The Times Today (Friday)
Comments
-
The better point about the 70mph limit may be that it was introduced almost half a century ago in response to some accidents in fog. It was arguably an arbitrary and blanket limit imposed as a response to a very specific and relatively rare problem. It has not been reviewed since, despite improvements in road surfaces, tyres and brakes. It is the limit both on motorways and NSL dual carriageways, even though the former are designed for higher speed driving (eg wider lanes, hard shoulder, better sight lines, gentle bends). And it is lower than some of our principal European neighbours.0
-
Unfortunately, technical advances and increased safety in cars has not been matched by an advance in driving abilities. Higher speeds mean more accidents.
TRL 421, ‘The effects of drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents’ published in March 2000. This study was designed to discover the speed-crash relationship. The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that:
the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)
the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are.0 -
Very rarely do I actually use cruise control.bails87 wrote:
Also, don't you have cruise control?
Actually is it better for fuel economy?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Yeah, totally unnecessary since we abolished fog in '86.Greg66 wrote:The better point about the 70mph limit may be that it was introduced almost half a century ago in response to some accidents in fog. It was arguably an arbitrary and blanket limit imposed as a response to a very specific and relatively rare problem. It has not been reviewed since, despite improvements in road surfaces, tyres and brakes. It is the limit both on motorways and NSL dual carriageways, even though the former are designed for higher speed driving (eg wider lanes, hard shoulder, better sight lines, gentle bends). And it is lower than some of our principal European neighbours.
To be fair though, the consequences of losing control at 70 mph are bad enough, why not raise it?0 -
-
I hate to be that guy but why is speeding considered to be "okay" (sorry EKE) but RLJ'ers are burnt at the stake? I mean, they're both breaking the law, right?0
-
The car has 6 gears. In 6 I think the revs are too low for 70mph and thus the engine is struggling. 5th and the revs are too high and thus the engine is working to hard. 80mph in 6 seems just right.bails87 wrote:
It also means - and this bit is most important - I'm travelling at ambient traffic speed. I'm not gaining ground on the vehicle in front and I'm maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle behind me, so he doesn't catch me and sit on my arse.
As we all know: You are safest when travelling at ambient traffic speed.
I don't think it's safe to be driving at 60 - 70mph on the motorway when everyone else in driving in excess of 70mph and you know that people no longer keep a safe distance.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are.
Now that I can well believe.
The solution to that problem though is a minimum speed of (say) 100 and a max of (say) 120. And consign HGVs back to the A roads...
<whistles...>0 -
‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
The study confirmed what is described as a ‘robust general rule’ relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every 1 mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around 6% for urban roads with low average speeds
4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?
Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/AB ... ly_Factoid
Hammond's trade-off was that 20mph zone decisions would be left to local authorities. So where are they? 20mph zones save lives, the evidence is clear, but we're pussy-footing around their implementation.0 -
More HGVs on A roads.....with cyclists.......Greg66 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are.
Now that I can well believe.
The solution to that problem though is a minimum speed of (say) 100 and a max of (say) 120. And consign HGVs back to the A roads...
<whistles...>
As for the spread of speeds....that is what worries me about the 80mph "limit". A 70 limit means I routinely see people doing 90.
Will an 80 limit mean people regularly do 100mph? That's a pretty big speed differential between the lorry doing 50ish in the lane next to you.....0 -
notsoblue wrote:Yeah, totally unnecessary since we abolished fog in '86.
I get the winky, but surely the "solution" to the fog problem is a lower limit in fog - say 40 (which I'd be all in favour of), rather than a lower limit everywhere.
Interestingly, according to wiki the 70 limit was initially a temporary measure over winter. Darker, wetter, more slippery etc. Plus fog.0 -
RLJers are burnt at the stake because some cyclists point the finger at motorists - often unreasonably so - and so in turn motorists point the fingers at RLJers.notsoblue wrote:I hate to be that guy but why is speeding considered to be "okay" (sorry EKE) but RLJ'ers are burnt at the stake? I mean, they're both breaking the law, right?
RLJers are then ganged up on by pedestrians as the action of RLJing can affect them as well.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Nope.DonDaddyD wrote:
RLJers are burnt at the stake because some cyclists point the finger at motorists - often unreasonably so - and so in turn motorists point the fingers at RLJers.notsoblue wrote:I hate to be that guy but why is speeding considered to be "okay" (sorry EKE) but RLJ'ers are burnt at the stake? I mean, they're both breaking the law, right?
RLJers are then ganged up on by pedestrians as the action of RLJing can affect them as well.
Speeding affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
RLJing affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
Speeding is considered okay/OK by many because so many people do it. Maybe that's why some cyclists RLJ, because they see so many others doing it. Same would have gone for drink driving 30-40 years ago, everyone does it, what's the problem. Essentially that was the govt position on the 80mph m'way limit.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
One can play this game all day long. A little bit faster and the car would have been 100 yards further down the road when the accident occurred.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?
Or notice a 2mph increase? Not sure how either adjustment relates to danger.
As always, it would be helpful if you were to identify what you are Ctrl-c'ing and ctrl-v'ing, and what's your contribution, MBC.0 -
-
DonDaddyD wrote:
The car has 6 gears. In 6 I think the revs are too low for 70mph and thus the engine is struggling. 5th and the revs are too high and thus the engine is working to hard. 80mph in 6 seems just right.bails87 wrote:
It also means - and this bit is most important - I'm travelling at ambient traffic speed. I'm not gaining ground on the vehicle in front and I'm maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle behind me, so he doesn't catch me and sit on my ars*.
As we all know: You are safest when travelling at ambient traffic speed.
I don't think it's safe to be driving at 60 - 70mph on the motorway when everyone else in driving in excess of 70mph and you know that people no longer keep a safe distance.
Mrs RJS is very strict on 70mph - mind you, with the top box on and two in the back plus a boot full of stuff, it'd labour a bit above 70 anyway - and I've really not noticed tailgating to be a problem wen we head up and down the M4. Tailgating seems to be much more of a problem in fastish (30-40mph) urban roads, when people really do drive inches off your bumper, and the chances of something pulling out in front of you is much higher.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think there should be a minimum speed limit on motorways. I remember my mum driving on a busy, but free flowing, motorway at 40mph and me being quite scared of being rammed from behind (fnarr fnarr). When I told her to speed up I was told "I'm not in a rush, this is quite fast enough"
Americans are quite stupid generally, but some of their road rules are quite good. Some roads have minimum speed limits, being able to turn right on red lights can be good but I particularly like being able to go through flashing amber and flashing red lights at night. Some of their rules are dumb though, like not being allowed to park on the wrong side of the road (facing traffic) and the prevalence of stop signs.FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
bails87 wrote:
Nope.DonDaddyD wrote:
RLJers are burnt at the stake because some cyclists point the finger at motorists - often unreasonably so - and so in turn motorists point the fingers at RLJers.notsoblue wrote:I hate to be that guy but why is speeding considered to be "okay" (sorry EKE) but RLJ'ers are burnt at the stake? I mean, they're both breaking the law, right?
RLJers are then ganged up on by pedestrians as the action of RLJing can affect them as well.
Speeding affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
RLJing affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
Speeding is considered okay/OK by many because so many people do it. Maybe that's why some cyclists RLJ, because they see so many others doing it. Same would have gone for drink driving 30-40 years ago, everyone does it, what's the problem. Essentially that was the govt position on the 80mph m'way limit.
A cyclist is more likely to be killed by a car jumping redlights than kill or be killed RLJing. Cyc lists who RLJ are suicidal, drivers who RLJ are homicidal.0 -
Pretty irrational though. I mean here you and others are pretty much saying that you break the speed limit because driving at below the speed limit just doesn't feel right, and because its safer to break the limit because everyone else is.DonDaddyD wrote:
RLJers are burnt at the stake because some cyclists point the finger at motorists - often unreasonably so - and so in turn motorists point the fingers at RLJers.notsoblue wrote:I hate to be that guy but why is speeding considered to be "okay" (sorry EKE) but RLJ'ers are burnt at the stake? I mean, they're both breaking the law, right?
RLJers are then ganged up on by pedestrians as the action of RLJing can affect them as well.
Crazy!
0 -
Fair enough, I don't really have a strong opinion on this matter as I don't cycle on motorways. Though my Garmin did lead me onto the M3 once.Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Yeah, totally unnecessary since we abolished fog in '86.
I get the winky, but surely the "solution" to the fog problem is a lower limit in fog - say 40 (which I'd be all in favour of), rather than a lower limit everywhere.
Interestingly, according to wiki the 70 limit was initially a temporary measure over winter. Darker, wetter, more slippery etc. Plus fog.0 -
I'm sorry but that is moronic.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Some accidents happen because they simply couldn't be avoided regardless of speed. Some collisions happen at incredibly slow speed. Some accidents/collisions happen because you cannot see or predict the other persons actions.
What you are trying to do is rationalise every possible vehicle accident with some asinine logic and solution.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:bails87 wrote:Nope.
Speeding affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
RLJing affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
Speeding is considered okay/OK by many because so many people do it. Maybe that's why some cyclists RLJ, because they see so many others doing it. Same would have gone for drink driving 30-40 years ago, everyone does it, what's the problem. Essentially that was the govt position on the 80mph m'way limit.
A cyclist is more likely to be killed by a car jumping redlights than kill or be killed RLJing.
I know, there's no point getting into 'degrees' though, each action affects the same group, that was my point.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
I'm sorry but that is moronic.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Some accidents happen because they simply couldn't be avoided regardless of speed. Some collisions happen at incredibly slow speed. Some accidents/collisions happen because you cannot see or predict the other persons actions.
What you are trying to do is rationalise every possible vehicle accident with some asinine logic and solution.
Speed makes accidents more likely and the consequences much worse. This is basic physics.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/AB ... ly_Factoid
The study confirmed what is described as a ‘robust general rule’ relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every 1 mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
6% for urban roads with low average speeds
4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
There is clear evidence on the connection between speed and the accident rate after Hull introduced 20mph zones:
Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of:
— Total accidents -56 per cent
— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent
— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent
— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent
— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.
It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 57ap80.htm0 -
There are different types of cruise control and they use different algorithms to regulate the speed of the vehicle. This can translate to different fuel economy.
If you are driving in hilly terrain, it makes more sense (from a fuel economy point of view) to turn the CC off and regulate your speed yourself, gaining a bit more speed on the downhill slope so that you can coast up the uphill slope. CC would coast down the hill and then power up the hill which would use more fuel than your right foot would.FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
bails87 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:bails87 wrote:Nope.
Speeding affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
RLJing affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
Speeding is considered okay/OK by many because so many people do it. Maybe that's why some cyclists RLJ, because they see so many others doing it. Same would have gone for drink driving 30-40 years ago, everyone does it, what's the problem. Essentially that was the govt position on the 80mph m'way limit.
A cyclist is more likely to be killed by a car jumping redlights than kill or be killed RLJing.
I know, there's no point getting into 'degrees' though, each action affects the same group, that was my point.
I reckon if every cyclist obeyed every traffic law some motorists would still be hostile and aggressive.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:bails87 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:bails87 wrote:Nope.
Speeding affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
RLJing affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
Speeding is considered okay/OK by many because so many people do it. Maybe that's why some cyclists RLJ, because they see so many others doing it. Same would have gone for drink driving 30-40 years ago, everyone does it, what's the problem. Essentially that was the govt position on the 80mph m'way limit.
A cyclist is more likely to be killed by a car jumping redlights than kill or be killed RLJing.
I know, there's no point getting into 'degrees' though, each action affects the same group, that was my point.
I reckon if every cyclist obeyed every traffic law some motorists would still be hostile and aggressive.
Absolutely. The driver who punched me the other week didn't mention RLJing or road tax, was just annoyed I was in the road.
EKE: DDD was talking about cruise control on the M25, I've only been on it a few times, but don't remember any mountains.....nothing to rival Balham hill anyway 0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
I'm sorry but that is moronic.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Some accidents happen because they simply couldn't be avoided regardless of speed. Some collisions happen at incredibly slow speed. Some accidents/collisions happen because you cannot see or predict the other persons actions.
What you are trying to do is rationalise every possible vehicle accident with some asinine logic and solution.
Imagine any accident you like. Now imagine all parties involved travelling at 0mph. The accident wouldn't happen, would it?
I'm not a massive shouty "All cars are evil" type, but you're doing your own argument no favours, DDD.Sometimes parts break. Sometimes you crash. Sometimes it’s your fault.0 -
bails87 wrote:As for the spread of speeds....that is what worries me about the 80mph "limit". A 70 limit means I routinely see people doing 90.
Will an 80 limit mean people regularly do 100mph? That's a pretty big speed differential between the lorry doing 50ish in the lane next to you.....
As I've said, I do agree that the spread of speeds is dangerous; more dangerous than speed per se (Nascar looks pretty safe to me...).
Taking a slightly different tack, the use of lanes on Mways creates potentially dangerous conditions. Very few cars use lane 1, either because they are afraid of the HGVs in lane 1, or because they think that they won't be able to get out in to L2 to overtake an HGV. Hence middle lane cruisers (a habit, it occured to me last night, reinforced by bloody urban bus lanes - no one uses them even when they are not in operation. The default position is to drive in the right hand lane).
Middle lane cruising then pushes more traffic into L3, and drivers in L3 don't want to return to L2 because of the MLC'ers. Plus you get the occasional L3 driver who seems very overtly to have the attitude "I'm driving at 70 on the nail, so no one is entitled to drive faster than me, so I will stay here".
I wonder: L1 min 30, max 70. L2 min 40, max 80. L3 derestricted, but max 90 when L2 is occupied.
How would that work? Carnage?0
