Why speed?

Author
Discussion

simo1863

1,866 posts

127 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
aside from the occasional enjoyment don't most of us drive to get somewhere quicker than walking?

Speeding is becoming socially unacceptable and there's now a prevalent attitude on the roads that you can act however you want as long as you're not speeding.

It's odd, you'd think with cars that stop quicker (and even by themselves now) and all the additional safety features you wouldn't see speed limits dropping. I get the impression money has something to do with it.

I don't bemoan anyone who sticks to them, if I was on 9 points I'd drive like a nun too. I'll fall in line behind them or overtake somewhere safe if I really feel it necessary.

jamieduff1981

8,022 posts

139 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Going back to the statement initially - it was that roads which were laid as dual carriageways and were marked and operated as dual carriageways have since been changed to single carriageways by painting out the overtaking lane, which is annoying for anyone who doesn't feel like completing their journey at 40mph behind an HGV, a Skoda and a van. You questioned whether such roads existed.

I have no difficulty in understanding the correlation between the number of marked lanes and the road classification.
If they have a boundary between the directions they're still dual carriageways, just single lane ones. 'Dual' isn't referring to the number of lanes in any one direction.
Thanks.

Here's an example.



DUAL carriageway with central reservation, Lane 2 of northbound carriageway painted out to prevent use.

Probably because of some moron unable to join the carriageway without causing a pileup a couple of miles down the road.

Why is it, incidently, that some people seem to be able to pull out of junctions briskly, but cease accelerating at 30mph~ish for a couple of hundred yards before lunging their way up to 45mph, then only speed up to the speed limit when overtaken by the road user who had right of way over them and had to brake firmly to avoid collision?

It's amazing how these fkers think everyone else needs to be more patient yet they can't wait for 7 seconds at a junction to let another road user travelling at the posted speed limit pass before pulling out, isn't it?

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
jamieduff1981 said:
vonhosen said:
jamieduff1981 said:
vonhosen said:
techguyone said:
Yes I do, because this:

Wills2 said:
Or as is more often the case recently roads that have been NSL since they introduced limits have been reduced to 50mph or 40mph for no real reason.

Cars stop better and handle better so lets reduce the speed limit and watch most people then ignore the new rule.

The current speed limit "policy/strategy" in the UK brings the law in to disrepute IMHO.

I'll quite happily obey sensible limits in sensible places and don't give a fark if I'm being tailgated in a 30, it'll ps off whoevers tailgating me far more than it will me.

Oh and around our way, the authority has a penchant for turning dual carriageways into single ones for no apparent reason. Grips my piss.
Turning dual carriageways in to single carriageways?
Where, photo?
If he means by painting hatches over Lane 2, then yes there are loads of examples of this. The A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh has many such examples.
The number of lanes on a road has nothing to do with whether it's single or dual carriageway, the number of carriageways dictates if it's single or dual carriageway.
Going back to the statement initially - it was that roads which were laid as dual carriageways and were marked and operated as dual carriageways have since been changed to single carriageways by painting out the overtaking lane, which is annoying for anyone who doesn't feel like completing their journey at 40mph behind an HGV, a Skoda and a van. You questioned whether such roads existed.

If you're trying to be pedantic, you're probably doing it wrong. Everyone talking about dual carriageways versus single carriageways is referring to the number of lanes available for traffic in each direction.
Not everybody is doing that, the minority might be.
You've got to differentiate between single/dual carriageways & multi lane roads or we could be talking about completely different things.
That's not being pedantic, it's important because national speed limits are different for them both & they are completely different road types.
Removing a lane doesn't make a dual carriageway a single carriageway.
You can't address a question if a questioner setting out a fact can't get the facts straight because they don't understand the ramifications of what they are saying.
You'd be addressing something completely different.

I asked the person who posted it to clarify because it doesn't seem right what they are saying, then you barge in using precisely the wrong terminology whilst at the same time telling me what they meant.
We don't know yet if he can't differentiate like you or whether he can & meant what he said.
When we do his point might be able to be addressed.


Edited by vonhosen on Monday 22 August 12:54

V8RX7

26,765 posts

262 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
V8RX7 said:
spookly said:
A driving ban is a very blunt tool and results in no improvement in driving standards.
IME it is far worse than that.

I know many in the building trade who have received a ban - only one stopped driving.

The others saw that they had no choice otherwise they couldn't work.

So what it actually did was increase the number of uninsured drivers and in the case of the worst offenders they bought the cheapest vans they could find so they didn't mind losing them - obviously they weren't registered in their names and they didn't care about Speed cameras either.

Great system rolleyes
Of course there will be offenders who when convicted up the ante & commit more serious offences. That's not unique to speeding.
The state doesn't ignore their offending because they might do that though, it just has harsher penalties for the more serious offences.
People who drive when disqualified can & do end up in prison.
So we end up with previously law abiding, tax payers, costing us a fortune in court and prison costs who may well end up on benefits / in the criminal classes due to ignoring a ban so they could work.

This sounds like something from the 18th century.


vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
V8RX7 said:
vonhosen said:
V8RX7 said:
spookly said:
A driving ban is a very blunt tool and results in no improvement in driving standards.
IME it is far worse than that.

I know many in the building trade who have received a ban - only one stopped driving.

The others saw that they had no choice otherwise they couldn't work.

So what it actually did was increase the number of uninsured drivers and in the case of the worst offenders they bought the cheapest vans they could find so they didn't mind losing them - obviously they weren't registered in their names and they didn't care about Speed cameras either.

Great system rolleyes
Of course there will be offenders who when convicted up the ante & commit more serious offences. That's not unique to speeding.
The state doesn't ignore their offending because they might do that though, it just has harsher penalties for the more serious offences.
People who drive when disqualified can & do end up in prison.
So we end up with previously law abiding, tax payers, costing us a fortune in court and prison costs who may well end up on benefits / in the criminal classes due to ignoring a ban so they could work.

This sounds like something from the 18th century.
They placed themselves in the criminal classes, they didn't have to, they chose to starting on the path.
They had the warnings at the start, but pressed on.
Most don't, despite what you say with your builder friends, they moderate their behaviour because they don't want to pay that price.

techguyone

3,137 posts

141 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
I'm referring to what used to be a double lane dual carriageway now reverted to a single lane dual carriageway because some twonk painted hatches all over one lane.

Quite why you need to be pedantic about it Christ knows, everyone else seemed to get the gist ok.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
techguyone said:
I'm referring to what used to be a double lane dual carriageway now reverted to a single lane dual carriageway because some twonk painted hatches all over one lane.

Quite why you need to be pedantic about it Christ knows, everyone else seemed to get the gist ok.
it's not being pedantic, you are saying one thing when you mean something entirely different.
Single carriageways exist, as do dual carriageways & you are calling a dual carriageway a single carriageway, it's plain wrong.
If it was easy to say, why didn't you simply say it correctly in the first place rather than say something that means something entirely different?
It's like calling the nearest planet to earth Mars & then later saying you know that I meant Venus because it's obviously Venus.
For all I know you are another of the PHers who insist the speed limit where you have two lanes of travel in your direction of travel is 70 because it's a dual carriageway.

And they'll probably have done it because the way drivers use it has been causing problems. The change may cause other problems but on balance the new problems will be viewed as less serious than the problems they've replaced.

mikeN54

607 posts

180 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
simo1863 said:
It's odd, you'd think with cars that stop quicker (and even by themselves now) and all the additional safety features you wouldn't see speed limits dropping. I get the impression money has something to do with it.
Speed limits not just about stopping in time. Noise and vibration is a major consideration, pollution, pedestrian safety (perceived and real), other vulnerable road users (horses, push bikes etc). HGVs cause massive vibration issues.

The HGV lobby got their speed limits RAISED last year. Their main argument was that "most HGV drivers already speed so the limit should be increased". Along with the arguement about modern tech, ABS etc etc which has some logic. These things equally apply to cars but, anyway they got what they wanted, mainly by lobbying parliament. The governments own impact assessment showed 3 to 5 extra deaths per year all for an industry wide "saving" of just £11M.

One of the caveats of the government raising HGV speed limits was that in places where the new HGV limit wasn't acceptable, then ALL traffic must now be slowed.

I.e. On NSL single carriageways HGVs were previously limited to 40 while cars at 60. Now HGVs can do 50, but where 50 is too fast for a HGV then the authority has only one option and that is to slow ALL traffic to 40.

That is why so many new reduced 40 limits are being posted, in rural areas especially, its about slowing HGVs back to a reasonable level, not cars. After 2 years work on this we (us village folk) managed to get the limit in our village reduced from 50 to 40 on this very technicality.


Edited by mikeN54 on Monday 22 August 15:59

spookly

4,011 posts

94 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
V8RX7 said:
vonhosen said:
V8RX7 said:
spookly said:
A driving ban is a very blunt tool and results in no improvement in driving standards.
IME it is far worse than that.

I know many in the building trade who have received a ban - only one stopped driving.

The others saw that they had no choice otherwise they couldn't work.

So what it actually did was increase the number of uninsured drivers and in the case of the worst offenders they bought the cheapest vans they could find so they didn't mind losing them - obviously they weren't registered in their names and they didn't care about Speed cameras either.

Great system rolleyes
Of course there will be offenders who when convicted up the ante & commit more serious offences. That's not unique to speeding.
The state doesn't ignore their offending because they might do that though, it just has harsher penalties for the more serious offences.
People who drive when disqualified can & do end up in prison.
So we end up with previously law abiding, tax payers, costing us a fortune in court and prison costs who may well end up on benefits / in the criminal classes due to ignoring a ban so they could work.

This sounds like something from the 18th century.
They placed themselves in the criminal classes, they didn't have to, they chose to starting on the path.
They had the warnings at the start, but pressed on.
Most don't, despite what you say with your builder friends, they moderate their behaviour because they don't want to pay that price.
Locking them up... yeah, ok, how often does that happen? Stats?

I got banned for DD, and I stuck to it. While on a 'rehabilitation' course to get 1/4 off my ban, I met all sorts who had been done for the same offence. Some were first timers, others had been done 2, 3 or in one case 9 times. None of them locked up. All of them multiple drink drivers, many with crashes/injuries caused. So.... what does one have to do to get locked up? Also, none of them would have been caught if they hadn't been silly enough to drive obviously pissed or crash yet again.

If all the courts hand out is further bans/fines then I can see why someone would risk driving if their livelihood depended on it, it is really quite a rational option. I think courts know they can throw fines and driving bans at people who have something to lose, everyone else ignores them. The likelihood of jail time is so slim I bet it doesn't even factor into their thinking.

Bans are a very blunt tool, as the impact on someone who'll ignore it will be nil. The impact on someone extremely wealthy will be immaterial. The impact on someone who loses their job over it can be huge.

Same story for means tested fines that have caps.... the poor pay nothing, or next to it. The middle earners get hammered. The caps come in before it would have any effect on someone who is wealthy.

techguyone

3,137 posts

141 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
it's not being pedantic, you are saying one thing when you mean something entirely different.
Single carriageways exist, as do dual carriageways & you are calling a dual carriageway a single carriageway, it's plain wrong.
If it was easy to say, why didn't you simply say it correctly in the first place rather than say something that means something entirely different?
It's like calling the nearest planet to earth Mars & then later saying you know that I meant Venus because it's obviously Venus.
For all I know you are another of the PHers who insist the speed limit where you have two lanes of travel in your direction of travel is 70 because it's a dual carriageway.

And they'll probably have done it because the way drivers use it has been causing problems. The change may cause other problems but on balance the new problems will be viewed as less serious than the problems they've replaced.
Oh god. Do your thread derailing elsewhere, it's not needed, we were doing just fine.

irocfan

40,153 posts

189 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
ezi said:
Because a lot of roads have stupid speed limits which were suitable 30yrs ago when cars were less well engineered.
Or as is more often the case recently roads that have been NSL since they introduced limits have been reduced to 50mph or 40mph for no real reason.

Cars stop better and handle better so lets reduce the speed limit and watch most people then ignore the new rule.

The current speed limit "policy/strategy" in the UK brings the law in to disrepute IMHO.

Why is it that 'liberal types' frequently use that sort of argument WRT drugs and yet want ever harsher punishment for speeding (which immeasurably more people do, and indeed can do without realising)?


Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
It's not relevant in so far as drivers still cause crashes in too many numbers despite the aids. They haven't stopped drivers doing it. They help, but the numbers are still too high so intervention is still required.
You can use the 1 death is a death too many argument to justify 10mph speed limits everywhere.

How great an improvement in safety would allow a clear increase in speed limits, say a doubling of where they are now?

mikeN54

607 posts

180 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Limits generally, will never go up. Locally you will always have people who live somewhere wanting the limit reduced and they will win over the local authority with pester power where the guidance allows it.

As areas become more built up, as traffic becomes heavier in an area. More roundabouts, junctions, crossings, heavy traffic etc then local limits will come down, they have to.

In rural areas the HGV issue as above is a major factor in new 40 limits. Also government policy to local authorities is at last putting quality of life of people living near roads above the need for traffic flow at all costs, which is a good thing.

Limits are far more onerous on the continent, like 30kph in most villages etc.

Edited by mikeN54 on Monday 22 August 21:39

832ark

1,224 posts

155 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Because it's fun. Now fk off back to Mumsnet.

OwenK

3,472 posts

194 months

Tuesday 23rd August 2016
quotequote all
Engagement. Driving at faster speeds but still without any particular risk (generally this means above the limit because they are so low, but it's more to do with speed relative to road conditions than it is relative to the number on the sign) keeps me fully engaged with the task, near 100% of my concentration focused on the road, traffic and the car. Don't get me wrong I'm not cornering on the door handles everywhere, we're just talking 80-90 motorway and up to 70-80 on a smooth open country road. On corners I'm actually fairly conservative since the risk of suddenly losing traction or being surprised by an obstacle is too much for me.

There's very little extra risk of accident as far as I'm concerned, and chances of being caught are minimal, so I take my chances in order to stay engaged.

It's all well and good saying you should be 100% concentrated even at 10mph, but people just don't work that way. The brain just disengages from the task because it's so far below your challenge threshold and that's when phones start coming out or sat navs get fiddled with.

mikeN54

607 posts

180 months

Tuesday 23rd August 2016
quotequote all
OwenK said:


It's all well and good saying you should be 100% concentrated even at 10mph, but people just don't work that way. The brain just disengages from the task because it's so far below your challenge threshold and that's when phones start coming out or sat navs get fiddled with.
Exactly, that damn human nature again. And unfortunately different people have wildly differing task challenge thresholds.

The people doing 45 on that open A road, two hands gripping the wheel, eyes dead ahead, never looking in the mirror. They are at their stress limit, that is why they are doing that speed. They feel the same stress level as you or I might do at 100mph or more on that same clear A road, so they have forward only concentration and would be unable to do other tasks such as hold a conversation or adjust the radio without risking loss of control, and they are like this ALL THE TIME, not just on the odd blast. But they are seen as "safe" because their speed is low.

When you breeze pass them, relaxed and aware of your surroundings, it frightens the life out of them as they never saw you coming, then they give you the waving fist and "lunatic" rant.

Often when I enter a long 30 limit it's a case of speed limiter on, brain turns off. Not really the best way to be safe.



Edited by mikeN54 on Tuesday 23 August 07:59

OwenK

3,472 posts

194 months

Tuesday 23rd August 2016
quotequote all
mikeN54 said:
Exactly, that damn human nature again. And unfortunately different people have wildly differing task challenge thresholds.

The people doing 45 on that open A road, two hands gripping the wheel, eyes dead ahead, never looking in the mirror. They are at their stress limit, that is why they are doing that speed. They feel the same stress level as you or I might do at 100mph or more on that same clear A road, so they have forward only concentration and would be unable to do other tasks such as hold a conversation or adjust the radio without risking loss of control, and they are like this ALL THE TIME, not just on the odd blast. But they are seen as "safe" because their speed is low.

When you breeze pass them, relaxed and aware of your surroundings, it frightens the life out of them as they never saw you coming, then they give you the waving fist and "lunatic" rant.

Often when I enter a long 30 limit it's a case of speed limiter on, brain turns off. Not really the best way to safe.



Edited by mikeN54 on Tuesday 23 August 07:59
I rode a mini moto on a stag do this weekend, can't have been doing more than 10mph and the sheer difficulty of controlling this tiny motorbike as a 6'4" grown man made it one of the most stressful experiences of my driving career hehe
The other (shorter) lads were getting into it and if they'd been forced to keep to the same speed as me then they'd probably have zoned out completely.

Those white knuckle 45ers are at least paying attention, even if they are overly cautious from my perspective, and I'd much rather have that than people wandering out of lane at 60 because they are bored and their mind is elsewhere.

The attentive are only a danger if they overestimate their abilities (whether that's Doris thinking her car is narrower than it is, or Bazza thinking he can stop faster than he can), the inattentive are a danger to anyone around them.

Edited by OwenK on Tuesday 23 August 08:51

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 23rd August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
They placed themselves in the criminal classes, they didn't have to, they chose to starting on the path.
They had the warnings at the start, but pressed on.
Most don't, despite what you say with your builder friends, they moderate their behaviour because they don't want to pay that price.
Yes, let's take otherwise law abiding taxpayers out of the system, genius. It's people with this sort of attitude who are the real problem.

edit. And yet again my theory that most posters without a garage on here are trolls is given another vote of confidence.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Tuesday 23rd August 2016
quotequote all
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
They placed themselves in the criminal classes, they didn't have to, they chose to starting on the path.
They had the warnings at the start, but pressed on.
Most don't, despite what you say with your builder friends, they moderate their behaviour because they don't want to pay that price.
Yes, let's take otherwise law abiding taxpayers out of the system, genius. It's people with this sort of attitude who are the real problem.

edit. And yet again my theory that most posters without a garage on here are trolls is given another vote of confidence.
Get a grip.

They'll have had multiple chances & they then go further still and defy the order of the court, they are forcing the court's hand.
They could have heeded the warnings & stopped it going that far at multiple points previously , but they just kept pushing.
The fact they pay taxes (& probably don't pay all the tax they should anyway) shouldn't make them immune from defying court orders, that's madness.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 23rd August 2016
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Get a grip.

They'll have had multiple chances & they then go further still and defy the order of the court, they are forcing the court's hand.
They could have heeded the warnings & stopped it going that far at multiple points previously , but they just kept pushing.
The fact they pay taxes (& probably don't pay all the tax they should anyway) shouldn't make them immune from defying court orders, that's madness.
It's you and your draconian view of the world, God alone knows what you do for a living but I'd suggest Parking Enforcement is calling you? Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know what happens if you get caught travelling over 100mph on the Motorway, which is hardly a difficult to do in anything with a half decent amount of power. The picture you are painting, as all the 'speed kills' mob do, is one of a career criminal, looking for angles in which to flagrantly disobey the rules. No. The sad fact is that you can't, probably wont, see that education is the way forward and that speed taken in isolation does not cause a problem. I have no idea where you're going with the comment 'probably don't pay all the taxes' but suggesting that imprisonment is a really modern solution to the problem is way, way wide of the mark.