Speeding not a taboo

Stevo_666

mfin wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

The problem with speed limits is that they can be a bit arbitrary. Especially country roads where the limits fluctuate from 30-60. There'll be a reason behind it - the local council will have been approached and they'll look into it -then put the wheels in motion if they think it's a good idea - but the problem is, the limits are not subjective - they catch all - sun, rain, snow, ice/tyre type - the limit stays the same. School in, school out - the limit is static - so that 30 limit past the school is a good idea - and in some instances is still too fast - but at midnight when you're the only vehicle on the road - you could do more than 30 quite happily and not be a danger to anyone - not that you should, because there just might be someone there expecting you to be doing a max 30 - giving them time to cross the road, turn in/out of the junction or whatever.

Then there's the ever decreasing speed limits - a road that I've been traveling on for 30+ years has suddenly gone from de-limit to 40 ... along a huge stretch - granted, there are some junctions including the turn in for a private school - but there's no reason to limit it to 40 all the way through - I suspect it's a condition of a 40 - you can't do 40 for a short stretch, then up it to 60, then back down again - not allowed. So for the hour or so at the ends of each day when that stretch is busy and you can't do more than 40 - we'll limit the whole lot to 40 - no matter what conditions/time of day/week of the year.

It would be nice to allow drivers to use their common sense - but we know common sense isn't that common - everyone has a differing opinion on what is sensible anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to driverless cars now anyway - there are too many inconsiderate drivers - either through a deliberate act or not paying attention. You read things like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-42349454 and wonder just WHY ... and What can we do to ensure all the little monsters enjoy their next birthday?

Good post.

+1

Anyone who has experienced the new 20mph speed limit applied to some of the main through roads in parts of London will know how it is possible for entirely inappropriate speed limits to be set.

dinyull

Slowbike wrote:

Perhaps retests should be phased in.

I think there's good evidence that after the age of retirement - you should have periodic checks - whilst it is your independence, you're not the best person to decide if you're safe to drive or not.
There's little you could argue about someone with points needing a check - I see no reason for not doing them - they've been caught for misdemeanors - so why not have a driving check?

A check doesn't have to be the same as a test - it could be as simple as a "lesson" from a registered driving instructor with guidance on what needs brushing up on. Keep it a positive experience. If someone is that bad then the DI can refer them to an examiner.

Would I want to be retested? No, of course not - but I know I've got some bad habits - but I may have some that I dont know about - and that's more dangerous.

Definitely!

I'm dreading my grandparents driving from the midlands to the north-east tomorrow because he probably shouldn't be on the road. And probably is being generous.

coopster_the_1st

Dinyull wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Perhaps retests should be phased in.

I think there's good evidence that after the age of retirement - you should have periodic checks - whilst it is your independence, you're not the best person to decide if you're safe to drive or not.
There's little you could argue about someone with points needing a check - I see no reason for not doing them - they've been caught for misdemeanors - so why not have a driving check?

A check doesn't have to be the same as a test - it could be as simple as a "lesson" from a registered driving instructor with guidance on what needs brushing up on. Keep it a positive experience. If someone is that bad then the DI can refer them to an examiner.

Would I want to be retested? No, of course not - but I know I've got some bad habits - but I may have some that I dont know about - and that's more dangerous.

Definitely!

I'm dreading my grandparents driving from the midlands to the north-east tomorrow because he probably shouldn't be on the road. And probably is being generous.

Then you have a responsibility...

How would you feel, knowing the above, if there was one less person around a Christmas table on Monday?

dinyull

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Perhaps retests should be phased in.

I think there's good evidence that after the age of retirement - you should have periodic checks - whilst it is your independence, you're not the best person to decide if you're safe to drive or not.
There's little you could argue about someone with points needing a check - I see no reason for not doing them - they've been caught for misdemeanors - so why not have a driving check?

A check doesn't have to be the same as a test - it could be as simple as a "lesson" from a registered driving instructor with guidance on what needs brushing up on. Keep it a positive experience. If someone is that bad then the DI can refer them to an examiner.

Would I want to be retested? No, of course not - but I know I've got some bad habits - but I may have some that I dont know about - and that's more dangerous.

Definitely!

I'm dreading my grandparents driving from the midlands to the north-east tomorrow because he probably shouldn't be on the road. And probably is being generous.

Then you have a responsibility...

How would you feel, knowing the above, if there was one less person around a Christmas table on Monday?

He's been told as have my parents who I'm pi$$ed at that they didn't book them a train.

Difficult to manage him when he's over 200 miles away.

awavey

keef66 wrote:

Good point. I once nearly hit the car in front when a fast moving dual carriageway suddenly became a car park for reasons I never discovered. I braked so hard the ABS kicked in even though the road was bone dry, and I came to a stop about a foot from the car in front. The traffic then suddenly set off again, just as the multiple pile-up happened behind me, shunting me down the now empty road. Clearly a lot of other drivers either didn't have ABS, or hadn't spotted the slowing traffic as soon as I did. I think the car full of Thames Valley cops just to my left was one of the few who also avoided hitting the car in front; quite reassuring to see them all leap out, don hi-viz gear and start running around helping people exchange details and making sure nobody was hurt.
So you might have a brand new car with all the latest technology and the reflexes of Lewis Hamilton, but if the bloke behind you in the 1997 pickup with 3 dodgy tyres is playing Candy Crush on his phone, there's going to be a mismatch in stopping distances. Ditto recently qualified young drivers who are trying to impress their mates but who don't yet have the speed awareness or hazard perception necessary to drive safely.

ok but the lesson there isnt ABS, ABS doesnt alter the total braking distances, arguably it makes it fractionally longer in a straight line, because the system disengages the brake to allow the wheels to continute to rotate

what it lets you do is steer whilst your wheels are locking up,and locking up is just a function of friction/tyre contact patch/pad/disc etc of course it can happen on a perfectly dry road, it happens more in the wet because the function of friction/tyre contact patch/pad/disc etc changes.

but a car with all 4 wheels locked up cant steer,but a car with ABS that engages can steer, which is how you can avoid hitting the hazard in front, you steer around them, admittedly not much use in carriageway situation with traffic beside you, but in those situations drop back create the space to stop, the bloke playing candy crush in the pickup truck will get bored of following you too closely and overtake you.

slowbike

Dinyull wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Perhaps retests should be phased in.

I think there's good evidence that after the age of retirement - you should have periodic checks - whilst it is your independence, you're not the best person to decide if you're safe to drive or not.
There's little you could argue about someone with points needing a check - I see no reason for not doing them - they've been caught for misdemeanors - so why not have a driving check?

A check doesn't have to be the same as a test - it could be as simple as a "lesson" from a registered driving instructor with guidance on what needs brushing up on. Keep it a positive experience. If someone is that bad then the DI can refer them to an examiner.

Would I want to be retested? No, of course not - but I know I've got some bad habits - but I may have some that I dont know about - and that's more dangerous.

Definitely!

I'm dreading my grandparents driving from the midlands to the north-east tomorrow because he probably shouldn't be on the road. And probably is being generous.

Then you have a responsibility...

How would you feel, knowing the above, if there was one less person around a Christmas table on Monday?

He's been told as have my parents who I'm pi$$ed at that they didn't book them a train.

Difficult to manage him when he's over 200 miles away.

If you think it's that bad - offer to go and pick them up. Sure, it's 400 miles extra - but wth - it's your family.

mouth

Dinyull wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Perhaps retests should be phased in.

I think there's good evidence that after the age of retirement - you should have periodic checks - whilst it is your independence, you're not the best person to decide if you're safe to drive or not.
There's little you could argue about someone with points needing a check - I see no reason for not doing them - they've been caught for misdemeanors - so why not have a driving check?

A check doesn't have to be the same as a test - it could be as simple as a "lesson" from a registered driving instructor with guidance on what needs brushing up on. Keep it a positive experience. If someone is that bad then the DI can refer them to an examiner.

Would I want to be retested? No, of course not - but I know I've got some bad habits - but I may have some that I dont know about - and that's more dangerous.

Definitely!

I'm dreading my grandparents driving from the midlands to the north-east tomorrow because he probably shouldn't be on the road. And probably is being generous.

Then you have a responsibility...

How would you feel, knowing the above, if there was one less person around a Christmas table on Monday?

He's been told as have my parents who I'm pi$$ed at that they didn't book them a train.

Difficult to manage him when he's over 200 miles away.

So you expected maybe your parents to book the train on his behalf, but you couldn't?

tlw1

Slowbike wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Perhaps retests should be phased in.

I think there's good evidence that after the age of retirement - you should have periodic checks - whilst it is your independence, you're not the best person to decide if you're safe to drive or not.
There's little you could argue about someone with points needing a check - I see no reason for not doing them - they've been caught for misdemeanors - so why not have a driving check?

A check doesn't have to be the same as a test - it could be as simple as a "lesson" from a registered driving instructor with guidance on what needs brushing up on. Keep it a positive experience. If someone is that bad then the DI can refer them to an examiner.

Would I want to be retested? No, of course not - but I know I've got some bad habits - but I may have some that I dont know about - and that's more dangerous.

Definitely!

I'm dreading my grandparents driving from the midlands to the north-east tomorrow because he probably shouldn't be on the road. And probably is being generous.

Then you have a responsibility...

How would you feel, knowing the above, if there was one less person around a Christmas table on Monday?

He's been told as have my parents who I'm pi$$ed at that they didn't book them a train.

Difficult to manage him when he's over 200 miles away.

If you think it's that bad - offer to go and pick them up. Sure, it's 400 miles extra - but wth - it's your family.

I'm doing half of that to pick my grandparents up and then my dads dropping them off later as they don't like staying.

Pain in the arris but much safer. Funny thing is it took us ages to convince them to stop driving but when they did they gave the car to my niece - which upset my dad as he had bought the car

pblakeney

TLW1 wrote:

Pain in the arris but much safer. Funny thing is it took us ages to convince them to stop driving but when they did they gave the car to my niece - which upset my dad as he had bought the car

That is the thing with gifts, they are not yours once given away. Understandable mind...
Same with "loans" in my experience. :evil:

shirley_basso

All those whinging about what appear to be "arbitrary " speed limits

Have you calculated the difference to your overall journey time had you been able to go at 60 instead of that 40 for a handful of miles?

It really makes little difference. I have a 560 mile each way drive I do 2-3 times per year and it makes little difference to the overall time to travel regardless of how fast I drive simply due to traffic - and that includes leaving either end at around 4am. (30 mins over approx 8-9 hours).

slowbike

Ok - simple calc - my journey to work is short - 10 miles (I ride it when I can).

If I could do that at 60mph (a lot of it is delimited so I could) - then I'd do the trip in 10 minutes.
At 40mph it's 15 minutes
and 30mph it's 20 minutes

No great shakes - as it normally takes me about 15-20 minutes (a bit longer this morning) - and that's abiding to the speed limits - but if I'm running late I could save 5-10 minutes by speeding so 1/3rd to 1/2 the time of sticking to the limits - potentially getting to work on time (or home earlier). Any justification for doing that? No ... none that are life/death - but the potential is there to "save" quite a few minutes - providing I'm driving and there isn't snow on the road like this morning ... averaging 60 this morning would've been a bit silly - I didn't even get to 60 ...

squired

One of the biggest issues for me is eyesight. I've come across a few people in recent years who have terrible vision. Some wear glasses, but seem to think it is fine to drive without them. Some are too proud to get an eye test. In fact I was in the car with a good friend a couple of weeks ago who has a habit of going pretty fast. As we were driving along on a wet dark night (going 40 on a 30 road) he was telling me how his eyesight is so bad that when he was given a menu at a restaurant earlier that week he had to ask for a version with larger writing. Needless to say, I was glad when I got home! It did make me think though about how common that is.

We all know that people on the roads don't have the necessary skills, but how many are on the roads and acutally unable to see properly?

pblakeney

squired wrote:

One of the biggest issues for me is eyesight. I've come across a few people in recent years who have terrible vision. Some wear glasses, but seem to think it is fine to drive without them. Some are too proud to get an eye test. In fact I was in the car with a good friend a couple of weeks ago who has a habit of going pretty fast. As we were driving along on a wet dark night (going 40 on a 30 road) he was telling me how his eyesight is so bad that when he was given a menu at a restaurant earlier that week he had to ask for a version with larger writing. Needless to say, I was glad when I got home! It did make me think though about how common that is.

We all know that people on the roads don't have the necessary skills, but how many are on the roads and acutally unable to see properly?

Being far sighted and being short sighted are completely different things.
I can't read my speedo when I wear my driving glasses. No excuse for speeding either.

mouth

PBlakeney wrote:

squired wrote:

One of the biggest issues for me is eyesight. I've come across a few people in recent years who have terrible vision. Some wear glasses, but seem to think it is fine to drive without them. Some are too proud to get an eye test. In fact I was in the car with a good friend a couple of weeks ago who has a habit of going pretty fast. As we were driving along on a wet dark night (going 40 on a 30 road) he was telling me how his eyesight is so bad that when he was given a menu at a restaurant earlier that week he had to ask for a version with larger writing. Needless to say, I was glad when I got home! It did make me think though about how common that is.

We all know that people on the roads don't have the necessary skills, but how many are on the roads and acutally unable to see properly?

Being far sighted and being short sighted are completely different things.
I can't read my speedo when I wear my driving glasses. No excuse for speeding either.

Adding weight to my point regarding COMPULSORY periodical medicals. My Dad is a prime example - he wore specs to drive on the advice of his optician way before 65, but it wasn't mandated on his license until he had his medical at 65. Theoretically, a license holder can go through a period of around 48 years (test passed at 17 with a roadside sight test, that I can pass sans correction despite the DVLA telling me need specs until having a medical at 65) before having their eye sight rechecked. Surely that ain't right?

I let a mate try ion my glasses for a laugh once, and he commented that the world was a lot easier to see with them on. I really hope he was taking the p***, cos if he wasn't, he got problems.

pblakeney

Mouth wrote:

Theoretically, a license holder can go through a period of around 48 years (test passed at 17 with a roadside sight test, that I can pass sans correction despite the DVLA telling me need specs until having a medical at 65) before having their eye sight rechecked. Surely that ain't right?

No problem with that. I was simply pointing out the differences in prescriptions.
Needing glasses to read does not mean needing glasses to drive.

mouth

PBlakeney wrote:

Mouth wrote:

Theoretically, a license holder can go through a period of around 48 years (test passed at 17 with a roadside sight test, that I can pass sans correction despite the DVLA telling me need specs until having a medical at 65) before having their eye sight rechecked. Surely that ain't right?

No problem with that. I was simply pointing out the differences in prescriptions.
Needing glasses to read does not mean needing glasses to drive.

This is very true. I have distance specs (driving mainly) but no requirement for readers. Yet.

Pross

thistle (MBNW) wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

The problem with speed limits is that they can be a bit arbitrary. Especially country roads where the limits fluctuate from 30-60. There'll be a reason behind it - the local council will have been approached and they'll look into it.

I think there is a system and logic behind it, but I would expect local councils will always err on the cautious side.

Around here every non-trunk, A and B road which used to be national speed limit has had it cut, sometimes from national to 30 mph. The result seems to be people just driving out of side roads in front of you without looking.

There's an assessment procedure and you have to undergo the Traffic Regulation Process. Most Councils will want the police to agree to the proposed speed limit reduction and police forces generally want a self-enforcing limit i.e. the layout of he road will itself ensure the majority of drivers will stick to the proposed limit.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/speed-limit-appraisal-tool

Many of the problems we have in urban areas result from road layouts being designed in the 50s and 60s when things were geared to the upsurge in car ownership and the aim was to keep traffic flowing with minimal obstructions so we segregated pedestrians, put in guardrail and other street furniture to keep them off the road and as a result cars felt they could safely drive faster. This is gradually being rectified in new developments were the principle is to encourage other modal uses and keep traffic speeds down through the layout of the road (the main design document for urban roads now is Manual for Streets / Manual for Streets 2 that did a lot of work on the psychology of drivers) but these layouts are still few and far between.

Road fatalities have dropped consistently in recent decades but that is almost all due to improvements in vehicle safety, firstly for the occupants and more recently to reduce their impact on pedestrians / cyclists in a collision but as others have pointed out that can lead to a false sense of security and higher speeds.