# Mobile Speed Cameras......Again



## Baldhead (24 Jan 2014)

Got another Notice Of Intended Prosecution today, for doing 36 in a 30 limit, it's strange because I saw the camera, I even mentioned it to the wife, I had a little laugh as we passed it, checked my speed, but didn't really need to as I had the speed limiter set to 30, so how the hell could I have been doing 36????

I recently attended a speed awareness course, there were six in our group, the speed awareness lecturer asked us all why we attended the course instead of taking the fixed penalty, one member of the group was adamant he was not speeding but accepted going on the course because he couldn't afford the costs involved fighting his corner, at the time I thought he was just one of those whinging types............ but now I wonder, was he right, should he have fought, should I fight.

At the time of the 'alleged offence' I was driving alongside another vehicle travelling in the same direction going at the same speed, I know nothing about speed cameras, but I wonder if the camera got confused by two vehicles travelling next to each other, because I sure as hell am confused.

A very angry Baldhead


----------



## ColeyS1 (24 Jan 2014)

Have you got the original size wheels on the vehicle ? 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Baldhead (24 Jan 2014)

ColeyS1":3tpx7tdq said:


> Have you got the original size wheels on the vehicle ?
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


Yes

Baldhead


----------



## heatherw (24 Jan 2014)

Mmm, could they have the camera set wrong? My father was telling me about a camera close to home which had been set for Km instead of miles. I believe you can also object on the grounds that the camera hasn't been recently calibrated (obviously if it hasn't been).


----------



## MickCheese (24 Jan 2014)

I thought there was some rules about vehicle separation and reflected images throwing out readings. 

Try looking on Google for the rules. Truvelo is a company that makes laser equipment so start there. 

Mick


----------



## mailee (24 Jan 2014)

Damn speed cameras! :evil: Since my second offence I have had my eyes glued to the speedo going through 30 zones, I swear I will end up having an accident as I am not concentrating on the road but on the dashboard! :roll:


----------



## finneyb (25 Jan 2014)

Some tips here that may help http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46407


----------



## bernienufc (25 Jan 2014)

hmmm, similar thing happened to me, i know i was speeding when i saw the camera (came around the bend) as i had just checked my spped seconds before and knew i was doing 58/59 60 would be well tops (50 limit), i got a summons for 63, so even allowing for speedo error there was no way that i was doing that, but i knew i was never going to win against them and i knew i was speeding so took the hit, although i grates me at the level at it which is was pitched.
I am not anti police but there are times when i think if they need help they can shove it.


----------



## Baldhead (25 Jan 2014)

finneyb":d01lytdl said:


> Some tips here that may help http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46407


Thanks for the link finneyb, some interesting reading there.



bernienufc":d01lytdl said:


> hmmm, similar thing happened to me, i know i was speeding when i saw the camera (came around the bend) as i had just checked my spped seconds before and knew i was doing 58/59 60 would be well tops (50 limit), i got a summons for 63, so even allowing for speedo error there was no way that i was doing that, but i knew i was never going to win against them and i knew i was speeding so took the hit, although i grates me at the level at it which is was pitched.
> I am not anti police but there are times when i think if they need help they can shove it.


I have always been pro the police but now I'm beginning to think why should I be, the unfortunate thing is, I have to prove either the camera (which has been proven is not 100%) was faulty or the operator wasn't using it properly, it would cost me s**t loads of money to pursue that and for what, to not have 3 points put on my licence, it ain't worth it, it just reinforces what a lot of people have said, speed cameras are there to make money.

Given the chance I would sit near to a mobile speed camera with a placard saying MOBILE CAMERA, that would slow people down so it would have the desired effect, however I understand from what I have found on the internet, I would be committing a criminal offence and would be arrested, criminal offence my a**e, I would be arrested because the camera operator wouldn't make enough money to cover his/her wages.

Baldhead


----------



## Spindle (25 Jan 2014)

Hi

I believe speedo error can be plus or minus 10% - however manufacturers err on the low side to prevent compensation claims from speeding drivers citing incorrect speedometers as the cause for their offence.

One of the first things I do with a new vehicle is to compare the relevant speedo readings, (30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 mph), with a sat nav readout - this will be more accurate than the speedo in most cases, at least then I know when I'm speeding.

I don't condone speeding but feel that most of us do it, either intentionally or accidentally, either way, if caught we deserve to be punished for breaking the law.

Regards Mick


----------



## MMUK (25 Jan 2014)

I had an NIP several years ago (the cock in his hi-vis jumped out from behind a hedge just as I was in range). Yes I was speeding but there was no way I was doing the 93mph the NIP claimed in a 60mph limit. I contested it and it went to court. The Police evidence presented in court said 63mph so the judge threw it out saying that that was well within the accuracy allowance for the car's speedometer. I didn't even have to get up and say a word :lol:


----------



## riclepp (25 Jan 2014)

There was some documentary on tv a few years back as well as in the paper all about the speed camers. It stated that a particual model always gave false negatives when aimed a certain objects. It claimed that the media bought one of the cameras and had it correctly calibrated and then clocked a solid brick wall doing 5mph. Other areas that gave false negatives where the following
Windscreen
Numberplate
Wheel Trims
Wet surfaces

and a couple of others which I can't remember. We must now remember that the police are no longer interested in solving crime, they are a business and therefor moterists are a far easier way of making money. So you can tell when they are short of cash or the Cheif Police Officer needs new office decor...out come the speed cameras, happens all the time here in Essex. They also get upset when you ask for the calibration certificate and call it a speed camera. I got done a few years back at 33mph....go figure!! I wrote a letter of complaint against the traffic sergent (due to his deminor as a public servant and all that) and funny enough he was transfer to another area of Essex.


----------



## markturner (25 Jan 2014)

bernienufc":1o1405h8 said:


> Given the chance I would sit near to a mobile speed camera with a placard saying MOBILE CAMERA, that would slow people down so it would have the desired effect, however I understand from what I have found on the internet, I would be committing a criminal offence and would be arrested, criminal offence my a**e, I would be arrested because the camera operator wouldn't make enough money to cover his/her wages.
> 
> Baldhead



This is a strange one, as fixed cameras have to have a sign showing the road has cameras. Also, they recently changed from making the cameras grey, so they were more difficult to see, to painting them bright yellow. I wonder why its different for that scenario? If you make someone slow down, then its job done isn't it? Apart from the fact that they missed out on some income......

It's a load of nonsense anyway.....30mph...safe 33 mph...dangerous....I don't think so


----------



## Steve Maskery (25 Jan 2014)

markturner":2whwozk7 said:


> It's a load of nonsense anyway.....30mph...safe 33 mph...dangerous....I don't think so



Mark
At the risk of opening up an argument (as opposed to a discussion), I cannot agree with this statement.
That extra 10% of speed means increased stopping distances. If a child runs out in front of you (and that has happened to me - it is terrifying) those extra 13 feet can mean the difference between stopping before you hit him and ending his life.
30mph = 90% chance of survival
40mph = 90% of death

It's not even linear, as the greatest deceleration happens near the end of the stop, so the further back up the curve you go, the greater the speed of the vehicle and the longer the stopping distance, pro rata.

I'm not being holier than thou here. I've been driving for 37 years and never had a speeding ticket, until a couple of months ago. I did the course this week. It was quite interesting and I did learn things I did not know. But I don't want to have to do it again, even after the three-year limit.
S


----------



## Sheptonphil (25 Jan 2014)

riclepp":339d00tj said:


> We must now remember that the police are no longer interested in solving crime, they are a business and therefor moterists are a far easier way of making money. .



In Somerset, all fixed speed cameras have been switched off for the last couple of years, as the County Council refused o fund them. The police have now proposed buying them at £1 each and turning them back on even in areas where accident figures have been shown to have fallen since the turn off. Got to be a better bet than a £1 lottery ticket for a payout. 

Phil


----------



## Baldhead (25 Jan 2014)

Steve I too recently did the course, like yourself my first speeding ticket in 35 years of driving, I also found it very interesting and learned quite a few things, that is why this time I am genuinely annoyed because I now stick strictly to the speed limit.

Baldhead


----------



## Lons (26 Jan 2014)

Steve Maskery":3u7ggx4o said:


> markturner":3u7ggx4o said:
> 
> 
> > It's a load of nonsense anyway.....30mph...safe 33 mph...dangerous....I don't think so
> ...



It isn't as black and white as that unfortunately Steve. There are a number of other variable which means it's almost impossible to compare like with like.

At similar speed and conditions, My A6 can stop in a shorter distance than my wifes Mini, not as quick as my mates Porche but considerably quicker than a typical delivery lorry or a bus and the older the vehicle the more likely it has poorer brakes. there is also the issue of road conditions, driver response time ability and number of occupants / load of the vehicle, air temperature allied to type of tyres fitted etc. etc. In other words a modern car with highly efficient brakes (generally high performance cars are best) is often capable of stopping as quickly from 40 or 50 as would a different vehicle from 30 or even 20. - Apples and pears!!

I wouldn't of course argue with the survival figures or even the need for adherance to speed limits but they can only ever be a generalisation.

I haven't had a ticket in 47 years of driving BTW, but I bet that's put the moccas on that!  

Bob

PS

I started a thread about a particular mobile camera a while ago. A thread that rumbled on and on but the stats I have proves beyond doubt that the motive in this area is purely financially driven as the location has had not a single incident in the past 5 years compared with another road which has had numerous including a number of deaths. The revenue they collect from that hiding place is staggering and unjustifyable but they were there again this week whilst some poor driver was badly injured 15 miles away where they never site the camera.
Road safety camera? - pull the other one.


----------



## Baldhead (26 Jan 2014)

Bob

I remember that thread well.

This camera was on Barrack Road, Newcastle, I was in the outside lane running alongside an old van, I saw the camera parked up on the right about halfway down the hill, speed limiter set to 30, as soon as I saw him I checked my speed, it was still 30 at the brow of the hill, I covered my brake and kept braking until I was right up to the camera van, I even laughed and said to the wife, something like, "I bet he catches a few out on this hill" (or words to that effect)

I can't remember the last time there was a fatality or serious accident on that stretch of road, which sort of reinforces what you said on your thread. 

The next time a mobile camera van is parked up under the trees next to the fire station I used to work at, I will do my upmost to warn oncoming motorists of his position, when I get arrested (and I've been told I will be) I will ask for the statistics for fatal or serious accidents on that part of the road. 

As you say speeding is wrong but let's not confuse road safety campaigns with income generation.

Rant over 

Baldhead


----------



## markturner (26 Jan 2014)

I too remember the last thread and it's all been done to death there really. However, since you raised the stopping distance point Steve ( and I am sure we can debate this politely until Jacob comes along), these figures can be a bit of a misnomer...consider this, in the hypothetical "child runs out in front of you" scenario you raise, nearly everyone has a chance to hit the brakes, swerve and generally mitigate their speed - You are never going to hit that child at 40MPH without stopping, or 30MPH if that's what you were doing, unless the child runs out from behind a car right in front of you, in which case, you would not even have time to register it and start to brake...... So actual impact speeds are likely to be considerably lower. Lets say you were doing 33 mph instead of 30, braked and were doing 15 or 20 when you hit the child.....that extra 3 mph will translate down to maybe 1mph at impact. I doubt if you could even statistically measure the difference in effect. Those stopping distances are measured to 0mph. lets face it, no one ever slows from say 40 or 60 or whatever you are doing to a dead stop..you hit the brakes and slow down....maybe 30 or 40 or 50%...so those distances are going to be much closer if you measure them at that point. Most accidents, you are still moving at quite a high speed when you collide.

Again, I stress, I am not advocating dangerous driving, but I hesitate to blindly swallow all the statistics people throw around without applying some logic or reason to them. And the point about different cars and conditions is also very valid. 

My philosophy is to always drive safely by matching your speed and or style of driving to the conditions. If that means driving at 15MPH in a 30 limit, ( maybe its really foggy, heavy rain etc...) so be it. But another day in totally different conditions etc, you could perhaps very safely drive at 35mph in that same spot. This point is amply illustrated by the use of variable speed limits, which show that a set limit can often be safe or unsafe depending on conditions.


----------



## KevM (26 Jan 2014)

markturner":1sesoq2i said:


> I too remember the last thread and it's all been done to death there really. However, since you raised the stopping distance point Steve ( and I am sure we can debate this politely until Jacob comes along), these figures can be a bit of a misnomer...consider this, in the hypothetical "child runs out in front of you" scenario you raise, nearly everyone has a chance to hit the brakes, swerve and generally mitigate their speed - You are never going to hit that child at 40MPH without stopping, or 30MPH if that's what you were doing, unless the child runs out from behind a car right in front of you, in which case, you would not even have time to register it and start to brake...... So actual impact speeds are likely to be considerably lower. Lets say you were doing 33 mph instead of 30, braked and were doing 15 or 20 when you hit the child.....that extra 3 mph will translate down to maybe 1mph at impact. I doubt if you could even statistically measure the difference in effect. Those stopping distances are measured to 0mph. lets face it, no one ever slows from say 40 or 60 or whatever you are doing to a dead stop..you hit the brakes and slow down....maybe 30 or 40 or 50%...so those distances are going to be much closer if you measure them at that point. Most accidents, you are still moving at quite a high speed when you collide.
> 
> Again, I stress, I am not advocating dangerous driving, but I hesitate to blindly swallow all the statistics people throw around without applying some logic or reason to them. And the point about different cars and conditions is also very valid.
> 
> My philosophy is to always drive safely by matching your speed and or style of driving to the conditions. If that means driving at 15MPH in a 30 limit, ( maybe its really foggy, heavy rain etc...) so be it. But another day in totally different conditions etc, you could perhaps very safely drive at 35mph in that same spot. This point is amply illustrated by the use of variable speed limits, which show that a set limit can often be safe or unsafe depending on conditions.



It's hard to know where to start with a rebuttal, and as previous experience has demonstrated that you're impervious to reasoned debate I shan't waste anybody's time further - other than to observe how ironic it is that you, while claiming to want a polite debate, start it off with an unveiled snide reference to another board member.


----------



## markturner (26 Jan 2014)

I think you will find that whatever side of the fence you fall on this, no one has altered their stance on this subject despite what any of the other posters say. Most people have their opinions and don't change them. Nothing wrong with that, but don't come here and try and tell me I won't listen to reason when you are just as obstinate in supporting your own views. Or that my view is somehow less important or valid than yours. This is a forum for polite and reasoned debate, I don't see any departure in what I said from that. Why don't we just agree to differ. 

I am more than happy to be polite to Steve, and pretty much everyone else here, but I ( and many others here ) have a problem with Jacob. And if you cant see why from the last thread, then I suggest you re read it. If you have a problem with me and what I say, after all that, use the ignore button, unless you want to put some kind of reasoned reply to my perfectly reasonable points.


----------



## John Brown (27 Jan 2014)

If you are driving at 45 MPH then you will be long gone by the time the child runs out between the parked cars, so it's obviously safer the faster you drive.


----------



## markturner (27 Jan 2014)

Yes, well, you know what they say about sarcasm...........Why would you choose to interpret what I was saying as that? I just re read it and its pretty clear to me what I was saying. 

I clearly said that your speed should match conditions. If you were driving in a built up area, along a stretch of road with parked cars, and lots of houses / pedestrians, then that is precisely where you should be driving slowly and taking extra care.....possibly even driving below the limit....


----------



## DrPhill (27 Jan 2014)

The problem with allowing drivers discretion about their maximum safe speed is that not all of them are capable of making responsible decisions. While you may have a firm grasp of road conditions and a reasonable competence at assessing risk you are not typical. We all know that there are irresponsible, incompetent idiots out there. The speed limits are there to protect us from the consequence of their actions.

While you may make reasoned and enlightened decisions about safety/speed/acceptable risk, the chap behind or in front of you may be a total wombat. How do I decide, in advance, that you have the right to make your own decision about maximum speed while preventing the wombat behind you from causing an accident? I can't. Not until after an accident has happened. I do not imagine that it will console the parents of the 5 year old to be told 'well, now we know that that guy was a wombat, we will make him stick to the speed limits'.

So what is to be done? The answer for this society (and many others around the world) is to define maximum speeds. The responsible, socially minded people will grudgingly stick to these limits as best as they can. The wombats will break them - thereby defining themselves as such. No amount of linguistic contortion will disguise this.


----------



## riclepp (27 Jan 2014)

If we are talking about stopping distances. I think you will find that most modern cars will stop in a shorter distance that shown on the back of the highway code. Modern cars have better breaking systems and tyres than they did when those stopping distances were first advertised. I can't be sure, but I don't think that they have ever been updated to show the incerease in car safety systems either in all the years they have been written. Also these distances were done in scientific conditions and I don't know what the criterions were for the research either (but, sure as day follows night someone will). What does kill and injur other road users, is the lack of competence of some drivers in thier ability to drive safely and by this I mean driving too fast, beyond their capability, beyond a cars capability, without regard to road conditions, inability to interperate weather conditions and their effect on the ability of the car performance, showing off, stupidity, arrogance, lack of spped awareness etc, I could go on and on but I am sure you get the drift. So looking at this, it is obvious why people get speeding tickets. A lot of people I know could'nt even estimate what speed they are doing without looking at the speedo. I do think if you break traffic laws and they highway code then you must accept the consequeces, but I don't agree that the police should use this as a way to make more money, nor do I think you should get points and a fine....it should be one or the other. No, I am not a perfect driver, but I don't sit on peoples tails, I don't have front fog lights on cause it looks cool, I don't have ipod ear plugs in me lugholes, dont drink and drive nor use the phone and have had two speeding tickets in 25+ plus years of driving. I am all for a five yearly driving test for ALL drivers, this migh get rid of some of the more dangerous drivers off the roads. Rant over!!!!!!!


----------



## Baldhead (27 Jan 2014)

I cannot comment on Steve's Speed Awareness course, but the course that I did, made no mention whatsoever of the stopping distances in the Highway Code, the stopping distances were measured using an advanced police driver in a new(ish) car, just thought I would clarify that point.

Baldhead


----------



## Steve Maskery (27 Jan 2014)

One of the things that surprised me was just how much impact speeds were affected by fairly small changes in original driving speed. Driving at 32 instead of 30 does not increase the impact speed by an extra 2 mph, it increases it by considerably more. I forget the actual figures, I'd have to get them. I'll see the bloke on Tuesday, it's held in the building next to where I do my voluntary work.
But the upshot is, whatever they would have been hit at (which depends on how far in front of you they are when you brake), a small increase in speed results in a big increase in impact speed. This is because most of the braking effect occurs at the end of the braking period, not at the start of it.
When the 10-year-old ran out in front of me there was nowhere to swerve to, even if I had had time to swerve. It all happened so quickly. I was doing, well I don't know what I was doing, but it was only 20 or 25mph. If I had been doing even 30, which was the limit, I would have hit him. As it was he went off laughing and I was a gibbering wreck.


----------



## bugbear (27 Jan 2014)

Laws need to be simple enough to be detectable and enforceable.

All the (fascinating) complication of this thread seems to miss this key point.

BugBear


----------



## RogerS (27 Jan 2014)

DrPhill":xsgpcfhl said:


> .... The speed limits are there to protect us from the consequence of their actions.
> 
> ....



Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 'Sorry, officer, but I was driving at the speed limit when that child ran out. Yes, I know that there is a lot of snow on the road but I was driving within the speed limit. 

It is the wrong speed and the wrong time in the wrong place. Not driving at 29.5mph with brain in neutral.


----------



## n0legs (27 Jan 2014)

Kids/people running out into the road.
Drivers are ruled by laws etc and are expected to be responsible, why should pedestrians be any different.
There's a reason the yanks have the "Jaywalking" laws.
Bring back The Green Cross Code Man and prosecute useless parents.
Accidents I can accept, reckless behaviour is a no no.


----------



## DrPhill (27 Jan 2014)

RogerS":2qeayhh6 said:


> DrPhill":2qeayhh6 said:
> 
> 
> > .... The speed limits are there to protect us from the consequence of their actions.
> ...



It is a LIMIT not a TARGET. Someone driving at 29.5 mph in treacherous conditions would be just as culpable as someone driving at 40mph in perfect conditions. Wrong is defined in two ways: too fast for the conditions, and too fast for the law.

Society has rules. They are there to be obeyed. This is part of the social contract. Attempts by individuals to justify picking and choosing which laws they have to obey seems very selfish and immature. What is it that sets them apart and gives them the privilege of choice?

Remember that more than 95% of drivers rate themselves as 'above average'. So almost half of drivers have a flawed perception of their own capabilities. Do you want them making judgements that could cost your life?

Sorry to the OP - I have been drawn into the bun-fight again. I too dislike confusion of road safety with revenue generation, but if those are the rules I will live with them. There are, for me, far more important abuses of power to get vexed about.


----------



## RogerS (27 Jan 2014)

DrPhill":1duv5g0q said:


> RogerS":1duv5g0q said:
> 
> 
> > DrPhill":1duv5g0q said:
> ...



So you accept that a driver's judgement comes into the equation. Therefore where is the difference in a driver deciding that 90 mph down an empty motorway in ideal weather conditions and no-one else on the motorway is the right speed ?


----------



## DrPhill (27 Jan 2014)

RogerS":26dxkoy1 said:


> DrPhill":26dxkoy1 said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":26dxkoy1 said:
> ...



Because the law says that he should not. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? Or if you are saying that people are only obliged to obey laws that they like, then you would agree that it is fine to break your window and steal your telly? Where is the difference?


----------



## JustBen (27 Jan 2014)

These discussion will only ever go round and round.

There will always be people who can safely drive above the speed limit without being a danger.
There will always be people who are dangerous even when driving under the limit.

I saw a prime example today.
Car waiting to turn right at T junction pulls right in front of oncoming car. The car had to swerve to avoid him.
This was done right in front of a Traffic Car waiting to turn left.
What good is a camera against him if he is willing to do that in front of a Police car?

I see this many, many times a day.
The most common one is grandad doing 55mph in the 3rd lane of an empty motorway.

The choice is the drivers. If you want to speed, then do it. But you have to live with the consequences if the worst was to happen.


----------



## DrPhill (27 Jan 2014)

JustBen":2pple49r said:


> These discussion will only ever go round and round.
> 
> There will always be people who can safely drive above the speed limit without being a danger.
> There will always be people who are dangerous even when driving under the limit.
> ...



I can agree with you entirely with one small modification.

replace "There will always be people who can safely drive above the speed limit without being a danger."

with "There will always be people who *would like us to believe that they* can safely drive above the speed limit without being a danger."

Those people with their misconceptions are a greater danger even than the people who do not similarly overestimate their abilities.


----------



## doorframe (27 Jan 2014)

DrPhill":3j1ceygg said:


> Remember that more than 95% of drivers rate themselves as 'above average'.



That's hilarious =D> :lol:. The remaining 5% of us (me included, obviously) must be terrible drivers! :shock:

Seriously though, regardless of their imaginary superiority, why do they feel the 'need' to speed anyway? 

Just leave home 10 minutes earlier. It's not rocket science.


----------



## JustBen (27 Jan 2014)

DrPhill":gedgzj4n said:


> JustBen":gedgzj4n said:
> 
> 
> > These discussion will only ever go round and round.
> ...



So Traffic Officers, Professional Racing Drivers, Stunt Drivers etc.... They are all dangerous and don't have the skill?....

Like I said.... There will always be people who can drive safely above the limit without being a danger. They may be few and far between, but they still exist.


----------



## markturner (27 Jan 2014)

Exactly.......So, we are all woodworkers here, many professionals and many more highly skilled amateurs. Many of us cook, or do other hobbies, like cycling, swimming etc. 

Following the logic of the assertion that its impossible to tell if you are in fact a good or skilled or above average driver, are you seriously suggesting that we are all unable to judge the level of skill at which we carry on all these other hobbies or occupations? 

You know if you are a good swimmer, a good cook or good at your job. Same as you know if you are bad at them. 

Why it is then judged impossible to assess your ability as a driver? Would you say that 95% of everyone here rates themselves as being a top notch woodworker? No, of course not - Some would , others would not. But I could pretty much guarantee that most peoples assessment of their skill level was pretty accurate.

The only problem with asking people about their driving skills , is most associate good driving skills with blindly obeying every law to the letter or driving very slowly no matter what the road conditions. Also, there are many who may well indeed have great skills - but may be bad drivers, if they don't apply those skills sensibly.....

It's not simply black and white - a good driver knows when its safe to speed up, required to slow down, required to take extra care, or whether he needs a rest, or whether he should wait before overtaking that slow car. And should also be able to read the road ahead, know what's happening in front and behind him, and be able to handle his car in adverse conditions, like loss of traction, sudden braking, etc. 

If you have raced cars, motorcycles etc on tracks, and can do these things and have never had any serious accidents, as well as being able to apply safe techniques on the road, then I would say you could pretty safely call yourself an above average driver.


----------



## RogerS (27 Jan 2014)

markturner":7ftvhm9e said:


> .... then I would say you could pretty safely call yourself an above average driver.




Provided, of course, that you slavishly follow the speed limit :-"


----------



## MIGNAL (27 Jan 2014)

I'm a very safe driver. i can safely drive at 180 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. I don't really care what anyone else thinks, they are wrong - that includes any 'authority'. The important bit is that I believe I'm safe. In fact I don't believe it, I know it. It's up to you to prove otherwise.


----------



## MMUK (27 Jan 2014)

All I will say here is to reiterate a comment I made on a previous thread.

We need to overhaul the training system. Things will not change until driving standards improve. Drivers need to be re-educated and the test needs to be a lot tougher. New drivers should be restricted to a lower performance car for at least two years, maybe a maximum of 75BHP. I would also increase this restriction for young drivers so that they will be on a restricted license until the age of either 21 or 25. I would also introduce a mandatory assessment every 5 years (similar to PPC for HGV/PSV drivers) up to the age of 70, then every year after that. I would also adopt the auto bahn principle on our motorways and make punishments for transgression of the law more severe.

One last thing I would do is outlaw the ambulance chasers and stop compensation unless injury is severe enough to threaten livelihood or possible loss of your home or if there is a fatality. Otherwise, it was an accident, get over it like they used to in the olden days.

The authorities keep telling us that most accidents are caused by young drivers, new drivers and drivers over a certain age. So therefore my idea makes sense, to me anyway.


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

I don't see that anyone has addressed this point, made by DrPhill earlier.
"Because the law says that he should not. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? Or if you are saying that people are only obliged to obey laws that they like, then you would agree that it is fine to break your window and steal your telly? Where is the difference?"
I would be genuinely interested in seeing how the pro-speeders respond. How do you choose which laws to obey, and which to flout?


----------



## RogerS (28 Jan 2014)

John Brown":2lg180b3 said:


> ....
> I would be genuinely interested in seeing how the pro-speeders respond. How do you choose which laws to obey, and which to flout?



Simple. There is only the one. Speed limits. It is a sledge hammer. Much better to be charged with something like careless driving. That then brings into the equation wrong speed for the wrong conditions in the wrong place. Would also remove the concept of 'revenue generation' with some cameras.


----------



## Jacob (28 Jan 2014)

markturner":mi89t689 said:


> .......
> If you have raced cars, motorcycles etc on tracks, and can do these things and have never had any serious accidents, as well as being able to apply safe techniques on the road, then I would say you could pretty safely call yourself an above average driver.


The difference is that on race tracks you are not likely to encounter people wobbling along on bikes, drunks staggering off the pavements, small kids running out after balls, dogs, learner drivers and a huge list of perfectly legitimate other users who aren't racing drivers, or even very competent. So an above average driver would be one who (amongst other things) doesn't exceed speed limits. Anybody who imagines he doesn't need to do this is a dangerous twerp.

One amendment to the law - I would make all drivers responsible by default for any collision with a non-powered road user (bike, walker, etc)


----------



## RogerS (28 Jan 2014)

From The Times...

Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled
*Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows*.
The data, revealed by annual road casualty statistics, provoked calls for responsible cycling and the construction of dedicated facilities to keep cyclists out of conflict with other road users.
When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.


----------



## MMUK (28 Jan 2014)

Jacob":1yy5qh3j said:


> One amendment to the law - I would make all drivers responsible by default for any collision with a non-powered road user (bike, walker, etc)



:shock: :?: 

So you would be happy to get charged with dangerous driving if you were tootling along at 20mph and a child or cyclist suddenly appears 2 feet in front of you from behind a parked van and you end up knocking them down?

You need to think a little more about your statement Jacob.

What would be more prudent is to make cyclists legally obliged to pass a test to use the road, pay VED and pay insurance.


----------



## carlb40 (28 Jan 2014)

MMUK":3ipk9t0y said:


> Jacob":3ipk9t0y said:
> 
> 
> > One amendment to the law - I would make all drivers responsible by default for any collision with a non-powered road user (bike, walker, etc)
> ...


Exactly. I had that a few years back. Driving up the A45 to coventry and a cyclist was on the path. Without even looking he rode straight onto the road right in front of me and carried on cycling :twisted:


----------



## mseries (28 Jan 2014)

Plenty of motorists do stupid things while insured and licenced and having paid their duty. Plenty of motorists are not insured, have paid no VED and are not licenced to use the road. Nothing will change by charging cyclists, not even the attitude of motorists.


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

"What would be more prudent is to make cyclists legally obliged to pass a test to use the road, pay VED and pay insurance."
Leaving aside the VED chestnut, why stop there?
Surely the same rules should apply to babies in prams and pedestrians.
Let's have MOTs for pedestrians as well. If you have any sort of disability, you are legally banned from going anywhere near a public thoroughfare.
It may seem harsh, but the rights of Mr Toad are paramount.


----------



## RogerS (28 Jan 2014)

John Brown":hyzv79c2 said:


> "What would be more prudent is to make cyclists legally obliged to pass a test to use the road, pay VED and pay insurance."
> Leaving aside the VED chestnut, why stop there?
> Surely the same rules should apply to babies in prams and pedestrians.
> Let's have MOTs for pedestrians as well. If you have any sort of disability, you are legally banned from going anywhere near a public thoroughfare.
> It may seem harsh, but the rights of Mr Toad are paramount.



I repeat the extract from the Times...

Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled
*Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.*
The data, revealed by annual road casualty statistics, provoked calls for responsible cycling and the construction of dedicated facilities to keep cyclists out of conflict with other road users.
When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.

What is so hard to understand about that? Certainly there is no excuse for cyclists not to have insurance and pass a test to use the road.

Babies in prams. ? That is just being plain daft.


----------



## MMUK (28 Jan 2014)

John Brown":7yat25hz said:


> Leaving aside the VED chestnut, why stop there?
> Surely the same rules should apply to babies in prams and pedestrians.
> Let's have MOTs for pedestrians as well. If you have any sort of disability, you are legally banned from going anywhere near a public thoroughfare.
> It may seem harsh, but the rights of Mr Toad are paramount.




The difference being that cyclists INTENTIONALLY use the road. A bit different to crossing the road. The number of cyclists I see who can't ride in a straight line and continually wobbling all over the place beggars belief. These are the ones who cause motorists to swerve out of the way and therefore potentially cause accidents.

Also, how many cyclists actually obey road signs and traffic signals? Answer - very few. If they want to use the road they should at least obey the laws of the road.

I know professional cyclists who agree with me.


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

I have no objection to cyclists having to pass some sort of competency test, and possibly even insurance(VED, as has been pointed out numerous times before, is simply a tax, and is not ring-fenced for spending on roads. You may think it should be, and I might agree, but in any event, when I'm riding a bike my emissions are lower than that of a duty exempt Toyota Prius), but I think that enforcement would be a big problem. However, I don't see how the sins of the cyclists are any sort of justification or excuse for speeding motorists.


----------



## Grahamshed (28 Jan 2014)

We already have laws forbidding the disabled from using roads < he says, tongue in cheek >Despite laws regarding discriminating against the disabled ( I am technically blind ) they will not let me drive a car.


----------



## MMUK (28 Jan 2014)

John Brown":2nsxjrh3 said:


> I don't see how the sins of the cyclists are any sort of justification or excuse for speeding motorists.



Did anyone say it was? :roll:


----------



## RogerS (28 Jan 2014)

John Brown":3045hrtt said:


> I have no objection to cyclists having to pass some sort of competency test, and possibly even insurance(VED, as has been pointed out numerous times before, is simply a tax, and is not ring-fenced for spending on roads. You may think it should be, and I might agree, but in any event, when I'm riding a bike my emissions are lower than that of a duty exempt Toyota Prius), but I think that enforcement would be a big problem. However, I don't see how the sins of the cyclists are any sort of justification or excuse for speeding motorists.



But it was you who introduced babies in prams. No-one is saying that bad cyclists are an excuse for motorists driving carelessly for the road conditions. But cyclists are not holier-than-thou as your original post seemed to suggest.


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

"Also, how many cyclists actually obey road signs and traffic signals? Answer - very few. If they want to use the road they should at least obey the laws of the road."
Speaking for myself, when I'm cycling I obey all the rules of the road, and I indicate before manouvering. When did you last see a motorist indicating before a left turn? If you can remember such an event, then it was probably me driving.

But this is all distraction and misdirection. The fact that a lot of cyclists choose to ride three abreast on narrow roads, ignore stop signals or fail to indicate does nothing to justify Mr Toad.


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

MMUK":3fjzqqi1 said:


> John Brown":3fjzqqi1 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how the sins of the cyclists are any sort of justification or excuse for speeding motorists.
> ...


Well why on earth did anyone bring them up, then, in a discussion about speed cameras?


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

"But it was you who introduced babies in prams."
Yes, in an obviously futile attempt to highlight how irelevant misbehaving cyclists are to a discussion about speeding.


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

"I know professional cyclists who agree with me."
Brilliant! 
I can not compete with such watertight arguments as the Appeal to Higher Authority.


----------



## MMUK (28 Jan 2014)

John, if you look back you will find that the cyclist element was introduced by Jacob with his statement of making all drivers responsible by default for any collisions with peds, cyclists, etc.

So, this is not a distraction or misdirection. This is how the thread has gone. How many threads actually stay perfectly on topic?



John Brown":39v05umv said:


> Speaking for myself, when I'm cycling I obey all the rules of the road, and I indicate before manouvering.



ALL of them? You can recite the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act by heart then I take it?



John Brown":39v05umv said:


> When did you last see a motorist indicating before a left turn? If you can remember such an event, then it was probably me driving.



So you are saying that the vast majority of drivers don't indicate to turn left? That's how your comment comes across.


So far your comments give the impression that you see your own driving abilities elevated to a much higher level than the rest of us and that you are one of the safest road users. IME, it's these drivers that can be among the most incompetent of all, just as bad as a testosterone fueled teenager in an EVO or Scooby.


----------



## MMUK (28 Jan 2014)

John Brown":16xjucdk said:


> "I know professional cyclists who agree with me."
> Brilliant!
> I can not compete with such watertight arguments as the Appeal to Higher Authority.




Sorry John but that's a pathetic grab at the straw that doesn't exist. :roll:


----------



## KevM (28 Jan 2014)

It's so hard to leave all these muddy little pigs alone.



markturner":b721ltyd said:


> Exactly.......So, we are all woodworkers here, many professionals and many more highly skilled amateurs. Many of us cook, or do other hobbies, like cycling, swimming etc.
> 
> Following the logic of the assertion that its impossible to tell if you are in fact a good or skilled or above average driver, are you seriously suggesting that we are all unable to judge the level of skill at which we carry on all these other hobbies or occupations?
> 
> ...



More poorly reasoned, irrelevant and misleading comparisons. Generally speaking, if other people's well being depends on your ability to conduct a safety critical activity to a certain standard you are required to be appropriately certified by an appropriate body and operate in accordance with that body's rules & regulations. 
Good swimmer/bad swimmer - unless you're a professional lifeguard nobody cares
Good cook/bad cook - so long as you pass the minimum bar of food hygiene nobody cares




markturner":b721ltyd said:


> If you have raced cars, motorcycles etc on tracks, and can do these things and have never had any serious accidents, as well as being able to apply safe techniques on the road, then I would say you could pretty safely call yourself an above average driver



Actuarial tables don't care about your unsubstantiated claims, they provide a statistical approach that funnily enough makes racing drivers the most expensive occupation for private motor insurance.



> Nonetheless, F1 drivers are clearly speed-freaks who live for the thrills they get behind the wheel of their racing machine. But problems can arise when they take their work home with them: there have been a number of incidents involving F1 drivers speeding, or driving dangerously on general roads and motorways, demonstrating that even the most skilled drivers can come a cropper and be fined or face a conviction.
> 
> *F1 racing driver incidents*
> 
> ...


 http://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-ins ... ng-errors/

You may not believe in statistics, but they believe in you.


----------



## Jacob (28 Jan 2014)

MMUK":3rwpokyz said:


> Jacob":3rwpokyz said:
> 
> 
> > One amendment to the law - I would make all drivers responsible by default for any collision with a non-powered road user (bike, walker, etc)
> ...


I wouldn't be happy of course but I would have to accept that I was driving too fast in the circumstances. The busier the area the more risk there is of children etc emerging unexpectedly.
Cyclists have the same problem in reverse - passing parked vehicles you keep your distance (1 metre ish) as you have to assume that you are invisible and that a door might swing open in front of you and knock you off. It happens quite a lot. Still car drivers fault though, for being unobservant.


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

MMUK":db4c89d3 said:


> John Brown":db4c89d3 said:
> 
> 
> > "I know professional cyclists who agree with me."
> ...



Apology accepted.


----------



## MMUK (28 Jan 2014)

John Brown":1494p2t3 said:


> MMUK":1494p2t3 said:
> 
> 
> > John Brown":1494p2t3 said:
> ...




:roll: 

And you've deliberately missed answering my other point about you seeing your own driving ability elevated way above the rest of us mere mortals. 

I can only assume then that you own driving abilities are so mind numbingly perfect that it would be futile for you to try and explain how good you are to the rest of us, even an ex-professional* racing driver such as myself. I am sorry to have crossed swords with one of such elite status as your good self. :roll: 


_* 2001 and 2002 BTCC seasons with Trevor Humphrey Motorsport. And for the record, I'm not perfect by any means. I make mistakes as we all do, except yourself of course John :wink: _


----------



## John Brown (28 Jan 2014)

"So you are saying that the vast majority of drivers don't indicate to turn left? That's how your comment comes across."
That is how it seems, sometimes. A lot don't indicate at all, and don't know when to turn their lights on either.


"So far your comments give the impression that you see your own driving abilities elevated to a much higher level than the rest of us and that you are one of the safest road users. IME, it's these drivers that can be among the most incompetent of all, just as bad as a testosterone fueled teenager in an EVO or Scooby."
Hardly. You are putting words into my mouth here. All I have claimed is that I indicate before manouvering. If you think that means means my driving abilities are elevated to a much higher level than the rest of you, then I won't comment.


----------



## MMUK (28 Jan 2014)

John Brown":2tw175uk said:


> That is how it seems, sometimes. A lot don't indicate at all, and don't know when to turn their lights on either.



I agree it may seem like that at times. However I think your comment was a little too much like tarring all drivers with the same brush. I do agree fully about using lights, or lack of using them. Some people seem to think that DRLs are a substitute :roll: Thank you EU :evil: 



John Brown":2tw175uk said:


> Hardly. You are putting words into my mouth here. All I have claimed is that I indicate before manouvering. If you think that means means my driving abilities are elevated to a much higher level than the rest of you, then I won't comment.



Maybe you should look at how you word your comments as that is how it was construed. I accept that the internet is a difficult place to express intention with just words which is why we have to be even more careful how we construct our sentences.


----------



## Preston (28 Jan 2014)




----------



## RossJarvis (28 Jan 2014)

Interesting to see that this thread is still running. I didn't read further in than this last page but am intrigued by the comments that some people think you can't find an objective way to determine if you are a good driver or not. Anyone can join the Institute of Advanced Motorists or RoSPA or just pop up at open days and get an assessment of their driving, often by serving Police Officers who've been trained to drive well and to observe and teach others. You can then decide to focus on learning how to become a better driver by taking further training.

If you haven't considered this route, you don't know if you are a good driver and may well be awful. If you do go down this route you are likely to become a better driver. Instructors from these organisations often comment that many poor drivers think they are good, so good in fact that they don't feel the need to take additional training to improve their driving.

Personally I think the best place to start is to assume that you are not actually a good driver, seek assessment and professional training and then you will become a better driver. One of the benefits of this is that your insurance premiums may come down as it is statistically shown that "advanced/further-trained" drivers are less likely to have accidents. Probably due to them not suffering from what causes many accidents, which is over-confidence in their own abilities.


----------



## n0legs (28 Jan 2014)

MMUK":14dzepgd said:


> just as bad as a testosterone fueled teenager in an EVO or Scooby.



It's not just teenagers :wink:
and I drive mine like a lunatic :twisted:


----------



## Finial (28 Jan 2014)

When I'm riding a bike I often think that 95% of drivers are worse than average 

Where are all these good drivers? I ride every day on a single lane road with parking. Until I started riding right out in the lane to stop them, just about every single driver would pass dangerously close rather than wait a few seconds until there was room to do so in accordance with the Highway Code.

And as for bikes wobbling, that's what they do! I can't ride a dead straight line even when I'm not having to swerve round potholes. What worries bike riders is that most drivers don't give enough space. Even the police, not noted for being pro cycling, say the driver was at fault in the majority of bike/motor vehicle accidents.


----------



## riclepp (28 Jan 2014)

I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand here folks, as this appears to becomming a slagging off match rather than sensible, resoned debate. Long and short, there are good drivers, bad drivers as there are motorcyclist, pushbikers and no one is perfect. People speed and people don't speed. Some read the high way code regulary and some never read it once the driving test is passed. There are people who speed and those that don't you speed and get caught it is your own fault if you intentionally break the speed limits.

So let us all sit in a nice big circle, hold hands and sing kumbyar......


----------



## JustBen (28 Jan 2014)

There's a Highway Code?!?


----------



## Seagoon (28 Jan 2014)

JustBen":3mmcfgag said:


> There's a Highway Code?!?


Dunno . Maybe they would have told us if we had ever taken a test :twisted:


----------



## Lons (29 Jan 2014)

Well, the last thread reached 227 posts.. #-o 

Surely this one can't - can it? Must have been thrashed to death by now :roll:


----------



## John Brown (29 Jan 2014)

Lons":2c7wvx2f said:


> Well, the last thread reached 227 posts.. #-o
> 
> Surely this one can't - can it? Must have been thrashed to death by now :roll:


Well, I expect it can if we all keep adding comments like this.  
Can we open a book on how many posts it gets to?


----------



## doorframe (29 Jan 2014)

I'm sure it would trundle on a bit more if I said that the speeders were probably all Mac users who can't sharpen for toffee.


----------



## RogerS (29 Jan 2014)

doorframe":2mombjjf said:


> I'm sure it would trundle on a bit more if I said that the speeders were probably all Mac users who can't sharpen for toffee.



But Jacob doesn't speed :lol: 

Thinking a bit more about cyclists and harking back to when I used to ride a bike as a kid, seems to me that these days cyclists are not quite as road/pedestrian-friendly as they were then. For example, I seem to remember having a wing mirror to check before I pulled out to go past parked cars. These days I have yet to see a cyclist even bother to look over their shoulder.

And what happened to bicycle bells?


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2014)

RogerS":3gm2e2qb said:


> doorframe":3gm2e2qb said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure it would trundle on a bit more if I said that the speeders were probably all Mac users who can't sharpen for toffee.
> ...


Been done 3 times! Not because I think I'm an ace driver - just lack of attention, 35 ish in 30 zone every time. I now stick firmly to the limit. More and more people do as they get more points on their licences, and the roads get safer.


> ...... These days I have yet to see a cyclist even bother to look over their shoulder.


They do if they can. It has to be a very quick glance or they veer off course.


> And what happened to bicycle bells?


I've got one. Most do. It annoys some pedestrians however. Annoys them even more if you come up and pass them without warning.


----------



## DrPhill (29 Jan 2014)

JustBen":3og8xypr said:


> There's a Highway Code?!?



Only for bad drivers. Good drivers make it up as they go along.


----------



## JustBen (29 Jan 2014)

DrPhill":l9lcwa1p said:


> JustBen":l9lcwa1p said:
> 
> 
> > There's a Highway Code?!?
> ...



I thought the rule was "Drive it like you stole it"...


----------



## Finial (30 Jan 2014)

_Thinking a bit more about cyclists and harking back to when I used to ride a bike as a kid, seems to me that these days cyclists are not quite as road/pedestrian-friendly as they were then. For example, I seem to remember having a wing mirror to check before I pulled out to go past parked cars. These days I have yet to see a cyclist even bother to look over their shoulder._

Shoulder checks are important, but it would be nice if drivers automatically gave space for riders to pull out. What else do they expect to happen when a bike comes up to a parked car? I'm sure you do Roger, as you have ridden a bike yourself, but in my experience few drivers do.

Terry


----------



## RogerS (3 Feb 2014)

Finial":3uxdpbx7 said:


> _Thinking a bit more about cyclists and harking back to when I used to ride a bike as a kid, seems to me that these days cyclists are not quite as road/pedestrian-friendly as they were then. For example, I seem to remember having a wing mirror to check before I pulled out to go past parked cars. These days I have yet to see a cyclist even bother to look over their shoulder._
> 
> Shoulder checks are important, but it would be nice if drivers automatically gave space for riders to pull out. What else do they expect to happen when a bike comes up to a parked car? I'm sure you do Roger, as you have ridden a bike yourself, but in my experience few drivers do.
> 
> Terry



But equally cyclists could also take more ownership of what is happening around them by fitting a wing mirror. Why not? It's all about driving/riding defensively. If looking over the shoulder on a bike makes it wobble, then the wing mirror makes a lot of sense IMO.


----------



## Jacob (3 Feb 2014)

RogerS":3w0a98oo said:


> .......
> 
> But equally cyclists could also take more ownership of what is happening around them by fitting a wing mirror. Why not? .....


Because they don't work on a bike. The handlebars are in constant movement, the frame weaves from side to side, the riders head moves relative to both. They've been tried helmet mounted but still not much good.
NB bikes _have_ to weave from side to side - this is how they stay up. This also is the reason why cyclist have to "take more ownership of what is happening around them" by riding well out from the kerb, even further out from parked cars (to avoid opening doors) or in the centre of narrow traffic lanes ( to deter drivers from trying to squeeze past too close and push you into the other lane - lethal if you get too close to the side of an HGV, or wobble into the path of something going too fast).


----------



## mseries (3 Feb 2014)

RogerS":1iqfpv9n said:


> But equally cyclists could also take more ownership of what is happening around them by fitting a wing mirror. Why not? It's all about driving/riding defensively. If looking over the shoulder on a bike makes it wobble, then the wing mirror makes a lot of sense IMO.


Looking over the shoulder is much more effective, you can see more. The act of looking indicates to other road users that you are about to do something, at least it should. Bikes don't have wings, any other sort or mirror is pretty much useless anyway. Nowt wrong with bikes wobbling, if it worries drivers, stay well clear by slowing down and passing by leaving as much space as you would when passing a car.


----------



## RogerS (3 Feb 2014)

mseries":1jgxhb5p said:


> RogerS":1jgxhb5p said:
> 
> 
> > But equally cyclists could also take more ownership of what is happening around them by fitting a wing mirror. Why not? It's all about driving/riding defensively. If looking over the shoulder on a bike makes it wobble, then the wing mirror makes a lot of sense IMO.
> ...



I suggested the mirror because someone had posted that a cyclist would wobble. Cycles don't need wings. Handlebar will do !


----------



## Finial (3 Feb 2014)

_cyclists could also take more ownership of what is happening around them by fitting a wing mirror. Why not? It's all about driving/riding defensively._

I approach a parked car and need to move out to pass. I can hear a car behind me. I can see it if I look over my shoulder. Perhaps I could use a mirror. I may wobble anyway - that's what bikes do. The driver knows I am there and about to pass the parked car. The driver should not overtake at that point. 

So what often happens next? 

_these days cyclists are not quite as road/pedestrian-friendly as they were_

Perhaps. Incompetent, ignorant and aggressive drivers are a serious problem in this country.


----------



## MMUK (3 Feb 2014)

Jacob":3j0sdl3x said:


> NB bikes _have_ to weave from side to side - this is how they stay up.




Sorry Jacob but that is complete rollocks :!:


----------



## cambournepete (4 Feb 2014)

I've got mirrors on both sides of my recumbent trike


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2014)

MMUK":3dd6ab6h said:


> Jacob":3dd6ab6h said:
> 
> 
> > NB bikes _have_ to weave from side to side - this is how they stay up.
> ...


OK then how does a bike stay up? Surprising how many people don't know this!


----------



## John Brown (4 Feb 2014)

Jacob":3fwnlaf5 said:


> MMUK":3fwnlaf5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3fwnlaf5 said:
> ...



While this statement is, of course, absolutely true, a proficient cyclist can generally keep the "weaving" down to an almost imperceptible level.


----------



## mseries (4 Feb 2014)

MMUK":3ds4rla9 said:


> Jacob":3ds4rla9 said:
> 
> 
> > NB bikes _have_ to weave from side to side - this is how they stay up.
> ...


Not complete pineapples, it's the micro adjustment of the riders balance as the CoG moves away from the stable base that makes a bike stay up, the forces from the motion and rotating wheels interact too. Speed plays a part. In theory at least a bike should stay up with no wobbles and at higher speeds they do but on roads with riders who are preoccupied with things other than riding in a dead straight line (or constant radius), other factors cause wobbles, things such as bumps in the road, steering round debris, riders movements, wind, imperfect tracking of the wheels, imperfect balance due perhaps to luggage so the rider counteracts it. More experienced riders can do it well and do it smoothly but many over compensate and make their machine wobble more. 

Cycles will wobble on roads, nearly all riders learn to cope with that but do need space on the roads to do so in safetly and it's the space that often is not under their control. This is why you'll see riders using the primary position.


----------



## RogerS (4 Feb 2014)

Finial":lbusuuzi said:


> ....
> 
> Perhaps. Incompetent, ignorant and aggressive cyclists are a serious problem in this country.



From the Times...

Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

There are bad cyclists just as much as there are bad motorists.


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2014)

John Brown":1nmheb2u said:


> Jacob":1nmheb2u said:
> 
> 
> > MMUK":1nmheb2u said:
> ...


If you have the chance to look at a cyclists actual track on the ground (wet/dry roads, muddy tracks etc) you will see that all cyclists weave very perceptibly. Faster they go the longer the swing from side to side. 
Cycling (and motor biking, skiing or skating) is series of controlled falls from one side to the other. It's controlled by turning into the fall which throws you the other way by centripetal force. So if you are so close to the kerb that you can't turn towards it you will fall off. Except of course were the weaving path at it's outermost point _just_ reaches the kerb .
If you tried to ride a bike with the steering locked it's virtually impossible and is more like tight rope walking where you balance with the aid of a long pole or your arms stretched out.


----------



## mseries (4 Feb 2014)

RogerS":jvkcpza1 said:


> From the Times...
> 
> Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.
> 
> There are bad cyclists just as much as there are bad motorists.




that's per billion kms travelled though. You do say almost which means that motor vehicles cause serious injury to more pedestrians than cyclists do.

In real terms though because motor vehicles travel so much further than cycles, motor vehicles cause serious injury to far more pedestrians than cyclists do. I'll go a step further and state that motor vehicles (their drivers) cause serious injury to many more road users, of all categories, than cyclists do. It's not the bad cyclists that are the real danger.


----------



## John Brown (4 Feb 2014)

I wasn't basically disagreeing with you Jacob. I happen to think that there is a difference between casually observing a cyclist in action and studying their tyre tracks. If the weaving was very perceptible then maybe most people WOULD understand the mechanisms at work.

John (who used to ski and ride a unicycle[although not at the same time], and thus knows a thing or two about staying upright).


----------



## Spindle (4 Feb 2014)

RogerS":2gnv9e4s said:


> Cycling (and motor biking, skiing or skating) is series of controlled falls from one side to the other. It's controlled by turning into the fall which throws you the other way by centripetal force.



And there was me thinking it was gyroscopic action / precession :roll:


----------



## mseries (4 Feb 2014)

found this on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245

Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport


----------



## RogerS (4 Feb 2014)

mseries":1vob3q4w said:


> found this on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607
> 
> Pedestrian casualties 2001-09
> 
> ...



Those figures aree meaningless. What you are ignoring is that the central premise of the Times article/research was that cyclists travel less miles in total than motorists. If you then look at the number of accidents caused by cyclists compared to motorists per miles travelled then proportionately cyclists cause just as much injury. 

All I am really after is an agreement that just as there are bad inconsiderate motorists, so to are there bad and inconsiderate cyclists.


----------



## Racers (4 Feb 2014)

Jacob":2sie5w3p said:


> If you have the chance to look at a cyclists actual track on the ground (wet/dry roads, muddy tracks etc) you will see that all cyclists weave very perceptibly. Faster they go the longer the swing from side to side.
> Cycling (and motor biking, skiing or skating) is series of controlled falls from one side to the other. It's controlled by turning into the fall which throws you the other way by centripetal force. So if you are so close to the kerb that you can't turn towards it you will fall off. Except of course were the weaving path at it's outermost point _just_ reaches the kerb .
> If you tried to ride a bike with the steering locked it's virtually impossible and is more like tight rope walking where you balance with the aid of a long pole or your arms stretched out.



Jacob

If you want to turn right on your bike which way do you turn the bars?

See if you can work it out.

Pete


----------



## John Brown (4 Feb 2014)

Racers":2b802r6u said:


> Jacob":2b802r6u said:
> 
> 
> > If you have the chance to look at a cyclists actual track on the ground (wet/dry roads, muddy tracks etc) you will see that all cyclists weave very perceptibly. Faster they go the longer the swing from side to side.
> ...


That's not really a thing that anyone could be expected to work out, as it's totally counter-intuitive.

Work this out instead:
If I take a wooden sphere, and drill a hole symetrically from one side through to the other, such that the centre of the drill bit passes exactly through the centre of the sphere, and exits fully at the far side, what is the volume of wood remaining in what was the sphere?




Then tell me, hand on heart, that you didn't google it.


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2014)

Racers":3icx6efd said:


> Jacob":3icx6efd said:
> 
> 
> > If you have the chance to look at a cyclists actual track on the ground (wet/dry roads, muddy tracks etc) you will see that all cyclists weave very perceptibly. Faster they go the longer the swing from side to side.
> ...


If you turn the bars to the right you will fall to the left, unless you also lean to the right. So it's a controlled fall to the right.
In fact, if the geometry of your bike allows it, you can steer by leaning alone.


----------



## Racers (4 Feb 2014)

So a bike is kept upright by the two gyroscopes formed by the wheels that's why counter steering works, in one Yamaha racing bike the engine spun backwards so you could change direction faster.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2014)

I'm not sure that gyroscopes have anything to do with it on push bikes. Maybe it would with a motorbike and a big mass of heavy engine going round fast, but you can steer a motorbike downhill in neutral with the engine off, and skiers/skaters don't have moving parts at all.


----------



## mseries (4 Feb 2014)

Racers":fcndk409 said:


> So a bike is kept upright by the two gyroscopes formed by the wheels that's why counter steering works, in one Yamaha racing bike the engine spun backwards so you could change direction faster.
> 
> Pete


studies have demonstrated that the gyroscopic forces are not responsible for making a bike stay upright.


----------



## RogerS (4 Feb 2014)

We all know that it is the Jedi 'force' that keeps bikes upright.


----------



## Racers (4 Feb 2014)

Take your bike wheel out hold it by the axle and get some one to spin it and feel the force needed to turn it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7Xzp5Cts8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNbOh0N3BSs

Pete


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2014)

I know! But it's not clear to me what it contributes to steering, if anything at all.

PS I looked it up. The answer is next to nothing. http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyrobike.htm


----------



## JustBen (4 Feb 2014)

I can't quite remember what sport it is but there is a bike sport where the steering is almost non existent and the turning circle from steering is huge.
I'm sure it's some form of oval racing though.

But is does show that steering plays little part in keeping a moving bike on its wheels and going straight.

How many of you have cycled without hands on the bars and the bike stayed up and cornered?
How many of you have seen bikes lose their riders and continue in a straight line and only fall when the momentum stops?

The only people i see steering a bicycle on the roads are those who are moving too slow (mainly drunks and old people)


----------



## Finial (4 Feb 2014)

_All I am really after is an agreement that just as there are bad inconsiderate motorists, so to are there bad and inconsiderate cyclists._

I'll give you that, but with some provisos. Firstly, don't know about you, but I've never been hit, threatened or even inconvenienced by someone on a bike, whereas I've been hit more than once by a driver and endure horn blowing and abuse from road hogs quite often. Secondly that bike riders, being much more vulnerable, are generally more safety-conscious than drivers - so much so that most have been driven off the roads by fear of motor traffic. Thirdly, the number of drivers injured in collisions with bikes is as small as you would expect. The war between riders and drivers is very unequal and some people are much too ready to blame the victims.


----------



## John Brown (4 Feb 2014)

Jacob":13o26rej said:


> I know! But it's not clear to me what it contributes to steering, if anything at all.
> 
> PS I looked it up. The answer is next to nothing. http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyrobike.htm


That's very interesting. I have to admit that, up until today, it would never have occurred to me that gyroscopes spinning in opposite directions would cancel out.


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2014)

JustBen":7ndtu35x said:


> ......
> But is does show that steering plays little part in keeping a moving bike on its wheels and going straight.


It's absolutely essential. If you can't steer the bike will fall over, sooner or later, depending on the geometry


> How many of you have cycled without hands on the bars and the bike stayed up and cornered?


Depends on geometry - so my road bike can be steered (just about), with hands off, on a smooth road with no bends, not very far, but my touring bike is much more difficult.


> How many of you have seen bikes lose their riders and continue in a straight line and only fall when the momentum stops?


Momentum and steering geometry helps, but never in a straight line - it'll do an ever decreasing circle until it falls over or hits something. It could veer off if it hits a bump, and circle the other way


> The only people i see steering a bicycle on the roads are those who are moving too slow (mainly drunks and old people)


What, everybody else has their hands off? :lol: Not around here they don't!


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2014)

John Brown":3avynip0 said:


> Jacob":3avynip0 said:
> 
> 
> > I know! But it's not clear to me what it contributes to steering, if anything at all.
> ...


Nor me. Presumably front and back wheels react differently too; one is being turned by the rider, the other being tilted by the leaning frame. Do they cancel each other out? Gyroscopes are a bit of a mystery!


----------



## mseries (4 Feb 2014)

RogerS":bk5tp22w said:


> mseries":bk5tp22w said:
> 
> 
> > found this on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607
> ...



Of course I agree that there are bad and inconsiderate cyclists,it really Zilch-Wedlock me off that there are because it's those who get us all a bad name and cause other road users to demand various sanctions for riders. 

Those figures are not meaningless,if they are true and I suspect they are it means that cars killed many more pedestrians than cycles did in the same time frame. The Times interpretation of the data to me says the same thing because I know that cycles generally travel fewer miles than cars and are less common so hence less likely to kill. The data that the BBC page showed isn't per mile, it's a body count, that many people were killed by each mode of transport it's real, to me it puts it into perspective, you are nearly 200 times more likely to be killed on the pavement by a car than you are by a bicycle.


----------



## JustBen (4 Feb 2014)

I'm not sure how you cycle Jacob, but I was able to (and presumably still can) cycle for many miles without putting my hands on the bars. The forward momentum keeps the bike on track and only requires slight leaning to change direction.

For some reason, the picture in my head of you cycling, Jacob, is that of Granville from Open All Hours. 
Ha ha. I don't know what made me think of it and I'm sorry if it upsets you.


----------



## mseries (4 Feb 2014)

JustBen":2hk5uw9i said:


> I can't quite remember what sport it is but there is a bike sport where the steering is almost non existent and the turning circle from steering is huge.
> I'm sure it's some form of oval racing though.
> 
> But is does show that steering plays little part in keeping a moving bike on its wheels and going straight.
> ...



You don't really steer round the bends on the velodrome. Just pedal and the banked ends cause you go round.


----------



## MMUK (4 Feb 2014)

mseries":35pm3aw5 said:


> JustBen":35pm3aw5 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't quite remember what sport it is but there is a bike sport where the steering is almost non existent and the turning circle from steering is huge.
> ...




Not quite. You counter-steer just like on a motorbike.


----------



## Jacob (4 Feb 2014)

JustBen":14krjhjn said:


> I'm not sure how you cycle Jacob, but I was able to (and presumably still can) cycle for many miles without putting my hands on the bars. The forward momentum keeps the bike on track and only requires slight leaning to change direction.
> 
> For some reason, the picture in my head of you cycling, Jacob, is that of Granville from Open All Hours.
> Ha ha. I don't know what made me think of it and I'm sorry if it upsets you.


I see you as a cherubic innocent on a trike, saying "look no hands" just before falling into a ditch. :lol: 
You couldn't do mile after mile no hands - a few hundred yards at best.


----------



## JustBen (4 Feb 2014)

A few hundred yards?....

http://youtu.be/vB4P672Y9BM


----------



## RogerS (4 Feb 2014)

Finial":3cpgtpd8 said:


> _......, but I've never been hit, threatened or even inconvenienced by someone on a bike, ....._


_

I have as a pedestrian walking on the pavement in London!_


----------



## RogerS (4 Feb 2014)

mseries":1l2i4yl4 said:


> RogerS":1l2i4yl4 said:
> 
> 
> > mseries":1l2i4yl4 said:
> ...



Where does 'pavement' come in?


----------



## Finial (4 Feb 2014)

_ but I've never been hit, threatened or even inconvenienced by someone on a bike, .....

I have as a pedestrian walking on the pavement in London!_

Your experience shows there are some careless riders. Every once in a while a pedestrian is killed by a bike rider. Drivers frequently kill both pedestrians and people on bikes. I know more than one bike rider who was injured when a pedestrian stepped off the kerb in front of them without looking. it's happened to me, though without injury. Perhaps pedestrians ought to wear mirrors on their shoulders.


----------



## Preston (5 Feb 2014)




----------



## RogerS (5 Feb 2014)

Finial":2lbwcaxw said:


> _ but I've never been hit, threatened or even inconvenienced by someone on a bike, .....
> 
> I have as a pedestrian walking on the pavement in London!_
> 
> Your experience shows there are some careless riders. Every once in a while a pedestrian is killed by a bike rider. Drivers frequently kill both pedestrians and people on bikes. I know more than one bike rider who was injured when a pedestrian stepped off the kerb in front of them without looking. it's happened to me, though without injury. Perhaps pedestrians ought to wear mirrors on their shoulders.


----------



## RogerS (5 Feb 2014)

I've been right all along. DRIVE FASTER !!

Less accidents ......

http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/crashes ... 37.article

*Crashes 11 times more likely at 40mph than 70mph - Wunelli*


----------



## Finial (5 Feb 2014)

That's a misleading headline. The article says 

_crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road._

Not that driving at 40 causes more accidents than driving at 70.


----------



## MMUK (5 Feb 2014)

It's a well known fact that motorways are the "safest" roads in the country. Accidents are much less frequent. However, when they do occur they are generally a lot more serious.


----------



## RogerS (5 Feb 2014)

Finial":3gxvv2ug said:


> That's a misleading headline. The article says
> 
> _crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road._
> 
> Not that driving at 40 causes more accidents than driving at 70.



How do you work that out? Road with a 40 mph speed limit....chances are people will be driving at or around 40mph. So if crashes are more likely to occur on a 40 mph road then it follows that the speed is also 40 mph.

Ditto 70 mph. ..which could be a dual carriageway...not limited to motorways.


----------



## Finial (5 Feb 2014)

I was thinking that a road with a lower limit would have more hazards - junctions, traffic queues, houses with driveways etc. Bicycles even. And also that most drivers would often be exceeding the limit anyway. That article is about the roads not the driving speed. To me, it indicates that the 40 limit is often too high.

How can driving slowly enough to be able to see what's happening in front of you and stop if necessary be more dangerous than going over the limit?

Terry


----------



## John Brown (5 Feb 2014)

Finial":10leov1z said:


> I was thinking that a road with a lower limit would have more hazards - junctions, traffic queues, houses with driveways etc. Bicycles even. And also that most drivers would often be exceeding the limit anyway. That article is about the roads not the driving speed. To me, it indicates that the 40 limit is often too high.
> 
> How can driving slowly enough to be able to see what's happening in front of you and stop if necessary be more dangerous than going over the limit?
> 
> Terry



It can't be. It's a meaningless, or at the very least, confusing, statistic. A bit like the old chestnut about how 30% of accidents are caused by drivers who've had too much to drink. Therefore 70% of accidents are caused by drivers who haven't had enough to drink.


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Feb 2014)

70 MPH road. Likely that everyone is travelling in the same direction with a central reservation between those going in the opposite direction. No pedestrians, cyclists, no road junctions as such. Plenty of reasons why they are relatively safer.


----------



## Benchwayze (8 Feb 2014)

Spindle":1nv2qiw1 said:


> Hi
> 
> I believe speedo error can be plus or minus 10% - however manufacturers err on the low side to prevent compensation claims from speeding drivers citing incorrect speedometers as the cause for their offence.
> 
> ...



Having a faulty speedo is an entirely separate offence. (If the error is outside permitted allowances.) It doesn't affect any prosecution for speeding. If you are exceeding a speed limit, you are exceeding a speed limit. End of I'm afraid. You could argue in mitigation that your speedometer was reading less than the limit, but the percentage of error is so small, it probably won't make much odds; definitely not to the camera! The Magistrates might accept your explanation of course, and discharge you.


----------

