Heartland

andymackem wrote: I'm not convinced that drivers monitoring their speed is necessarily a bad thing. Are you seriously telling me you have no idea how fast you're going when you're driving? Flicking a glance at the speedo is no more dangerous than glancing in your mirrors, or changing stations on the stereo. Probably less dangerous than winding down a window as you go along. Sounds like a lack of care and attention to me.

To address your points

I have a good idea of how fast I'm going when I'm driving - at an appropriate speed for the conditions. I could give you a figure if you want but I'd suggest that driving at an appropriate speed is better than aiming at an arbitrary target. Clearly the thousands of miles designated as, say, 40 limits vary dramatically, I make that call.

An example of this - as stated earlier in the thread I was recenly pulled by some bike gendarmes in France. Yes, I was going a bit quick but it was on a clear motorway in dry clear conditions in a modern car. Was I being dangerous? No. (As an interesting aside I remember a case of a biker done for 130+ who got off the Dangerous Driving part of his charge as he wasn't actually driving dangerously. ) Now I've been driving for 15 years making these decisions on appropriate speed and sods law is I get a pull sooner or later. But the interesting thing is that prior to this my girlfriend, who I've been with for 3 years or so, said I was a good driver. She was happy to just go to sleep with me driving and wake up at our destination, she felt safe and secure. Now she's always looking at the speedo and consequently so am I. Am I safer? Like feck I am.

Driving to a number isn't safe. I have no argument with the idea that excess speed makes an accident worse. However, it's plain bad driving which actually causes the majority of accidents and with the phasing out of Road Traffic Police in favour of cameras this isn't picked up any more, cameras can't do it.

markfiend wrote:A thought occurs to me; on the stretch of the A65 between Kirkstall and Guiseley, about 6 miles long, there are more than 20 speed cameras, 10 on each side. It is at least possible to get "flashed" by all 10 in that stretch; would that count as ten separate speeding offences (whereby you'd be fooked for driving) or could you argue that one extended bout of speeding along the whole stretch was just one offence?

When gatso's were first introduced this happened to someone on Southend front if I remember rightly, three cameras set off in a mile or so. The guy went to court and won his argument that it was one offence.

Quiff Boy wrote:"In that time...roads (have got) better"

you've never been to leeds have you? :lol:

Once, by mistake when I was at law school in York and someone claimed that Leeds had a better night life scene. Both were pants as it turned out, and I havent made it north of Nottingham since. Now, another shandy anyone?

RicheyJames wrote: i can only apologise for not making this clear enough.

noted. don't do it again. ever.

RicheyJames wrote: and, clucking belle, whilst i'm sorry that my bothering to backup my arguments with facts and sources bothers you so much, if you wish to do the same you're just going to have to do your own research.

noted. apology (insincere as it was) not required tho'. i am not that bothered, and always enjoy your posts.

ruffers wrote:To address your points

I have a good idea of how fast I'm going when I'm driving - at an appropriate speed for the conditions. I could give you a figure if you want but I'd suggest that driving at an appropriate speed is better than aiming at an arbitrary target. Clearly the thousands of miles designated as, say, 40 limits vary dramatically, I make that call.

...... prior to this my girlfriend, who I've been with for 3 years or so, said I was a good driver. She was happy to just go to sleep with me driving and wake up at our destination, she felt safe and secure. Now she's always looking at the speedo and consequently so am I. Am I safer? Like feck I am.

Driving to a number isn't safe. I have no argument with the idea that excess speed makes an accident worse. However, it's plain bad driving which actually causes the majority of accidents and with the phasing out of Road Traffic Police in favour of cameras this isn't picked up any more, cameras can't do it.

So if I think I'm a good driver, and someone is prepared to doze off while I'm at the wheel, I can choose the speed limit for the stretch of road I'm on?

Sounds fantastic, but I'm sure you'd agree that not everyone on our roads drives in a sensible fashion all the time (even though of course you and I always do ). I'm sure most of them think they are good drivers, and probably can produce a friend (who might have known them for even longer than three years) to back them up. That doesn't make them experts on all roads and all conditions, nor does it eliminate the improbable or unexpected.

To illustrate: one Christmas Day I had to drive from my parents in Durham back down to Southend. There wasn't much traffic, as you can probably guess. On the motorways I hammered along merrily at 90 or so and only slowed when I reached the A127 towards Southend itself (down to the regulation 70). Halfway up that road, which I drive almost every day, I encountered three horses gallopping up the carriageway towards me. The 20mph I wasn't doing (plus the fact it was on a straight) was enough for me to slow and avoid them. At 90 I'm not sure I'd have managed it. Maybe we have a 70 limit for a reason?

The reason I slowed on the A127, btw, was not because I've ever seen horses on the track before or since, but because it has a high enough death rate to allow Essex police to put out covert speed traps and I was concerned about being flashed.

I would accept there is a case for higher permitted speeds on motorways, but I'm not convinced elsewhere. And, given the extra fuel consumption at 60+ there's a strong environmental case for keeping limits as they are on pollution and resources grounds as well as safety. And, if you'd seen the number of (thankfully small scale) motorway accidents I've been delayed by going to (or more often home from) football matches you might think twice about allowing West Ham fans to drive at all, never mind drive fast

andymackem wrote:My objection to speed cameras is simply that I know where they are (locally at least) and thus they simply have me slowing down to avoid a fine. This isn't actually road safety, merely the illusion thereof.

But it can be helpful at certain points where there is a severe risk of accidents, and where loads of people have been killed before by speeding drivers, I think. I don't know how it is back there, but here in Belgium, they (officially) focus on that sort of locations, in order to get less accidents there.

ruffers wrote:An example of this - as stated earlier in the thread I was recenly pulled by some bike gendarmes in France. Yes, I was going a bit quick but it was on a clear motorway in dry clear conditions in a modern car. Was I being dangerous? No. (As an interesting aside I remember a case of a biker done for 130+ who got off the Dangerous Driving part of his charge as he wasn't actually driving dangerously. ) Now I've been driving for 15 years making these decisions on appropriate speed and sods law is I get a pull sooner or later. But the interesting thing is that prior to this my girlfriend, who I've been with for 3 years or so, said I was a good driver. She was happy to just go to sleep with me driving and wake up at our destination, she felt safe and secure. Now she's always looking at the speedo and consequently so am I. Am I safer? Like feck I am.

I'm obviously not that experienced as a driver as you are, but to me the difference between being a pedestrian/cyclist and driving a car is that you're not only being a risk to yourself but also to others on the road. I do the craziest things as pedestrian/cyclist, but I always try to be very aware of this when I'm behind the wheel of a car.

Even when there's next to nobody on else on the road, you never know what the other persons are going to do, they might even get a cardiac arrest (well, just to give something of a Worst Case Scenario), and the faster you are driving the slower you'll be reacting. At these speeds 10 kilometers (miles, whatever) an hour can make the difference between life and death.

Remember all cars are tested for crashing at 65km/h, most of them don't come out in one piece and you're driving about double as fast as that...

@andymackem: I must admit you have a point. One time when visiting mrs fiend's mum, there were dogs on the M62, with rather frantic traffic cops trying to shepherd (dogherd?) them off. If I'd been bombing along at 95+ I might have had a policeman coming through the windscreen.

On a more general motoring note, I recall hearing that driving without valid insurance is probably the most widely-committed crime in the country, with up to one in three drivers having invalid (or no) insurance. (Which reminds me; mew and anyone else who's been done recently, tell your insurance company! Your insurance is invalid if you don't tell them pretty much straight away about traffic offences.)

To be fair, it's likely that a fair proportion of uninsured drivers think that they're insured. I was driving technically uninsured for about a month and a half after my speeding fine without realising because I hadn't informed my insurance company about it.

markfiend wrote:If I'd been bombing along at 95+ I might have had a policeman coming through the windscreen.

One less policeman, that's not a bad thing, is it

Yeah but it would have fcuked my car

i don't think speed cameras are always the best answer when it comes to road safety -people do remember where they are and slow down accordingly, but more often than not are exceeding the speed limit again as soon as they've past it.
at accident blackspots where the camera is actually necessary this doesn't stop accidents so much as make them more likely to occur further down the road.
however, the revenue does save road/income tax rises and any reduction of speeding in 30 zones is fair enough.
i'm happy to do,say, 70 in a 60 zone (A roads) if i know the road, but never speed in 30 zones/built-up/residential areas. i couldn't live with myelf if i killed someone, especially a kid.
to this end i would rather have the even slower (20 mph) residential limit of the germans ; and the unlimited - or more realistic at least - autobahn-style speeds on the motorways (where nothing but the occasional caravan sticks to the limit).

An interesting thing I just read:

Drivers drive faster when they see other cars driving. No matter if they're next to them, behind them or in front of them...

My point got lost I fear - this is why I don't generally write long posts as I don't do them too well...

The point I was trying to make is that driving to keep to the limit is not the best way to drive. I am now nervous about the speed limit and driving to that. I am having to change lane far more times, accelerate and brake far more. Not as smooth, not as safe.

Obviousman wrote:I'm obviously not that experienced as a driver as you are, but to me the difference between being a pedestrian/cyclist and driving a car is that you're not only being a risk to yourself but also to others on the road. I do the craziest things as pedestrian/cyclist, but I always try to be very aware of this when I'm behind the wheel of a car..

I'd question whether being a cyclist absolves anyone of being a risk to others having been involved in one minor accident and witnessed two others directly caused by cyclists...

Motorbikes are the way forward. Lots of risk, if everyone rode one of those for a few years before getting in a car they'd have a healthier perception of it.

ruffers wrote:I'd question whether being a cyclist absolves anyone of being a risk to others having been involved in one minor accident and witnessed two others directly caused by cyclists...

Of course you're not absolutely no risk for others when cycling, but what I rather meant is that you can hardly kill someone by cycling on him. The worst thing that can happen is you kill yourself, I think.
But it is a fair point that you can cause an accident in which someone driving a car kills someone else, and I'll certainly try to keep that in mind...

Surely a driver should stay in the inside lane at all times, except when overtaking a slower vehicle while remaining within the speed limits.

I seem to recall that in my highway code, anyway.

To argue that you're always changing lane is a red herring - lane discipline and speed are only tangentally related.

Surely since you know what the maximum speed you should be doing, it's not that hard to fail to exceed it. You can then drive how you like (slower, if you wish) within that limit. The fact that other people might ignore it doesn't mean you have to do likewise, does it?

I have nothing but contempt for the boy-racer wankers who speed through the town centre where I live at over 40mph, especially where there is no pavement towards the bottom of the town. Complete tossers the lot of them.

andymackem wrote:Surely a driver should stay in the inside lane at all times, except when overtaking a slower vehicle while remaining within the speed limits.

I seem to recall that in my highway code, anyway.

To argue that you're always changing lane is a red herring - lane discipline and speed are only tangentally related.

Surely since you know what the maximum speed you should be doing, it's not that hard to fail to exceed it. You can then drive how you like (slower, if you wish) within that limit. The fact that other people might ignore it doesn't mean you have to do likewise, does it?

Try sticking to the speed limit on a busy motorway.

Surely it's safer to keep at the same speed as the rest of the traffic? Even if that's over the limit?

BTW the lack of a "g" on the topic title was bugging me so I've edited one in. Richey will be pleased

markfiend wrote:Surely it's safer to keep at the same speed as the rest of the traffic? Even if that's over the limit?

My point exactly, make a decision for yourself based on prevailing conditions.

markfiend wrote:Surely it's safer to keep at the same speed as the rest of the traffic? Even if that's over the limit?

Don't you get a chain reaction like that? One guy drives faster, the ones around them will go faster, etc, etc... Seems my quote is true

markfiend wrote:BTW the lack of a "g" on the topic title was bugging me so I've edited one in. Richey will be pleased

now that's good moderating. could you just do the same with the "singin" one as well?

RicheyJames wrote:

markfiend wrote:BTW the lack of a "g" on the topic title was bugging me so I've edited one in. Richey will be pleased

now that's good moderating. could you just do the same with the "singin" one as well?

do you know how near i came to doing that myself?

Good God, is it some sort of communicable disease that only Moderators get?

...oh, and Richey.

RicheyJames wrote:

markfiend wrote:BTW the lack of a "g" on the topic title was bugging me so I've edited one in. Richey will be pleased

now that's good moderating. could you just do the same with the "singin" one as well?

We aim to please.

Sometimes.

ruffers wrote:

andymackem wrote:Surely a driver should stay in the inside lane at all times, except when overtaking a slower vehicle while remaining within the speed limits.

I seem to recall that in my highway code, anyway.

To argue that you're always changing lane is a red herring - lane discipline and speed are only tangentally related.

Surely since you know what the maximum speed you should be doing, it's not that hard to fail to exceed it. You can then drive how you like (slower, if you wish) within that limit. The fact that other people might ignore it doesn't mean you have to do likewise, does it?

Try sticking to the speed limit on a busy motorway.

Easy. Try getting into the inside lane and doing 70mph. When you come across a vehicle doing less than 70, pull out and overtake it, then return to the inside lane. Repeat until you get to where you're going.

If the motorway is so busy that you can't get out, traffic will normally be doing less than 70 anyway. Works on the M25, on the rare occasions I can hit 70 up there.