How much respect do you have for speed limits?
Discussion
0markymark0 said:
Pan Pan said:
As noted before. the governments own records cite speed as the causal factor in only a tiny fraction of the RTA`s`on UK roads. so reduction in vehicle speed will have minimal effect if any, on pedestrian and cyclist safety.
As a cyclist I believe the biggest threats to my safety are:1. Failing to notice me (looking but not seeing)
2. Close passes (irrespective of speed) from cars.
3. Noticing me but not caring
4. Misjudging my speed
2. Motorist makes to pass cyclist, but is presented with a vehicle coming the other way which was not visible at the start of the overtake
3. This `could' be the case, but could also be as items 1 and 2 above.
4. This could be the case, but may not helped by cyclists who want to be invisible on the road.
Pan Pan said:
1. Cyclist not wearing hi viz clothing or using lights in low light conditions.
2. Motorist makes to pass cyclist, but is presented with a vehicle coming the other way which was not visible at the start of the overtake
3. This `could' be the case, but could also be as items 1 and 2 above.
4. This could be the case, but may not helped by cyclists who want to be invisible on the road.
Interetsting. 2. Motorist makes to pass cyclist, but is presented with a vehicle coming the other way which was not visible at the start of the overtake
3. This `could' be the case, but could also be as items 1 and 2 above.
4. This could be the case, but may not helped by cyclists who want to be invisible on the road.
1. I always wear hiviz and have lights on at night and most of time during day too. With regards to hiviz, do you struggle to see dark coloured cars? Why are bikes with lights but no hiviz any different?
2. So, you perform an overtake without being sure you can pass before an oncoming vehicle pushes you back? Is that just for cyclists or with cars too?
4. You can misjudge the speed of something invisible? That's quite a skill...
Edited by 0markymark0 on Thursday 5th June 14:28
Apologies as this was posted on another thread only yesterday but it's a good example.
Wearing hiviz, lights on front/rear of bike, lights front/rear of helmet.
Good road position, not obscured by any other traffic
Classic case of either not looking or not caring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtHkqyphx3E
Wearing hiviz, lights on front/rear of bike, lights front/rear of helmet.
Good road position, not obscured by any other traffic
Classic case of either not looking or not caring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtHkqyphx3E
0markymark0 said:
Pan Pan said:
As noted before. the governments own records cite speed as the causal factor in only a tiny fraction of the RTA`s`on UK roads. so reduction in vehicle speed will have minimal effect if any, on pedestrian and cyclist safety.
As a cyclist I believe the biggest threats to my safety are:1. Failing to notice me (looking but not seeing)
2. Close passes (irrespective of speed) from cars.
3. Noticing me but not caring
4. Misjudging my speed
I cycle a lot and rarely do I see anyone driving over the speed limit,and the ones who are for the fun of it,tend to concentrate on what they are doing,my closest calls have been with the elderly with poor eyesight and no spacial awareness.
The great band of 'speed kills' brainwashed and anti car morons are dumbing down driving,which in my opinion is making things worse. The amount of RTC's that I have been to which were caused by awful driving,not speeding,where the first thing the driver says is 'but I wasn't speeding!'.
The way we are going,we will end up like Australia,awful drivers,speed obsessed police but still with an awful accident rate due to general bad driving.
In my area,the normal safe nsl's being dropped to 50mph and even 40mph for no apparent reason,yes there have been the usual accidents on them,but not caused by the road itself or by excessive speed,just poor driving.
chrisgtx said:
In my area,the normal safe nsl's being dropped to 50mph and even 40mph for no apparent reason,yes there have been the usual accidents on them,but not caused by the road itself or by excessive speed,just poor driving.
The one that annoys me the most is when an accident is speed related it'll be cited as a reason to drop the speed limits. Except that the speed in question is almost invariably over the existing speed limit.Accident due to doing 120mph in an NSL? Best drop it to 50mph then. WTF!
The kind of person who does massively over the speed limit isn't going to magically do the speed limit if you drop it.
Fastdruid said:
chrisgtx said:
In my area,the normal safe nsl's being dropped to 50mph and even 40mph for no apparent reason,yes there have been the usual accidents on them,but not caused by the road itself or by excessive speed,just poor driving.
The one that annoys me the most is when an accident is speed related it'll be cited as a reason to drop the speed limits. Except that the speed in question is almost invariably over the existing speed limit.Accident due to doing 120mph in an NSL? Best drop it to 50mph then. WTF!
The kind of person who does massively over the speed limit isn't going to magically do the speed limit if you drop it.
Pan Pan said:
As noted before. the governments own records cite speed as the causal factor in only a tiny fraction of the RTA`s`on UK roads. so reduction in vehicle speed will have minimal effect if any, on pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Even if reduced speed doesn't change the number of RTAs, surely it changes the severity?Mave said:
Even if reduced speed doesn't change the number of RTAs, surely it changes the severity?
Absolutely the severity of the impact will be directly proportional to the speed involved.Stopping distances also increase in line with speed ( and weight ).Speed also requires more power and therefore results in more CO2 in the case of fossil fuel generation.In which case why aren't trains limited to 40 mph max.I now await all the bs green party reasoning as to why double standards should apply in the case of trains.
XJ Flyer said:
Absolutely the severity of the impact will be directly proportional to the speed involved.Stopping distances also increase in line with speed ( and weight ).Speed also requires more power and therefore results in more CO2 in the case of fossil fuel generation.
In which case why aren't trains limited to 40 mph max.I now await all the bs green party reasoning as to why double standards should apply in the case of trains.
Easy. Trains are much safer and more environmentally friendly than cars. As you suggest making them slower would make them less so but nobody wPuld use them. In which case why aren't trains limited to 40 mph max.I now await all the bs green party reasoning as to why double standards should apply in the case of trains.
So the smaller loss of faster trains is more beneficial than the greater loss of an unused train with everyone driving instead.
Mave said:
Pan Pan said:
As noted before. the governments own records cite speed as the causal factor in only a tiny fraction of the RTA`s`on UK roads. so reduction in vehicle speed will have minimal effect if any, on pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Even if reduced speed doesn't change the number of RTAs, surely it changes the severity?In fact the more speed limits are reduced the more drivers will break the law, which explains the increased numbers of drivers being caught by cameras each year, as the limits are being set too low.
0markymark0 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Absolutely the severity of the impact will be directly proportional to the speed involved.Stopping distances also increase in line with speed ( and weight ).Speed also requires more power and therefore results in more CO2 in the case of fossil fuel generation.
In which case why aren't trains limited to 40 mph max.I now await all the bs green party reasoning as to why double standards should apply in the case of trains.
Easy. Trains are much safer and more environmentally friendly than cars. As you suggest making them slower would make them less so but nobody wPuld use them. In which case why aren't trains limited to 40 mph max.I now await all the bs green party reasoning as to why double standards should apply in the case of trains.
So the smaller loss of faster trains is more beneficial than the greater loss of an unused train with everyone driving instead.
As for the CO2 issue it's obviously also ok,in the greens view,to cook the planet just so long as it's done by trains not cars.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 5th June 18:40
The planers will look at the co2 and death rate per mile travelled and have decades of figures to work with. They'll know that running trains less than full efficiency will increase the numbers thus reducing the co2 and death rate for each persons miles. It trains hardly kill anybody compared to cars it worth making them faster to attract as many would be drivers onto the trains for overall benefit.
You should be happy as full trains means fewer cars thus reduced road congestion.
A train of 500 people at full speed would produce a lot less co2 than a half full train and 250 getting into their car instead.
You should be happy as full trains means fewer cars thus reduced road congestion.
A train of 500 people at full speed would produce a lot less co2 than a half full train and 250 getting into their car instead.
Edited by 0markymark0 on Thursday 5th June 18:44
0markymark0 said:
The planers will look at the co2 and death rate per mile travelled and have decades of figures to work with. They'll know that running trains less than full efficiency will increase the numbers thus reducing the co2 and death rate for each persons miles. It trains hardly kill anybody compared to cars it worth making them faster to attract as many would be drivers onto the trains for overall benefit.
You should be happy as full trains means fewer cars thus reduced road congestion.
There's not much point in having empty roads when the raving green rail lobby has forced the speeds down to unrealistic levels anyway.As for the so called 'safety' statistics of rail v road I'd suggest they wouldn't look so good on a person/'journey' basis not per mile one.You should be happy as full trains means fewer cars thus reduced road congestion.
As for the CO2 issue do you really think that the planet gives a s
t how many person miles were travelled to put the CO2 there.Assuming that global warming even existed.The fact is 'if' speed limits are supposedly all about reducing the 'severity' of collisions 'if'/when they take place and to take account of stopping distances then rail speed limits are a dangerous joke based on double standards and hypocricy.As for CO2 who gives a s
t assuming that they don't believe that there's any link between CO2 and temperatures regardless of how it got there.XJ Flyer said:
So it's ok to potentially kill people on the railways.
Yes, if there is a net saving of lives. The best guess we have, based on how many deaths we have now, which is a fairly good basis with no mechanisms or evidence from other countries suggesting a drastic change is likely, is that there would be a net saving.Is that really hard to comprehend? Or are you, as I suspect, being thick on purpose.
XJ Flyer said:
As for the CO2 issue do you really think that the planet gives a st how many person miles were travelled to put the CO2 there.Assuming that global warming even existed.
Making the obvious and very questionable assumption that CO2 emitted would stay constant regardless of travel method. If CO2/km halves it's unlikely people would travel twice as far.t how many person miles were travelled to put the CO2 there.Assuming that global warming even existed.I know of pedestrian level crossings where trains used to go over slowly in case people were still on the line. Now they hurtle over at full pelt. Why did someone suddenly decide it was worth the risk for them to do that?
The government is quite happy for trees to be cut down for building projects, including acres of ancient woodland for HS2, as well as farms necessary for this country to produce its own food to be destroyed. We've even been told that if new trees are planted within twenty minutes drive it makes up for the old, mature, well established ones being cut down, so we lose trees and we're encouraged to drive to see saplings.
Environmental and safety concerns and the protests of a few locals don't get in the way of government projects and what makes the current government money and helps it meet economic targets. However, it thinks cutting some speed limits is a simple and easy way of pacifying a few locals or improving the air quality in a very small area around a roadside monitor.
The Denmark example shows how increasing speed limits slightly cuts down on impatience and risky overtaking and actually slows the fastest drivers down slightly because they aren't going hell for leather between bouts of being caught up in slower traffic.
The government is quite happy for trees to be cut down for building projects, including acres of ancient woodland for HS2, as well as farms necessary for this country to produce its own food to be destroyed. We've even been told that if new trees are planted within twenty minutes drive it makes up for the old, mature, well established ones being cut down, so we lose trees and we're encouraged to drive to see saplings.
Environmental and safety concerns and the protests of a few locals don't get in the way of government projects and what makes the current government money and helps it meet economic targets. However, it thinks cutting some speed limits is a simple and easy way of pacifying a few locals or improving the air quality in a very small area around a roadside monitor.
The Denmark example shows how increasing speed limits slightly cuts down on impatience and risky overtaking and actually slows the fastest drivers down slightly because they aren't going hell for leather between bouts of being caught up in slower traffic.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff