1r8xzhd2 said:


> MMUK":1r8xzhd2 said:
> 
> 
> > ..... lowering speed limits won't make much difference to the accident rate.
> ...



Are you deliberately taking my comment out of context or are you just thick? Read the WHOLE statement again :roll:


----------



## DrPhill (7 Dec 2013)

John Brown":16d7zrum said:


> I think we all know that it's the sudden deceleration that does the damage.



For the traveller you may be correct, but, for the victim, I think you will find that it is the sudden ACceleration that does the damage. Or more accurately the application of the force that causes the acceleration. Perhaps it its the transfer of momentum?


John Brown":16d7zrum said:


> Speed by itself actually makes you live longer, at least it does when you approach the speed of light. So it won't affect me much.


 :lol: :lol: 
If you are going to talk about such high speeds that you need to think about relativistic effects then I think that the term 'speed' becomes irrelevant, since you cannot rely on any single static reference frame. Hmmm, "No officer, I was travelling towards you at only thirty miles an hour - you and your speed camera were traveling towards me at twenty miles an hour making a total of fifty......."

I am sure that that is going to work. Can someone try that and report back?


----------



## John Brown (7 Dec 2013)

"For the traveller you may be correct, but, for the victim, I think you will find that it is the sudden ACceleration that does the damage. Or more accurately the application of the force that causes the acceleration. Perhaps it is the transfer of momentum?"
Indeed. I stand corrected. Although it's all relative. It's , as you rightly point out, difficult to establish a frame of reference on a revolving, orbiting planet. Etc. Maybe we could say it's the sudden change in inertia?


----------



## Jacob (7 Dec 2013)

MMUK":1i1nhalz said:


> Jacob":1i1nhalz said:
> 
> 
> > MMUK":1i1nhalz said:
> ...


1
It WILL make a huge difference to the accident rate because slow speeds give more reaction time and the possibility of avoiding accidents entirely.
2
It WILL also make a huge difference to the accident rate (if the outcomes of accidents are factored in e.g. numbers of deaths) as there will be more serious consequences with higher speed.
3
YOU are just thick!

I suppose this is what draws one to these mad threads - people calmly gabbling astonishing and unbelievable nonsense. 

Can we have a flat earth thread? :lol: :lol:


----------



## MMUK (7 Dec 2013)

Jacob, wind your neck in and read my statement fully please, you still have my comment completely out of context. :roll: I said:

*UNTIL THE STANDARD OF DRIVING IMPROVES THEN LOWERING SPEED LIMITS WILL MAKE LITTLE DIFFERENCE*

Which bit of that was difficult to understand? There's no point banging on about reaction times, that in itself makes no difference when someone steps out from behind a car or van right into your path. Another point is people aren't trained to look and therefore they don't anticipate far enough in advance.

So is that a bit clearer for you sweety pie? Or am I asking too much of your narrow minded brain? Maybe an adult level of intelligence is farther beyond you than I realised. Never mind, with careful and patient tuition, maybe one day you can join the ranks of the real adults? :wink:


----------



## wizard (7 Dec 2013)

I used to speed all the time, often got caught, once doing 110 in a fifty limit, never winged about it, then I grew up.


----------



## Jacob (7 Dec 2013)

MMUK":2v6ew12t said:


> Jacob, wind your neck in and read my statement fully please, you still have my comment completely out of context. :roll: I said:
> 
> *UNTIL THE STANDARD OF DRIVING IMPROVES THEN LOWERING SPEED LIMITS WILL MAKE LITTLE DIFFERENCE*
> 
> ...


Nope. Sorry, still makes no sense at all, however you look at it.

"There's no point banging on about reaction times, that in itself makes no difference when someone steps out from behind a car or van right into your path. " er - yes it does. Think about it. Or perhaps not; you obviously have thought about it but it's getting you nowhere. :roll: :lol:


----------



## markturner (7 Dec 2013)

Jacob":8h3zbcxa said:


> MMUK":8h3zbcxa said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob, wind your neck in and read my statement fully please, you still have my comment completely out of context. :roll: I said:
> ...




MMUK....don't stress, it's like trying to explain physics to a monkey.......it will never understand you.


----------



## MMUK (7 Dec 2013)

Jacob":33yjmkb5 said:


> "There's no point banging on about reaction times, that in itself makes no difference when someone steps out from behind a car or van right into your path. " er - yes it does. Think about it. Or perhaps not; you obviously have thought about it but it's getting you nowhere. :roll: :lol:



Does it really? Even if you're jabbering away into your mobile phone and steering with your knees? Lets face it, there's still thousands of people who do even though it's been illegal for several years.

I have thought about it and I've gotten to where I want to be. You on the other hand, I think, are due to be plugged into the grid again for electrolysis. Let us know when you're safe back in your rubber room. BTW, I take it you're still on the waiting list for a lobotomy? You certainly need one :wink:


----------



## KevM (7 Dec 2013)

markturner":21gfl727 said:


> MMUK....don't stress, it's like trying to explain physics to a monkey.......it will never understand you.



Mark, 
You really should have brought this to our attention sooner, you're in a supportive environment and there's no need to be ashamed of it. If people had known you had the intellectual capacity of a monkey I'm sure they'd have framed the argument in terms you could more easily understand. :lol:


----------



## Jacob (7 Dec 2013)

MMUK":3udxnnv0 said:


> .....Even if you're jabbering away into your mobile phone and steering with your knees? ......


erewego;
The likelihood of a collision will be reduced by lower speeds, as; 
1 you may still just notice the problem in spite of your distractions and have more time to react. Let's face it you couldn't drive more than a few yards at any speed if you weren't paying _some_ attention.
2 the other party may have more time to get out of the way.
3 the consequence of the collision will be lower with lower speeds

You never know - MMUK and Mark might just get it if we keep explaining things very patiently, the little monkeys! 
Maybe it's a public duty to try to spread a little light for them, and their driving might improve!


----------



## MMUK (7 Dec 2013)

Jacob, with the greatest of respect, I think it's past your bed time. Now why don't you do as mommy says and leave the internet to the grown ups?


----------



## Finial (7 Dec 2013)

Jacob is completely correct, even if some can't see what is transparently obvious. RoSPA quotes research showing significant reduction in accidents and injuries on 20 mph roads. It seems to me that the worse the standard of driving the more important it is to cut speeding.


----------



## MMUK (7 Dec 2013)

Finial":222zca6i said:


> It seems to me that the worse the standard of driving the more important it is to cut speeding.



That's a typical politician's short sighted answer!

What is more important is to improve the standard of driving and that starts with the instructors and examiners.

Personally, I think the whole system needs a revamp. The test is far too easy - pretty much anyone can pass and the training is a joke.

Another thing should be a complete clamp down on using any kind of electronic device while driving, whether it be a mobile phone, iPod or Sat Nav. The number of people I still see driving while using a mobile phone or fiddling with their pineapple Nav beggars belief.


----------



## KevM (7 Dec 2013)

MMUK":20bzgp2w said:


> Another thing should be a complete clamp down on using any kind of electronic device while driving, whether it be a mobile phone, iPod or Sat Nav. The number of people I still see driving while using a mobile phone or fiddling with their pineapple Nav beggars belief.



Agreed, and as we're at it I'd like to include a ban on driving while shaving, applying makeup, smoking, eating pies, and sneezing.


----------



## Finial (7 Dec 2013)

> That's a typical politician's short sighted answer!
> 
> What is more important is to improve the standard of driving and that starts with the instructors and examiners.
> 
> ...



This I do agree with, at least that improvement and speed reduction are both important. But it will take a long time to improve standards significantly while there is next to no enforcement. I know the test is too easy, they even gave me a licence!


----------



## markturner (7 Dec 2013)

Finial":3h3gxqq0 said:


> Jacob is completely correct, even if some can't see what is transparently obvious. RoSPA quotes research showing significant reduction in accidents and injuries on 20 mph roads. It seems to me that the worse the standard of driving the more important it is to cut speeding.




OMG>>>>> :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: Seriously>????? Of course that's true, if velocity was zero, then no one would be killed by vehicles so the nearer you get to zero, the less fatalities.. lets make it even safer and ban cars altogether.........Christ, why did'nt we think of that one before?????

Ergo, we have to accept a certain level of casualties. Being a switched on driver who is capable of actually controlling his car properly and can think for himself helps to maintain that level not getting to high. Sadly, the roads are full of Jacobs and Finials who are labouring under the illusion that they are contributing to road safely by driving everywhere really slowly........instead of trying to improve their general driving skills.......

Gosh, I must be the worlds cleverest monkey........


----------



## MMUK (7 Dec 2013)

markturner":2sb7ckra said:


> Finial":2sb7ckra said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob is completely correct, even if some can't see what is transparently obvious. RoSPA quotes research showing significant reduction in accidents and injuries on 20 mph roads. It seems to me that the worse the standard of driving the more important it is to cut speeding.
> ...




Have a banana you clever chimp :mrgreen:


----------



## Finial (7 Dec 2013)

> Ergo, we have to accept a certain level of casualties. Being a switched on driver who is capable of actually controlling his car properly and can think for himself helps to maintain that level not getting to high. Sadly, the roads are full of Jacobs and Finials who are labouring under the illusion that they are contributing to road safely by driving everywhere really slowly........instead of trying to improve their general driving skills.......



Mark, do you _really_ believe that anyone who thinks they are skillful should be allowed to exceed the limit? Or just you?. I could never aspire to your driving skills Mark. I often have a queue behind me. Many of those drivers overtake when there is room and speed away, just like you. I expect they all think they are above average. As a matter of interest, what would you do on the motorway where everyone is doing 85 in poor visibility, and according to the post there should have been a 30 mph limit?

Yes, any moving traffic risks some casualties. This country has fewer than many others, but still very many thousands. How many do you think we should accept, bearing in mind one of them might be you or a relative of yours?

Tell you what, you post on here when you plan to go out and I'll try to keep out of your way. I'd rather you be in front anyway. You've told us how good a driver you are, but to be honest I'm not impressed by that.


----------



## Lons (7 Dec 2013)

Well, I confess, I've been a bad lad I broke the speed limit this week.  Lock me up officer along with the criminals who mug old ladies and burgle houses (oh I forgot, they get an ASBO),

4.30 am travel to the airport, clear sky, dry roads, no frost, no other vehicles ecxept 3 in the opposite direction, dual carriageway and my lights illuminating the road for hundreds of yards. Virtually no likelihood of farmers, pedestrians, drunks or narrow minded drivers (no names) who would be well tucked up in bed. I just couldn't resist it so set the cruise at 85 for a silky smooth and enjoyable ride. I enjoyed the drive for once!

Let's be honest here - speed itself does not kill, it's the richardhead behind the wheel that does it. Not all drivers who exceed the limit are dickheads and some of those adhering to it are. They exist on both sides. A good driver rarely has or causes an accident, a bad driver does both and just because some of us have never had a ticket or accident doesn't mean we're a good driver as we could have used up a large quota of our luck! I include myself in that and try to stay within my limits. I also drive definsively and assume that there could be a hazzard so I stay alert and try to think ahead.

To get back to my reasons for the original post. There was an article in todays Newcastle rag which puts some meat on the bones:

The location where the van has been deployed 18 times has *in the last 5 years not had a single accident*. Further down that road there have been 5 minor and 1 serious over that time. (I know at least 3 of those were on a poorly surfaced bank /bend which has since been improved).* None of those accidents were speed related.*In direct comparison the other road which extends 55 miles to the Scottish borders and had not seen the van in 6 months, has over *the same 5 years had 5 fatal, 30 serious and 110 slight accidents*. Volumes of traffic are increasing rapidly due largely to traffic diverting from the single lane A1 trunk road which is another story.
The authorities still will not admit that the location is driven by profit or offered a realistic explanation however the pressure is now on.

Bob


----------



## Finial (7 Dec 2013)

> Let's be honest here - speed itself does not kill, it's the richardhead behind the wheel that does it. Not all drivers who exceed the limit are dickheads and some of those adhering to it are.



A bad driver is dangerous at the speed limit. A good driver is safer at any speed than they are at 10 mph higher. Anyone can make a mistake, or encounter someone else who makes one. The higher the speed the greater the consequences.


----------



## Lons (7 Dec 2013)

Finial":2udcbag7 said:


> > Let's be honest here - speed itself does not kill, it's the richardhead behind the wheel that does it. Not all drivers who exceed the limit are dickheads and some of those adhering to it are.
> 
> 
> 
> A bad driver is dangerous at the speed limit. A good driver is safer at any speed than they are at 10 mph higher. Anyone can make a mistake, or encounter someone else who makes one. The higher the speed the greater the consequences.



Bad drivers are dangerous at ANY speed and make more than an average number of mistakes and as far as encountering others, thats the reason for defensive driving which should be observed at all speeds. Problem is that a lot of drivers have no idea what that is or the ability to do it.

if you read my other posts you'll realise that I don't advocate speeding but there is a little truth in most of the posts here whichever side you're on. I certainly was perfectly safe and endangered no one else whereas at 8.30 am in rush hour traffic it would be a very different story.

Anyway this is becoming decidedly boring now :lol: 

Bob


----------



## markturner (7 Dec 2013)

To be honest, it's just another example of the nanny state thinking they can legislate their way to some kind of zero risk, zero death, zero fun existence. ( and all the while, make some money out of it...).........I know what I would I would rather live under..........

and for what it's worth, I have NEVER put anyone else's life in danger living my life the way I want..........


----------



## RogerS (7 Dec 2013)

Finial":17y14gru said:


> Jacob is completely correct, even if some can't see what is transparently obvious. RoSPA quotes research showing significant reduction in accidents and injuries on 20 mph roads. It seems to me that the worse the standard of driving the more important it is to cut speeding.



Well of course you are going to have less injuries at 20mph. I think we should reduce it even further to 5mph and have a man walking in front with a red flag. Fixes unemployment at the same time. Result.


----------



## Finial (7 Dec 2013)

I understand your point. But, and without any personal criticism, it isn't just you in your car exposed to the risk. Modern cars have all sorts of protection for the occupants, can stop quicker and so on. They feel safe to drive. That all encourages risk taking and faster driving. I ride a bike and know that doesn't feel safe. Thousands of bike riders (and pedestrians) are injured every year. I know what it feels like to be hit by a car and I don't like it. I ride defensively, but bad drivers object to that. I want bad driving firmly discouraged. Call it the nanny state if you like, but it sounds good to me. I wouldn't care about people driving fast if it was just them at risk. But it isn't.

Driving can be fun. I don't want to take that away from anyone and I don't think nanny does either. Possibly not even Jacob does. 

But it comes at a price. Not just the accidents, carbon consumption, congestion, air pollution, noise and high taxes. Obesity and ill health are a modern scourge and if people were more active it would help reduce them. Walking and cycling are beneficial to everyone. However, fast traffic just about rules them out on the road for most people, certainly for children. If good drivers or bad ones whiz past you, it's often hard to tell the difference. One reason there are now so few pedestrians and bike riders on the road is the fact that drivers speed.


----------



## Finial (7 Dec 2013)

> Well of course you are going to have less injuries at 20mph. I think we should reduce it even further to 5mph



This is often done on private property such as car parks. Some people think speeding is OK as long as it's on public roads


----------



## Walter Hall (8 Dec 2013)

Lons":1t2a1tqa said:


> Anyway this is becoming decidedly boring now :lol:
> 
> Bob



Yep, that sums it up. :roll:


----------



## doorframe (8 Dec 2013)

This thread has gone too far now. Time for the Mods to apply the LOCKED option I think.

But before they do, a final word from me...

To you speed merchants..... I really don't give a damn if you kill yourselves with your over confidence in your driving abilities. This world is probably better off without you.

But if you take others with you in your futile quest to arrive 5 minutes early then I hope you rot in hell.


----------



## SBJ (8 Dec 2013)

How do you become one of these super drivers? Is it just by self designation, because I'm a better driver than all of you.

If speed limits were changed to be more appropriate for the conditions etc (how would you legislate that?), as a super driver would I still be able to exceed the speed limit because I'm a better driver than every one else?

As a super driver, I think that I should get some sort of sticker to go in my rear window so that when I overtake someone they can see that they've been overtaken by a super driver and not someone who isn't able to follow the simple laws of the road, for it would be an easy mistake to make for all you other drivers who clearly aren't as good atdriving as I am.


----------



## RogerS (8 Dec 2013)

Finial":33ni9sxx said:


> .... One reason there are now so few pedestrians and bike riders on the road is the fact that drivers speed.



I don't really follow that line of reasoning. It is way too simplistic a view IMO. What roads? Roads in towns and cities have pavements. Are you talking rural roads? Plenty of people cycle, walk and ride horses round my way. Reason why people don't walk or cycle is that they are too damn lazy !


----------



## DrPhill (8 Dec 2013)

Finial":1n74z9e2 said:


> I understand your point. But, and without any personal criticism, it isn't just you in your car exposed to the risk. Modern cars have all sorts of protection for the occupants, can stop quicker and so on. They feel safe to drive. That all encourages risk taking and faster driving. I ride a bike and know that doesn't feel safe. Thousands of bike riders (and pedestrians) are injured every year. I know what it feels like to be hit by a car and I don't like it. I ride defensively, but bad drivers object to that. I want bad driving firmly discouraged. Call it the nanny state if you like, but it sounds good to me. I wouldn't care about people driving fast if it was just them at risk. But it isn't.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation


----------



## RogerS (8 Dec 2013)

Thats an interesting link, Phill. I was intrigued to pick up reference to this study which seems to belie one line of reasoning adopted by some.

_A 1994 study by Jeremy Jackson and Roger Blackman using a driving simulator, reported that increased speed limits and a reduction of speeding fines had significantly increased driving speed but resulted in no change in the accident frequency. It also showed that increased accident cost caused large and significant reductions in accident frequency but no change in speed choice. The abstract states that the results suggest that regulation of specific risky behaviors such as speed choice may have little influence on accident rates.[22]_


----------



## Baldhead (8 Dec 2013)

:-# :-# :-# I'm with Lon's, Walter and doorframe, it's time it was locked. :-# :-# :-# 

Baldhead


----------



## Jacob (8 Dec 2013)

RogerS":39niv3gr said:


> Thats an interesting link, Phill. I was intrigued to pick up reference to this study which seems to belie one line of reasoning adopted by some.
> 
> _A 1994 study by Jeremy Jackson and Roger Blackman using a driving simulator, reported that increased speed limits and a reduction of speeding fines had significantly increased driving speed but resulted in no change in the accident frequency. It also showed that increased accident cost caused large and significant reductions in accident frequency but no change in speed choice. The abstract states that the results suggest that regulation of specific risky behaviors such as speed choice may have little influence on accident rates.[22]_


Obviously not a very good driving simulator then, as it contradicts all the evidence found in the real world.
Odd that Roger can't draw this obvious conclusion?


----------



## MMUK (8 Dec 2013)

You're up early, did you wet the bed again?


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Dec 2013)

Unfortunately I live in the rough part of town, high density housing. We get boy racers tearing down the street. It really is incredibly frightening, especially since children regularly play on the streets. You can't possibly tell me that those idiots are just as safe travelling at 80 MPH as they are at 30 MPH. It doesn't matter how accomplished you are with the vehicle. You have less time to react if you are travelling at a much faster speed. Look at the 'official' braking distances at the various speeds - that tells you everything.


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Dec 2013)

MMUK":1cgt0i0u said:


> You're up early, did you wet the bed again?



That was a quick edit MMUK. You first typed something about Jacob being a troll. 
How ironic.


----------



## MMUK (8 Dec 2013)

MIGNAL":2b2odhuw said:


> MMUK":2b2odhuw said:
> 
> 
> > You're up early, did you wet the bed again?
> ...



Yep it was quick wasn't it? I really should use the preview button before I post :mrgreen: 

And yes, it looks like the troll has wet the bed again :lol:


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Dec 2013)

What have you done, s*it yours.


----------



## clk230 (8 Dec 2013)

Any one who thinks speeding is ok is a . in book ,what makes them think they have better reactions than the average person.

MMUK- You seem to have a personal dislike of Jacob (which you entitled to) but your personal insults towards him leave a very bad smell across the forum IMO.


----------



## DrPhill (8 Dec 2013)

clk230":2ealbga2 said:


> MMUK- You seem to have a personal dislike of Jacob (which you entitled to) but your personal insults towards him leave a very bad smell across the forum IMO.



+1

I do not mind a bit of rough and tumble here - though I doubt if anyone will change their mind as a result of a 'discussion' like this. It is an interesting way for both sides to practice their arguments and sharpen their reasoning. Better than assuming that your own point of view is so obvious that it is unassailable. And it helps to keep some folk off the the streets (unless they are posting while driving). 

The 'ad hominen' attacks are disappointing though, I wish we could live without them. They lower the tone and taint the forum.

(Couple of typos edited)


----------



## MMUK (8 Dec 2013)

DrPhill":3iy2eqv1 said:


> clk230":3iy2eqv1 said:
> 
> 
> > MMUK- You seem to have a personal dislike of Jacob (which you entitled to) but your personal insults towards him leave a very bad smell across the forum IMO.
> ...




In that case maybe you should be directing your concerns to the instigator of these arguments then. 

This has been going on a long time before I started posting on this forum and I gather that said person has been banned from pretty much every other forum. It's not hard to see why.


----------



## Finial (8 Dec 2013)

Sorry, I missed where Jacob attacked anyone personally rather than just their argument. What page was that on?


----------



## MMUK (8 Dec 2013)

Finial":d2tktpf2 said:


> Sorry, I missed where Jacob attacked anyone personally rather than just their argument. What page was that on?





Jacob":d2tktpf2 said:


> 3
> YOU are just thick!



So you don't class this as a personal insult? :roll:


----------



## DrPhill (8 Dec 2013)

MMUK":3qfz57m8 said:


> DrPhill":3qfz57m8 said:
> 
> 
> > clk230":3qfz57m8 said:
> ...



Quoting me like that has the unfortunate effect of making it look as if I were directing my comments to MMUK. I was trying to keep my tone neutral and my audience general, or before long this thread will degenerate (further?) into a 'he said/but he said' farce. 

The best way to deal with 'ad hominem' attacks is to ignore them. They are, in a way, an admission of weakness in a position, because if the attacker thought their case was strong then they would continue to propose their case logically. A need to digress towards insult always looks, to me at least, like a retreat.


----------



## John Brown (8 Dec 2013)

MMUK":21scor1b said:


> Finial":21scor1b said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I missed where Jacob attacked anyone personally rather than just their argument. What page was that on?
> ...


To try to be fair, you have to view that remark in the context of your immediately preceding post.

Anyway, I've completely changed my mind about all this now. The arguments of the pro-speed faction have convinced me. I'm off out to go speeding for the afternoon.


----------



## markturner (8 Dec 2013)

Finial":16aoomyn said:


> Sorry, I missed where Jacob attacked anyone personally rather than just their argument. What page was that on?



seriously?????? which thread are you reading? He has insulted me twice in this one and the same in the Phiilipines thread......It does not bother me, but please don't pretend he does not do it.......

I have put forward at least two logical, reasoned "what if" scenarios earlier in this thread and no one responded........

And the boy racers that someone complained about at the top of the page are patently not safe, competent drivers, if they are speeding up and down urban streets. I agree wholeheartedly with you there. At the risk of repeating myself for the 5th time, that is not safe speeding which is what I was talking about. Safe speeding is letting rip a bit when the roads are clear, conditions good and no hazards around. I never advocated anything but this.


----------



## Jinx (8 Dec 2013)

Heck is this thread still going strong... Dr Phil got it right further up the page, no one is likely to change their point of view due to a discussion such as this. Overall it seems the pro speeders are in the minority so at least although we have to live with the fact that some will speed, it seems most will not. Boy Racers I guess is a title, not a description - some boys learn to drive and then race around, and some boys never grow ups and carry on racing around in their 30s and 40s and so on justifying it by thinking they are okay as they are good enough to do it. Jinx


----------



## KevM (8 Dec 2013)

markturner":1irpqigr said:


> I have put forward at least two logical, reasoned "what if" scenarios earlier in this thread and no one responded.........



If I had to hazard a guess I 'd say it's because most people have had the good sense to avoid the mud-wrestling with a pig scenario, the 'arguments' you've put forward don't have a logical consistency that might allow rational debate, hence the apparently endless to and fro that's sprawled on for so long.

When confronted with evidence you respond with unsubstantiated assertions, that does not make an argument, it makes a squabble. You feel at liberty to break the law because you consider it should not apply to you; what surprises me is not that particular point of view, it's all too common, it's that you feel the need to convince others that your behaviour is acceptable, and that you think a public forum is a good place to discuss your illegal activities.

An excerpt from "The characteristics of speeders", Transport Research Laboratory Report 440 [1], the first paragraph seems particularly apt.
"_Drivers justify their personal speeding choices by assuming that they are ‘ordinary, safe speeding drivers’ while others are ‘dangerous speeding drivers’. Drivers may also justify speeding by assuming that limits are unrealistic._
A number of studies have examined the relationship between speed and accidents. A figure of between a 2% and 7% reduction in accidents per 1 mile/h reduction in mean traffic speed holds for the range of speeds typically found on urban roads. The relationship between the percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit and the number of accidents on a particular road, and the relationship between the accident liability of individual drivers and their individual speeding behaviour, suggest that both speed in excess of the speed limit, and speed greater than the average for the situation, are critical factors"

I'm surprised at your earlier claim of being waved on your way by a policeman after being clocked doing 85mph in a 50mph zone; the threshold for a summons in a 50mph zone is 76mph [2]; surprised, but not interested enough to stick around for an explanation - I'm off now to find a sharpening discussion, after a bit of work I've just got my plane iron to a nice blue-green colour on the bench grinder and I'd like some advice on what to do next.

[1] http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... eeders.htm
[2] http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uni ... -roads.pdf


----------



## MMUK (8 Dec 2013)

KevM":1elchu2h said:


> I'm off now to find a sharpening discussion, after a bit of work I've just got my plane iron to a nice blue-green colour on the bench grinder and I'd like some advice on what to do next.




Sounds like you've over-heated the iron, possibly caused by asserting too much pressure against the grinding wheel or the wheel is clogged.


----------



## Jacob (8 Dec 2013)

MMUK":5dc9kbs9 said:


> ...I gather that said person has been banned from pretty much every other forum. It's not hard to see why.


I've only been banned from two forums. It may be a coincidence but they both seem to be dead in the water. But perhaps it's not hard to see why. 
I can't be bothered to do the multiple identity thing as I don't seem to be missing anything interesting.
I expect to be invited back at some point. That's OK I'm anybody's! :lol:


----------



## markturner (9 Dec 2013)

he he,....bit like saying I have only been caught speeding twice.........


----------

