RE: M4 scamera protest planned
Discussion
streaky said:#
People are on bumpers at 90 as they are at 70, if the car in front breaks suddenly, theres nothing they can do about it in either case.
But vehicles are so reliable these days, it's very unlikely that one will break and stop dead in the middle of fast-flowing traffic - Streaky
Which is exactly what I was going to write (but was too drunk last night
) I cant remember the last time a car suddendly went from 70 - 0 in 0 seconds directly in front of me...
atom290 said:
So that’s why sticking to the speed limit is important. Unless you can promise that everyone will have their cars serviced regularly, be aware of the road conditions, keep a safe distance at all times from the car in front, have had a good nights sleep so they aren’t tired, and they aren’t thinking about a telephone call or anything else. Then we could go much faster
This is exactly the point. Drivers should be responsible for safe driving, they should be responsible for leaving a safe distance, for driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions and for all the other issues that make driving a safe experience. This current speed obsessed regime is concentrating on removing those responsibilities from the driver by directing their focus onto just one trivialy small aspect of safe driving. Dumbing down driving like this has only one logical result, accidents are going to increase, or at the very least offset any improvements in vehicle and road engineering.
MR2Mike said:
So that’s why sticking to the speed limit is important. Unless you can promise that everyone will have their cars serviced regularly, be aware of the road conditions, keep a safe distance at all times from the car in front, have had a good nights sleep so they aren’t tired, and they aren’t thinking about a telephone call or anything else. Then we could go much faster
This is exactly the point. Drivers should be responsible for safe driving, they should be responsible for leaving a safe distance, for driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions and for all the other issues that make driving a safe experience. This current speed obsessed regime is concentrating on removing those responsibilities from the driver by directing their focus onto just one trivialy small aspect of safe driving. Dumbing down driving like this has only one logical result, accidents are going to increase, or at the very least offset any improvements in vehicle and road engineering.
I understand what you are saying and I hate the idea of losing the right to freedom, but unfortunately not every driver follows your thoughts.
You cant condone driving at well over a 100mph, it is dangerous. I know people say that they have never had someone stop in front of them, but that’s the thing it does happen. A 7.5 tonne lorry will pull into the outside lane without looking, the driver then stamps on the brake, you’re following an X5 and don’t see all of this until you see his brake lights.
Or what happens if you have a puncture at 100mph? You’re not going to be able to control it any better at 70 I know, but the damage inflicted on others is going to be a lot less.
I'm probably wasting my breath, but what gives us the right to speed? It is antisocial, to the same extent as is dropping litter, as is letting your dog crap in the park. It is also dangerous. Momentum is proportional to the square of the velocity. It is usually the momentum that kills.
To clear up another point, and that is I am all for cameras, you choose to speed you take the risk! What I am against is the fact that the government choose to hide behind the fact it is going to lower accident rates, and not the real reason to cash in on people taking risks. If the money raised from the fines generated by the cameras was put back into real policing, and catching the wayward criminals would that justify them more?
Does someone fancy giving me their views on that last point?
Not realty Jon. The fact that a reasonable assessment of the situation is not happening is part of the point, IMHO. With real, human, professional Traffpol as once was, they would decide what was and was not reasonable. That could mean, you'd get nicked for doing 50 on a foggy motorway but also that they might leave you alone where 80 might be perfectly safe at other times. This led to people driving in a more "reasonable" fashion and the accident rate was steadily falling. I just want to return to those days where, if you were sensible, you could "keep your nose clean", *AND*, make good progress a fair amount of the time, and nobody suffered!
I am also surprised that you are willing to state that 100mph is dangerous, without further qualification! Surely, this is just poorly worded and you don't really believe this??? After all, in my, and I believe your experience, the Autobahn is often safe at speeds way over this, as is the run from Flugplatz to Schwedenkreuz or alone Dottinger Hohe....
Matt
I am also surprised that you are willing to state that 100mph is dangerous, without further qualification! Surely, this is just poorly worded and you don't really believe this??? After all, in my, and I believe your experience, the Autobahn is often safe at speeds way over this, as is the run from Flugplatz to Schwedenkreuz or alone Dottinger Hohe....
Matt
Matt,
But that is what I am saying.
I like the idea of having cameras that catch people doing an upper limit, but have no commonsense. But look at all of the money raised…..Millions!
So why not compliment the idea with spending the money raised on what I called real policing. Getting marked cars out onto the motorways and pulling people over that are driving recklessly, or drunk, or in the middle lane with their fog lights on…etc. As I said in a previous remark, someone who is drunk can drive under the speed limit and not be caught, get real police out into the field.
The police is under-funded and so given that the cameras are so great at generating revenue, why don’t they plough the money back into the community?
Its only a thought, but its time the government stopped hiding behind the reasons the cameras are there, and started putting the money to good use.
As for left hand bends with Swedish crosses next to them, never seen one, and never driven an Audi TT!
But that is what I am saying.
I like the idea of having cameras that catch people doing an upper limit, but have no commonsense. But look at all of the money raised…..Millions!
So why not compliment the idea with spending the money raised on what I called real policing. Getting marked cars out onto the motorways and pulling people over that are driving recklessly, or drunk, or in the middle lane with their fog lights on…etc. As I said in a previous remark, someone who is drunk can drive under the speed limit and not be caught, get real police out into the field.
The police is under-funded and so given that the cameras are so great at generating revenue, why don’t they plough the money back into the community?
Its only a thought, but its time the government stopped hiding behind the reasons the cameras are there, and started putting the money to good use.
As for left hand bends with Swedish crosses next to them, never seen one, and never driven an Audi TT!
leadfootlydon said:
You cant condone driving at well over a 100mph, it is dangerous.
Give me a break!
You are obviously a clever soul and a competent driver. Why the "blind spot"?
No, on second thoughts, never mind.
I am a cleaver soul, and I guess you do condone driving at speeds over a ton.
Did you read the rest of my drivel or did you just pick up on that one point?
As an aside I read once, and I used to quote it when I used to teach on the track days:
Man was designed to fight woolly mammals, and not drive/ride at speed. Yes we have adapted, but we still rely on our survival reactions, and its these reactions that often or not try to kill us.
Yes on a circuit we can go as fast as we want, but there is medical help, and the chances are that everyone is concentrating on the job in hand. The same cannot be said on a motorway at in excess of 100.
Sorry to reply to your post, but....
atom290 said:
atom290 said:
You cant condone driving at well over a 100mph, it is dangerous.
Give me a break!
You are obviously a clever soul and a competent driver. Why the "blind spot"?
No, on second thoughts, never mind.
I am a cleaver soul, and I guess you do condone driving at speeds over a ton.
Did you read the rest of my drivel or did you just pick up on that one point?
As an aside I read once, and I used to quote it when I used to teach on the track days:
Man was designed to fight woolly mammals, and not drive/ride at speed. Yes we have adapted, but we still rely on our survival reactions, and its these reactions that often or not try to kill us.
Yes on a circuit we can go as fast as we want, but there is medical help, and the chances are that everyone is concentrating on the job in hand. The same cannot be said on a motorway at in excess of 100.
Sorry to reply to your post, but....
I condone driving at whatever speed is safe for the conditions. Why don't you?
atom290 said:
You cant condone driving at well over a 100mph, it is dangerous.
Why is the magic number *100 mph* dangerous then?
You seriously suggesting 99 is safer?
The sustained triple digit run i did a while back was in perfect safety. Its not how fast youre going but where and when you do it that either makes it dangerous or safe.
Youre doing exactly what the speed kills numpties do, getting a measurement and comparing it with a perception of danger. There is absolutely no evidence whatsover to demonstrate a mechanism whereby the faster you go the more danger from the speed is encountered.
Danger from mechanical failure, unexpected events yes, but NOT noway on earth just from going quicker.
Its time this speed kills bollox was laid to rest.
If no one had a speedo then youd have no idea what speed you were doing, then youd drive to the natural speed of the road and conditions.
Surely thats the way forward, not silly numbers on a sign saying "Thou shalt no go faster"???
Theyve tried the scam approach and failed, get shot of em and do something sensible for once.
By the way Atom290, where you the same guy I was briefly talking to last year about going on the Gumball Rally together? I remember talking with someone who had an Atom equipped with a huge harddrive and digital cameras to film the whole thing.
If that was you, you'll be pleased that I wasn't your co-driver, since my foot would have been firmly planted for the entirity of the journey, resulting in well over 100mph
>> Edited by forever_driving on Wednesday 27th April 15:39
If that was you, you'll be pleased that I wasn't your co-driver, since my foot would have been firmly planted for the entirity of the journey, resulting in well over 100mph
>> Edited by forever_driving on Wednesday 27th April 15:39
atom290 said:
I condone driving at whatever speed is safe for the conditions. Why don't you?
Yes, I certainly wouldnt condone doing 30 on the M1 in thick fog or in a blizard!
So the prevailing road conditions are a factor in determining what is a safe speed? A simple "Yes" or "No", please.
deltafox said:
You cant condone driving at well over a 100mph, it is dangerous.
Why is the magic number *100 mph* dangerous then?
You seriously suggesting 99 is safer?
The sustained triple digit run i did a while back was in perfect safety. Its not how fast youre going but where and when you do it that either makes it dangerous or safe.
Youre doing exactly what the speed kills numpties do, getting a measurement and comparing it with a perception of danger. There is absolutely no evidence whatsover to demonstrate a mechanism whereby the faster you go the more danger from the speed is encountered.
Danger from mechanical failure, unexpected events yes, but NOT noway on earth just from going quicker.
Its time this speed kills bollox was laid to rest.
If no one had a speedo then youd have no idea what speed you were doing, then youd drive to the natural speed of the road and conditions.
Surely thats the way forward, not silly numbers on a sign saying "Thou shalt no go faster"???
Theyve tried the scam approach and failed, get shot of em and do something sensible for once.
Right this is fun!
Ok then, No I am not suggesting for one minute 100mph is dangerous and 99mph isn’t! I was merely picking up on someone else’s comment that they considered 100 to be ok
I am quantifying danger with speed, and I have given reasons why:
1. At 100mph you are travelling at 146 feet per second that’s approximately 11 car lengths every second. Is that enough time for the average person to react?
2. Crashes involve an impact, an impact involves kinetic energy being generated. This energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Therefore substantially less damage is done by dropping your speed.
3. People don’t have a great perception of speed. When someone is driving at speed in the 3rd lane someone in the 2nd lane wont be able to judge the speed due to inexperience. It happens, Ive been in a vehicle at 120mph and someone’s pulled out in front of you purely because they couldn’t judge your speed.
4. Your average saloon’s brakes aren’t designed to stop you at those speeds, and more to the point a vast number of people fit non OEM brakes the majority of which are less efficient and cause the disks to warp at high temps.
I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT IT ISNT SPEED THAT KILLS ITS INAPPROPRIATE SPEED THAT KILLS!
Look back through this thread and I have tried to put that forward, but there has to be an upper limit, and in my eyes with the amount of traffic on the motorways its not fair to speed at triple figures or thereabouts.
leadfootlydon said:
leadfootlydon said:
I condone driving at whatever speed is safe for the conditions. Why don't you?
Yes, I certainly wouldnt condone doing 30 on the M1 in thick fog or in a blizard!
So the prevailing road conditions are a factor in determining what is a safe speed? A simple "Yes" or "No", please.
Yes
atom290 said:
I agree, as I said in a previous comment its not speed that kills its inappropriate speed.
So in any give speed limit area, limit -1 mph is "appropriate" but limit +1 mph is "inappropriate"?
You need to think a little more deeply and clearly before you pontificate on a subject you clearly know very little about. I recommend www.safespeed.org.uk.
OBSERVER said:
I agree, as I said in a previous comment its not speed that kills its inappropriate speed.
So in any give speed limit area, limit -1 mph is "appropriate" but limit +1 mph is "inappropriate"?
You need to think a little more deeply and clearly before you pontificate on a subject you clearly know very little about. I recommend www.safespeed.org.uk.
You need to stop being so arrogant to suggest I pontificate!
Its not a case of me not knowing anything about the subject I have clear views and I am quite willing to talk to people about them, and back them up with reasons.
Why did you have to quantify what appropriate was with a plus or minus 1? If you do want to put plus or minuses into the equation then it needs to be relative to the speed limit.
I will agree some speed limits do seem a tad pointless. Often you find yourself on a dual carriageway doing 30mph when there isn’t a house in sight!!! But 30mph past a school is totally necessary, in fact possibly 20mph would be better.
So relative speeds should be a factor of the speed you are doing, there is no point in considering +/- 1mph on a motorway but the difference between a child living or dying could be down to +/-1mph.
But the worse thing to do is sit there and watch the speedo as that makes you less aware of your surroundings, plus you get bored and your mind starts to wander
A quandary i guess!
atom290 said:
So the prevailing road conditions are a factor in determining what is a safe speed? A simple "Yes" or "No", please.
Yes
Thank you. I'm glad we got that sorted out.
Can we further agree that as road conditions deteriorate, safe speeds reduce and as road conditions improve, safe speeds increase?
(I am sorry that the question sounds patronising, but this question must be asked in order to maintain the chain of logic)
leadfootlydon said:
leadfootlydon said:
So the prevailing road conditions are a factor in determining what is a safe speed? A simple "Yes" or "No", please.
Yes
Thank you. I'm glad we got that sorted out.
Can we further agree that as road conditions deteriorate, safe speeds reduce and as road conditions improve, safe speeds increase?
(I am sorry that the question sounds patronising, but this question must be asked in order to maintain the chain of logic)
Dont worry if i thought you were being patronising I would tell you!
I do agree that safe speeds are directly proportional to the road conditions.
However there needs to be an upper limit based on the reasons I gave
atom290 said:
At 100mph you are travelling at 146 feet per second that’s approximately 11 car lengths every second. Is that enough time for the average person to react?
atom290 said:
at 90mph that’s almost 9 car lengths every second you are travelling, doesn’t give much time for reaction regardless how good your brakes are?
Is what enough time? You haven't stated a time. Are you saying that at any given speed limit it is possible to allow "enough" time to react but at all speeds above that limit is is impossible to allow "enough" time to react?
Available time to react is influenced predominantly by observation, anticipation and space (the O-A-S in "COAST") - a little by speed but not at all by whether speed happens to be a few mph more or less than an arbitrary limit.
atom290 said:
There is no distinction between being caught on a camera along the M4 at 2:30 in the morning, or in the middle of rush hour. But this is the thing, speeding is speeding. You cant get away from the fact that you are breaking the law.
Official DfT figure are that 70% of drivers exceed 30mph speed limits. Police sources have estimated that 10 million 'speeding events' occur every day - that's 3.6 billion every year. Do you really think that 70% of the driver population are criminals and every speeding event is a 'criminal offence'?
atom290 said:
So that’s why sticking to the speed limit is important. Unless you can promise that everyone will have their cars serviced regularly, be aware of the road conditions, keep a safe distance at all times from the car in front, have had a good nights sleep so they aren’t tired, and they aren’t thinking about a telephone call or anything else. Then we could go much faster
The implication of the above is that the sum contribution that drivers need to make to road safety is adhering to the speed limit. As long as they're doing that then concentration, observation, anticipation etc (and the other things you mentioned) are unimportant. Do you really think that?
I seriously suggest you study www.safespeed.org.uk.
OBSERVER said:
At 100mph you are travelling at 146 feet per second that’s approximately 11 car lengths every second. Is that enough time for the average person to react?
atom290 said:
at 90mph that’s almost 9 car lengths every second you are travelling, doesn’t give much time for reaction regardless how good your brakes are?
Is what enough time? You haven't stated a time. Are you saying that at any given speed limit it is possible to allow "enough" time to react but at all speeds above that limit is impossible to allow "enough" time to react?
Available time to react is influenced predominantly by observation, anticipation and space (the O-A-S in "COAST") - a little by speed but not at all by whether speed happens to be a few mph more or less than an arbitrary limit.
In my eyes you need a reaction time. Depending on age and state of mind this can vary from 1 to 2 seconds. Observations are going to play a major part in the proceedings, but the difference between going at 90 and 100 is two car lengths. The reason I have used car lengths as a measurement is it is a good way of visualising the result. Therefore if you are travelling 10 mph slower it gives you more time to react, and surely everything helps. Ideally you also need to factor in whether the person behind has enough space. If they are approaching too fast and providing you have left a little bit of breathing space then you can move forward a bit avoiding a rear shunt.
OBSERVER said:
There is no distinction between being caught on a camera along the M4 at 2:30 in the morning, or in the middle of rush hour. But this is the thing, speeding is speeding. You cant get away from the fact that you are breaking the law.
Official DfT figure are that 70% of drivers exceed 30mph speed limits. Police sources have estimated that 10 million 'speeding events' occur every day - that's 3.6 billion every year. Do you really think that 70% of the driver population are criminals and every speeding event is a 'criminal offence'?
As there are only 2 forms of offences, criminal or civil. You come under the criminal category. It can actually work in your favour, as if you do get caught and you disagree with the findings it has to be proved beyond unquestionable doubt, something you don’t get with a civil case, that you were guilty.
30mph limits are there for a reason. So if people cant watch their speed and drive responsibly then yes they deserve to be caught. Children no matter how many times they watch Peter Pervis telling them the Green Cross Code will walk out in front of cars. How would you feel if a child you knew was knocked down, when it was proved that the speeder was going 5mph over the limit?
OBSERVER said:
So that’s why sticking to the speed limit is important. Unless you can promise that everyone will have their cars serviced regularly, be aware of the road conditions, keep a safe distance at all times from the car in front, have had a good nights sleep so they aren’t tired, and they aren’t thinking about a telephone call or anything else. Then we could go much faster
The implication of the above is that the sum contribution that drivers need to make to road safety is adhering to the speed limit. As long as they're doing that then concentration, observation, anticipation etc (and the other things you mentioned) are unimportant. Do you really think that?
I seriously suggest you study www.safespeed.org.uk.
I will read it tonight when I'm not in work, but please note that if you are going to quote me, get all of them.
On my last post I did say that
atom290 said:
But the worse thing to do is sit there and watch the speedo as that makes you less aware of your surroundings, plus you get bored and your mind starts to wander
A quandary i guess!
So no I don’t just think that obeying the speed limit is the end of the story.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff