illogical road policing
Discussion
Can I ask a question about seemingly illogical road policing?
One issue that defies all common sense to me is a motorcycle speeding vs. a HGV speeding.
Let me expand on that.
I drive for a living and see motorcycles being pulled over for speeding all the time. A motorcycle realistically poses little threat to me sat in my vehicle. I hardly ever see HGV's pulled over for speeding. Yet a 44 ton lorry poses a huge threat to me whilst I use the roads. Yet if you look at the physics of the situation and risks involved - the Policing of this is totally illogical.
HGV speed limits are 40 mph for single carriageway, 50 mph for dual carriageway and 60mph on Motorway. Hardly any of them stick to these limits. And what about the environmetnal impact of HGVs speeding? Do the Police not care for the environment? I believe a HGV returns about 6mpg. So if they are speeding - what mpg do they return? 2mpg ?
If the biker has an accident he gets hurt. Its unlikely anyone else will be hurt.
But if the HGV driver has an accident he is unlikely to get hurt but other people may well be injured.
A motorcycle weighs about 300kg with rider. A HGV weighs upto 44 tons.
many people think the 40 mph limit for HGVs on rural roads is too low. It isnt. The problem is the dim wits in cars that dont overtake them and cause a huge tail back. And most HGV drivers drive too close to the vehicle in front - so effectively stopping anyone from overtaking.
If the Police enforced the highway laws equally and fairly they may become more "popular". This is nothing to do with their Superiors and what they can and cant say on a Forum - its common sense.
One issue that defies all common sense to me is a motorcycle speeding vs. a HGV speeding.
Let me expand on that.
I drive for a living and see motorcycles being pulled over for speeding all the time. A motorcycle realistically poses little threat to me sat in my vehicle. I hardly ever see HGV's pulled over for speeding. Yet a 44 ton lorry poses a huge threat to me whilst I use the roads. Yet if you look at the physics of the situation and risks involved - the Policing of this is totally illogical.
HGV speed limits are 40 mph for single carriageway, 50 mph for dual carriageway and 60mph on Motorway. Hardly any of them stick to these limits. And what about the environmetnal impact of HGVs speeding? Do the Police not care for the environment? I believe a HGV returns about 6mpg. So if they are speeding - what mpg do they return? 2mpg ?
If the biker has an accident he gets hurt. Its unlikely anyone else will be hurt.
But if the HGV driver has an accident he is unlikely to get hurt but other people may well be injured.
A motorcycle weighs about 300kg with rider. A HGV weighs upto 44 tons.
many people think the 40 mph limit for HGVs on rural roads is too low. It isnt. The problem is the dim wits in cars that dont overtake them and cause a huge tail back. And most HGV drivers drive too close to the vehicle in front - so effectively stopping anyone from overtaking.
If the Police enforced the highway laws equally and fairly they may become more "popular". This is nothing to do with their Superiors and what they can and cant say on a Forum - its common sense.
You need to look at the likelyhood of a collision.
A motorcyclist is more likely to have a collision with another object than a person in a car. (this is due to other factors and not speed alone, poor decisions made by the rider and poor decisions made by other road users)
If a motorcyclist crashes of their own accord then it is only them that are physically injured, but it may have far reaching effects on family and friends.
A part of road safety is education as well as enforcement (depending on the speed) and as they are one the most vulnerable group of road users then it would stand to reason that they get the most education. It's a decision made by the police to reduce road casualties by enforcement and education.
You need to look at the bigger picture.
I think they have the most casualties of all road users.
A motorcyclist is more likely to have a collision with another object than a person in a car. (this is due to other factors and not speed alone, poor decisions made by the rider and poor decisions made by other road users)
If a motorcyclist crashes of their own accord then it is only them that are physically injured, but it may have far reaching effects on family and friends.
A part of road safety is education as well as enforcement (depending on the speed) and as they are one the most vulnerable group of road users then it would stand to reason that they get the most education. It's a decision made by the police to reduce road casualties by enforcement and education.
You need to look at the bigger picture.
I think they have the most casualties of all road users.
rudel123 said:
Can I ask a question about seemingly illogical road policing?
I didn't spot the question.You seemed to be saying that HGV speeding was more of a problem than bike speeding. It doesn't seem to me that either of them are a particular problem (I can't say I've ever noticed a bike or HGV pulled over for speeding, I routinely see bikes cars and HGV exceed the speed limit perfectly safely and reasonably.
You also say:
rudel123 said:
many people think the 40 mph limit for HGVs on rural roads is too low. It isnt. The problem is the dim wits in cars that dont overtake them and cause a huge tail back. And most HGV drivers drive too close to the vehicle in front - so effectively stopping anyone from overtaking.
You say that the 40 mph is not too low but don't explain why. IMO it clearly IS too low most of the time because it is routinely safe for them (and hence the rest of us stuck behind them) to travel faster. Fortunately it is rare in my experience to find an HGV driver pedantically sticking to the speed limit. But I sympathise with the ones that do - they have to protect their licenses, although the rest of us suffer extra inconvenience as a result.You imply that HGVs should slow down even more but the rest of us should overtake them to avoid being held up. Overtaking is one of the most dangerous things you can do on the roads. I would question any strategy that requires drivers to do this more often.
The police do not have any mandate to protect the environment other than by enforcing the applicable laws. Fortunately we don't (yet) have any laws regulating fuel consumption. Some idiot suggested quite recently that we should have, though. I'm sure there are people who earnestly and sincerely believe that people should have carbon dioxide quotas, and obliged to minimise their fuel consumption, and have restrictions on vehicle size/weight and number of driven wheels. And no doubt somebody somewhere thinks the public shouldn't be allowed to travel without a permit. It's for our own good after all. Haven't you heard? We've got a planet to save here.
Riding a motorcycle is risky. Thats the risk a biker takes.
Most motorcycle accidents I have seen are where a biker has gone too fast on a rural corner and left the road. He gets hurt - nobody else does. He made the mistake - he gets hurt. It kind of fair in that respect. He will then pay a higher insurance premium next year.
Most accidents I see where a HGV is involved have been on Motorways where a car has been side-swiped becasue the HGV driver hasnt looked properly before changing lanes. Thats unfair to the car driver.
The average road user drives a car. They are the "majority" - so the law has to be "biased" towards their needs.
What I am saying is the average road user is more at risk from HGV's than bikes. Simple as that.
Next time you are on a dual carriageway - just drive at 50mph for a few miles - I bet you will be overtaken by at least 10 HGV's. If you see a Police car parked up he wont even bat an eyelid. Often HGV's drive in 'trains' or convoys with only a few feet in between. They must not be able to see anything but the back of the lorry in font. We've all seen them do it with no interference from the Police.
Also, in this environmental age - shouldnt HGV's be made to slow down as they pollute the most?
Lets say I want to do my bit for the environment and drive at 50 on rural roads instead of 60. It isnt practical or possible as I would soon have a speeding HGV just behind me.
Most motorcycle accidents I have seen are where a biker has gone too fast on a rural corner and left the road. He gets hurt - nobody else does. He made the mistake - he gets hurt. It kind of fair in that respect. He will then pay a higher insurance premium next year.
Most accidents I see where a HGV is involved have been on Motorways where a car has been side-swiped becasue the HGV driver hasnt looked properly before changing lanes. Thats unfair to the car driver.
The average road user drives a car. They are the "majority" - so the law has to be "biased" towards their needs.
What I am saying is the average road user is more at risk from HGV's than bikes. Simple as that.
Next time you are on a dual carriageway - just drive at 50mph for a few miles - I bet you will be overtaken by at least 10 HGV's. If you see a Police car parked up he wont even bat an eyelid. Often HGV's drive in 'trains' or convoys with only a few feet in between. They must not be able to see anything but the back of the lorry in font. We've all seen them do it with no interference from the Police.
Also, in this environmental age - shouldnt HGV's be made to slow down as they pollute the most?
Lets say I want to do my bit for the environment and drive at 50 on rural roads instead of 60. It isnt practical or possible as I would soon have a speeding HGV just behind me.
Your missing the point.
Reducing casualties on the roads is a policing target.
We dont work on a sliding scale of what is acceptable in different road user groups.
Any death or casualty on the road is potentially advoidable and its a role of the police to reduce these casualties.
As bikers are a high risk group not only from themselves but other road users then we need to actively work to reduce these causualties regardless of "its only themselves they are hurting", this can be by speed enforcement or education regarding speed or manor of riding as its not necessarily excess speed that is the cause it may well be excess speed for the conditions.
Causalties from HGV's are quite low regardless of the potential damage they can cause. Causualties amongst bikers are high and need to reduce regardless of the little "colateral damage" they cause.
We dont police polution!
Reducing casualties on the roads is a policing target.
We dont work on a sliding scale of what is acceptable in different road user groups.
Any death or casualty on the road is potentially advoidable and its a role of the police to reduce these casualties.
As bikers are a high risk group not only from themselves but other road users then we need to actively work to reduce these causualties regardless of "its only themselves they are hurting", this can be by speed enforcement or education regarding speed or manor of riding as its not necessarily excess speed that is the cause it may well be excess speed for the conditions.
Causalties from HGV's are quite low regardless of the potential damage they can cause. Causualties amongst bikers are high and need to reduce regardless of the little "colateral damage" they cause.
We dont police polution!
Slider - its probably been answered elsewhere but are you plod? just wondering as it appears so from your answers.
HGV/PSV limits in my eyes are too slow in a lot of cases. I drove coaches for three years, hardly a long time compared to a lot here i know. however a lot of the time driving at what felt like a safe speed & driving smoothly enough to get letters off passengers saying i was a lovely smooth safe driver i found myself exceeding the PSV limits. yes there are places in 60zones that PSVs cant do 60, but there are a lot of places cars cant either.
Bikes - yes we speed a lot of the time. myself i try not to in 30 & 40 zones as there is normally way too much happening to be safe at a higher speed. however on NSL limits its often possible to go a lot faster than the limit while not being at a much higher risk, obviously you have to be aware of junctions etc & slow for those. but i can regulary cruise well above NSL without undue risk. i tend to slow for crests/binds/junctions etc for safety reasons (it hurts if you crash a bike, so im told - not tried it yet) and for licence reasons, if i cant see far enough to know im safe from scamera stasi then i cant see far enough to go that quick basicly.
plus of course that on a bike you've got a lot more options in the event of a problem, you dont have to stop you can pick a tiny gap & go through. not that its reccommended obviously but its a a 'get out of hospital free' card in the last ditch moments. thankfully ive only been there about twice & haev learnt from those experiences.
HGV/PSV limits in my eyes are too slow in a lot of cases. I drove coaches for three years, hardly a long time compared to a lot here i know. however a lot of the time driving at what felt like a safe speed & driving smoothly enough to get letters off passengers saying i was a lovely smooth safe driver i found myself exceeding the PSV limits. yes there are places in 60zones that PSVs cant do 60, but there are a lot of places cars cant either.
Bikes - yes we speed a lot of the time. myself i try not to in 30 & 40 zones as there is normally way too much happening to be safe at a higher speed. however on NSL limits its often possible to go a lot faster than the limit while not being at a much higher risk, obviously you have to be aware of junctions etc & slow for those. but i can regulary cruise well above NSL without undue risk. i tend to slow for crests/binds/junctions etc for safety reasons (it hurts if you crash a bike, so im told - not tried it yet) and for licence reasons, if i cant see far enough to know im safe from scamera stasi then i cant see far enough to go that quick basicly.
plus of course that on a bike you've got a lot more options in the event of a problem, you dont have to stop you can pick a tiny gap & go through. not that its reccommended obviously but its a a 'get out of hospital free' card in the last ditch moments. thankfully ive only been there about twice & haev learnt from those experiences.
GREENV8S - the question was implied at the start of the text rather than explicitly stated. The question is whether the Police enforce speed limits fairly on all road users. Sorry if it went over the top of your head. Asking a metaphorical question is a common way of introducing a topic and/or starting a debate. Apologies.
Lets talk about vehicle heirarchy. At the bottom you have say bicycles and at the top fast cars and fast sports bikes. If the slower vehicles on the road (e.g. HGVs) speed then this impacts on the speeds done by the faster vehicles (e.g. cars). So its crucial to enforce the speed limits on lorries or the cars have to speed just to overtake them. Maybe thats where your illfounded concerns about the safety of overtaking come from .I dont want to sit behind a lorry for miles and breathe in its cancer causing diesel particulates. Nobody does. Therefore its common for cars to overtake HGVs on rural roads.
I did explain why 40mph for HGV's is O.K. The part about the fact they weigh upto 44 tons may just answer that. Add to that the fact that they can carry hazardous goods e.g. masonry, timber or compressed gas - it becomes obvious why 40mph is plenty. And HGV's arent exactly driven by the brightest people in Society.
HGV drivers used to be called the Knights of the road. Well they arent now. Theyre a menace. And thanks to poor Policing they get away with it. Other road users like bikers (and I am not a biker) dont get away with it.
Overtaking isn't dangerous. How ridiculous. Only if you do it on a hill or in a village at speed or where there's double white lines is it dangerous. But thats all common sense. Next time you overtake try doing it when theres nothing coming the other way. And make sure you change down a gear!
I think GreenV8S and Slider should maybe think of the Physics of a 44 ton vehicle speeding by 50 per cent on a rural road. Are you saying that a 44 ton vehicle has the same braking potentail as a car for example?
^Slider^ - I havent missed the point. Maybe I have written in a way that you havent "connected" with. Concerning environmental impact and the role of the Police - Of course the Police police pollution. Not directlty but INDIRECTLY. They enforce the law made by Parliament. And parliament has a duty to protect the environment for the benefit of all. Vehicle pollution is a MAJOR CAUSE of Climate Change. Try watching the News.If the Polcie dont make vehicles do the speed limit - then who does? Bodies like The Environment Agency have little power.
Personal Attitudes and choices made are also a part of this. For example, Ive seen people pull out in front of motorbikes at T junctions (e.g. like in the advert run recently on UK TV) but I have NEVER seen a car pull out in front of a HGV. Car drivers give HGV's a wide berth due to their size and weight and the fact that the car comes off very much worse in a collision. Its common sense. So the figures are clouded by these factors.
I guess ^Slider^ may be a Policeman. "To serve and protect" is common in Police mission statements. Its even on the side of many Police vehicles.So exactly how is ignoring the biggest speeders and polluters on the roads protecting me??? You do know thet diesel particulates are a major cause of cancer????
And how is riding a fast motorbike any different to people surfing massive waves off Nequay in Winter or freediving with sharks or mountaineering without a rope? It isnt.
The EXPERTS say 40 mph is the maximum for HGVs on rural roads. They know better than you. Its the Law. It must be enforced. Having to explain the highly obvious reasons why is just plain tedious. Now I know why the Police only require 5 'O' levels to enter.
Lets talk about vehicle heirarchy. At the bottom you have say bicycles and at the top fast cars and fast sports bikes. If the slower vehicles on the road (e.g. HGVs) speed then this impacts on the speeds done by the faster vehicles (e.g. cars). So its crucial to enforce the speed limits on lorries or the cars have to speed just to overtake them. Maybe thats where your illfounded concerns about the safety of overtaking come from .I dont want to sit behind a lorry for miles and breathe in its cancer causing diesel particulates. Nobody does. Therefore its common for cars to overtake HGVs on rural roads.
I did explain why 40mph for HGV's is O.K. The part about the fact they weigh upto 44 tons may just answer that. Add to that the fact that they can carry hazardous goods e.g. masonry, timber or compressed gas - it becomes obvious why 40mph is plenty. And HGV's arent exactly driven by the brightest people in Society.
HGV drivers used to be called the Knights of the road. Well they arent now. Theyre a menace. And thanks to poor Policing they get away with it. Other road users like bikers (and I am not a biker) dont get away with it.
Overtaking isn't dangerous. How ridiculous. Only if you do it on a hill or in a village at speed or where there's double white lines is it dangerous. But thats all common sense. Next time you overtake try doing it when theres nothing coming the other way. And make sure you change down a gear!
I think GreenV8S and Slider should maybe think of the Physics of a 44 ton vehicle speeding by 50 per cent on a rural road. Are you saying that a 44 ton vehicle has the same braking potentail as a car for example?
^Slider^ - I havent missed the point. Maybe I have written in a way that you havent "connected" with. Concerning environmental impact and the role of the Police - Of course the Police police pollution. Not directlty but INDIRECTLY. They enforce the law made by Parliament. And parliament has a duty to protect the environment for the benefit of all. Vehicle pollution is a MAJOR CAUSE of Climate Change. Try watching the News.If the Polcie dont make vehicles do the speed limit - then who does? Bodies like The Environment Agency have little power.
Personal Attitudes and choices made are also a part of this. For example, Ive seen people pull out in front of motorbikes at T junctions (e.g. like in the advert run recently on UK TV) but I have NEVER seen a car pull out in front of a HGV. Car drivers give HGV's a wide berth due to their size and weight and the fact that the car comes off very much worse in a collision. Its common sense. So the figures are clouded by these factors.
I guess ^Slider^ may be a Policeman. "To serve and protect" is common in Police mission statements. Its even on the side of many Police vehicles.So exactly how is ignoring the biggest speeders and polluters on the roads protecting me??? You do know thet diesel particulates are a major cause of cancer????
And how is riding a fast motorbike any different to people surfing massive waves off Nequay in Winter or freediving with sharks or mountaineering without a rope? It isnt.
The EXPERTS say 40 mph is the maximum for HGVs on rural roads. They know better than you. Its the Law. It must be enforced. Having to explain the highly obvious reasons why is just plain tedious. Now I know why the Police only require 5 'O' levels to enter.
I don't have any stats to hand myself - maybe someone else has - but there was a bloke from the freight transport association on the radio last year talking about foreign truck drivers, and on that prog he stated that the fatal accident rate of trucks when expressed over distance was 5 times better than that for the car driver.
The average 40 tonner does about 8-9 mpg when flat out, tbh the speed makes very little difference at all.
When i'm in my truck, my feet are about 18" from the front of the vehicle and the steering wheel is few inches off my thighs. There are no airbags and seatbelts have only been fitted in the past few years. My car is incomparably safer than my truck.
I think the OP may find, that when you consider the numbers of bikers on the roads, and the mileages they do, i reckon their safety record might be pretty diabolical compared to truckers. In my own experience, i've been a trucker for 30 years - i've never known a trucker be injured at work, I've never been to a truckers funeral. Are their any bikers out there who could say the same about their pals? There any well be, i'm just curious.
The nearest i've come to going to a truckers funeral was the 68 year old trucker killed by the youths dropping kerb stones off a bridge on the M45, the guys car was still in the car park when i started.
I can tell you of one problem which is infinitely worse than speeding lorries though, and that is that there is nowhere near enough room for trucks to park up at night. Most MSAs are full at night, and they employ clamping firms to clamp trucks who aren't parked properly. I believe Britain is the only country in europe not to have lay-bys on m'ways. The government are not the slightest bit interested in this area of safety though because it would cost money.
The average 40 tonner does about 8-9 mpg when flat out, tbh the speed makes very little difference at all.
When i'm in my truck, my feet are about 18" from the front of the vehicle and the steering wheel is few inches off my thighs. There are no airbags and seatbelts have only been fitted in the past few years. My car is incomparably safer than my truck.
I think the OP may find, that when you consider the numbers of bikers on the roads, and the mileages they do, i reckon their safety record might be pretty diabolical compared to truckers. In my own experience, i've been a trucker for 30 years - i've never known a trucker be injured at work, I've never been to a truckers funeral. Are their any bikers out there who could say the same about their pals? There any well be, i'm just curious.
The nearest i've come to going to a truckers funeral was the 68 year old trucker killed by the youths dropping kerb stones off a bridge on the M45, the guys car was still in the car park when i started.
I can tell you of one problem which is infinitely worse than speeding lorries though, and that is that there is nowhere near enough room for trucks to park up at night. Most MSAs are full at night, and they employ clamping firms to clamp trucks who aren't parked properly. I believe Britain is the only country in europe not to have lay-bys on m'ways. The government are not the slightest bit interested in this area of safety though because it would cost money.
heebeegeetee said:
When i'm in my truck, my feet are about 18" from the front of the vehicle and the steering wheel is few inches off my thighs. There are no airbags and seatbelts have only been fitted in the past few years. My car is incomparably safer than my truck.
So if you were rear ended - you're better off in a car? No way. A HGV has 40 feet of crumple zone. A car has only a few feet of crumple zone.In a HGV you are sat well above the accident in most cases.
Bikes, cars and vans would not hurt you when you're sat so high up. They get hurt. The HGV driver doesnt get a scratch. Who's to blame for the collision is irrelevant.
rudel123 said:
GREENV8S - the question was implied at the start of the text rather than explicitly stated. The question is whether the Police enforce speed limits fairly on all road users. Sorry if it went over the top of your head. Asking a metaphorical question is a common way of introducing a topic and/or starting a debate. Apologies.
Lets talk about vehicle heirarchy. At the bottom you have say bicycles and at the top fast cars and fast sports bikes. If the slower vehicles on the road (e.g. HGVs) speed then this impacts on the speeds done by the faster vehicles (e.g. cars). So its crucial to enforce the speed limits on lorries or the cars have to speed just to overtake them. Maybe thats where your illfounded concerns about the safety of overtaking come from .I dont want to sit behind a lorry for miles and breathe in its cancer causing diesel particulates. Nobody does. Therefore its common for cars to overtake HGVs on rural roads.
I did explain why 40mph for HGV's is O.K. The part about the fact they weigh upto 44 tons may just answer that. Add to that the fact that they can carry hazardous goods e.g. masonry, timber or compressed gas - it becomes obvious why 40mph is plenty. And HGV's arent exactly driven by the brightest people in Society.
HGV drivers used to be called the Knights of the road. Well they arent now. Theyre a menace. And thanks to poor Policing they get away with it. Other road users like bikers (and I am not a biker) dont get away with it.
Overtaking isn't dangerous. How ridiculous. Only if you do it on a hill or in a village at speed or where there's double white lines is it dangerous. But thats all common sense. Next time you overtake try doing it when theres nothing coming the other way. And make sure you change down a gear!
I think GreenV8S and Slider should maybe think of the Physics of a 44 ton vehicle speeding by 50 per cent on a rural road. Are you saying that a 44 ton vehicle has the same braking potentail as a car for example?
^Slider^ - I havent missed the point. Maybe I have written in a way that you havent "connected" with. Concerning environmental impact and the role of the Police - Of course the Police police pollution. Not directlty but INDIRECTLY. They enforce the law made by Parliament. And parliament has a duty to protect the environment for the benefit of all. Vehicle pollution is a MAJOR CAUSE of Climate Change. Try watching the News.If the Polcie dont make vehicles do the speed limit - then who does? Bodies like The Environment Agency have little power.
Personal Attitudes and choices made are also a part of this. For example, Ive seen people pull out in front of motorbikes at T junctions (e.g. like in the advert run recently on UK TVCa) but I have NEVER seen a car pull out in front of a HGV. Car drivers give HGV's a wide berth due to their size and weight and the fact that the car comes off very much worse in a collision. Its common sense. So the figures are clouded by these factors.
I guess ^Slider^ may be a Policeman. "To serve and protect" is common in Police mission statements. Its even on the side of many Police vehicles.So exactly how is ignoring the biggest speeders and polluters on the roads protecting me??? You do know thet diesel particulates are a major cause of cancer????
And how is riding a fast motorbike any different to people surfing massive waves off Nequay in Winter or freediving with sharks or mountaineering without a rope? It isnt.
The EXPERTS say 40 mph is the maximum for HGVs on rural roads. They know better than you. Its the Law. It must be enforced. Having to explain the highly obvious reasons why is just plain tedious. Now I know why the Police only require 5 'O' levels to enter.
Rudel, honest to god, you are talking nonsense. just about every statement you have made is wrong. You say a car never pulls out in front of a lorry? Oh, dear oh dear oh dear god, how can you say that? Shall i puit into context for you? It is EXACTLY the same as saying a car never pulls out on a bike, i really can't sat it or make it any plainer than that. To say a car never pulls out in front of trucks is possibly the single most stupid thing i have ever read in all my time on PH. dear god, i cannot believe you can sy that. Lets talk about vehicle heirarchy. At the bottom you have say bicycles and at the top fast cars and fast sports bikes. If the slower vehicles on the road (e.g. HGVs) speed then this impacts on the speeds done by the faster vehicles (e.g. cars). So its crucial to enforce the speed limits on lorries or the cars have to speed just to overtake them. Maybe thats where your illfounded concerns about the safety of overtaking come from .I dont want to sit behind a lorry for miles and breathe in its cancer causing diesel particulates. Nobody does. Therefore its common for cars to overtake HGVs on rural roads.
I did explain why 40mph for HGV's is O.K. The part about the fact they weigh upto 44 tons may just answer that. Add to that the fact that they can carry hazardous goods e.g. masonry, timber or compressed gas - it becomes obvious why 40mph is plenty. And HGV's arent exactly driven by the brightest people in Society.
HGV drivers used to be called the Knights of the road. Well they arent now. Theyre a menace. And thanks to poor Policing they get away with it. Other road users like bikers (and I am not a biker) dont get away with it.
Overtaking isn't dangerous. How ridiculous. Only if you do it on a hill or in a village at speed or where there's double white lines is it dangerous. But thats all common sense. Next time you overtake try doing it when theres nothing coming the other way. And make sure you change down a gear!
I think GreenV8S and Slider should maybe think of the Physics of a 44 ton vehicle speeding by 50 per cent on a rural road. Are you saying that a 44 ton vehicle has the same braking potentail as a car for example?
^Slider^ - I havent missed the point. Maybe I have written in a way that you havent "connected" with. Concerning environmental impact and the role of the Police - Of course the Police police pollution. Not directlty but INDIRECTLY. They enforce the law made by Parliament. And parliament has a duty to protect the environment for the benefit of all. Vehicle pollution is a MAJOR CAUSE of Climate Change. Try watching the News.If the Polcie dont make vehicles do the speed limit - then who does? Bodies like The Environment Agency have little power.
Personal Attitudes and choices made are also a part of this. For example, Ive seen people pull out in front of motorbikes at T junctions (e.g. like in the advert run recently on UK TVCa) but I have NEVER seen a car pull out in front of a HGV. Car drivers give HGV's a wide berth due to their size and weight and the fact that the car comes off very much worse in a collision. Its common sense. So the figures are clouded by these factors.
I guess ^Slider^ may be a Policeman. "To serve and protect" is common in Police mission statements. Its even on the side of many Police vehicles.So exactly how is ignoring the biggest speeders and polluters on the roads protecting me??? You do know thet diesel particulates are a major cause of cancer????
And how is riding a fast motorbike any different to people surfing massive waves off Nequay in Winter or freediving with sharks or mountaineering without a rope? It isnt.
The EXPERTS say 40 mph is the maximum for HGVs on rural roads. They know better than you. Its the Law. It must be enforced. Having to explain the highly obvious reasons why is just plain tedious. Now I know why the Police only require 5 'O' levels to enter.
Let me finish my making three statements, which i absolutely and firmly believe to be true.
1. I will never, ever be side-swiped in my car.
2. I never have trouble with trucks in my car.
3. Only bad drivers have trouble with trucks.
Edited to say: I've re-read Rudels post, and i must have missed this:
rudel123 said:
Car drivers give HGV's a wide berth due to their size and weight
I think i'm gonna cry.... I'm absolutely staggered. This is the most wrong thing i have ever read in my life. I can't see how it could be possible to make a statement that is more wrong than this. I'm stunned. I'm absolutely flabbergasted. I've got to go and do something else.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Sunday 10th February 18:36
rudel123 said:
GREENV8S - the question was implied at the start of the text rather than explicitly stated. The question is whether the Police enforce speed limits fairly on all road users.
Sorry if it went over the top of your head.
It didn't go over my head, you simply didn't ask it. Sorry if it went over the top of your head.
rudel123 said:
Lets talk about vehicle heirarchy. At the bottom you have say bicycles and at the top fast cars and fast sports bikes. If the slower vehicles on the road (e.g. HGVs) speed then this impacts on the speeds done by the faster vehicles (e.g. cars). So its crucial to enforce the speed limits on lorries or the cars have to speed just to overtake them. Maybe thats where your illfounded concerns about the safety of overtaking come from .I dont want to sit behind a lorry for miles and breathe in its cancer causing diesel particulates. Nobody does. Therefore its common for cars to overtake HGVs on rural roads.
I don't know what sort of roads you tend to drive on, but around here (Herts/Beds/Bucks) safe overtaking opportunities are few and far between on most A/B roads. You think that overtaking is NOT typically more dangerous than following along in a line of traffic? It usually involves driving on the wrong side of the road, making rapid judgements about closing speeds and distances often with limited visibility.rudel123 said:
I did explain why 40mph for HGV's is O.K. The part about the fact they weigh upto 44 tons may just answer that. Add to that the fact that they can carry hazardous goods e.g. masonry, timber or compressed gas - it becomes obvious why 40mph is plenty. And HGV's arent exactly driven by the brightest people in Society.
No, it doesn't become obvious. They're the biggest vehicles on the road, some of them can't corner or stop as well as cars, but that does not mean that 50 mph is inherently unsafe and 40 mph is safe. Where it's safe for them to do 50 mph, it's entirely reasonable for them to do so. And around here it routinely IS safe imo for them to do so. It seems that plenty of the HGV drivers agree, because plenty of them do it. Curiously, this hasn't resulted in widespread carnage.rudel123 said:
HGV drivers used to be called the Knights of the road. Well they arent now. Theyre a menace. And thanks to poor Policing they get away with it. Other road users like bikers (and I am not a biker) dont get away with it.
How ridiculous. They most certainly aren't "a menace" and they aren't "getting away with it".rudel123 said:
Overtaking isn't dangerous. How ridiculous.
Overtaking is one of the most dangerous manoeuvres that most drivers will ever perform.To answer your question: No I don't agree that lorries tend to drive too fast, and and I don't agree that they should be forced to slow down for our safety and to protect the environment.
heebeegeetee said:
rudel123 said:
Rudel, honest to god, you are talking nonsense. just about every statement you have made is wrong. You say a car never pulls out in front of a lorry? Oh, dear oh dear oh dear god, how can you say that? Shall i puit into context for you? It is EXACTLY the same as saying a car never pulls out on a bike, i really can't sat it or make it any plainer than that. To say a car never pulls out in front of trucks is possibly the single most stupid thing i have ever read in all my time on PH. dear god, i cannot believe you can sy that.
Let me finish my making three statements, which i absolutely and firmly believe to be true.
1. I will never, ever be side-swiped in my car.
2. I never have trouble with trucks in my car.
3. Only bad drivers have trouble with trucks.
I guess the "Truckers aren't very bright" comment really riled you. Think of the psychology though - if it wasn't true you wouldn't get so upset............. Let me finish my making three statements, which i absolutely and firmly believe to be true.
1. I will never, ever be side-swiped in my car.
2. I never have trouble with trucks in my car.
3. Only bad drivers have trouble with trucks.
Just about every statement I made is wrong??? You only picked me up on one of the things I said.
Fact - Cars pulling out on bikes at T junctions is SO BAD the Government had to make a high profile TV ad about it. Proves I am right.
And what a surprise - a HGV driver defending HGV's. What a shock !!!!
O.K. youre obviously so right - So here it is - HGV's NEVER speed. They DON'T pollute. They NEVER drive too close to the lorry in front. happy now? dipsh_t.
GREENV8S -
Ahhhhh so you're one of those crap people who sit behind HGV's on rural roads and leave no gap in front for overtakers. You dangerous person. Whats it like seeing nothing but the back of a HGV that blocks out your view? Is it fun in the rain and at night? Overtake AND GET CLEAR VISION. Thats blatantly safer. How can you say it isnt? Overtaking takes a few seconds only - in return you get many minutes of clear vision and no obstructions.
Its not my fault you live in an over crowded part of the UK. Move house.
OK GreenV8S - next time I see a tractor on a rural road in front of me I WONT Overtake - as its way too dangerous. If asked why I just sat behind it I will mention your wisdom.
If overtaking is dangerous then Ban it. Lobby the government now. Dont just talk about it. The Highways Agency/Council/police tell us when its not safe to overtake with double white lines. the rest e.g. making sure nothing is coming the other way is easy. Use your eyes. maybe you need to go see an optometrist?
You said some HGVs cant corner or stop as well as cars. Weird. Id say none of them can corner or brake as well as cars. Name me one HGV that can outcorner or outbrake a car? Very weird. Hence they need a lower speed limit. Thankyou. You agree with me - in a roundabout way.
next time I see a "cross over" on the Motorway I will tell (whats left of) the occupants of the cars that HGVs aren't a menace. And they never swerve into the hard shoulder as they eat while driving. No sir!
I am trying to decide who has the lowest IQ - you or the HGV driver "heebeegeetee". I think its you. Congrats! As a polluting V8 driver Im not surprised you are pro HGV.
- sighs* can someone with a bit more savvy join this debate please??????????????????????????
Ahhhhh so you're one of those crap people who sit behind HGV's on rural roads and leave no gap in front for overtakers. You dangerous person. Whats it like seeing nothing but the back of a HGV that blocks out your view? Is it fun in the rain and at night? Overtake AND GET CLEAR VISION. Thats blatantly safer. How can you say it isnt? Overtaking takes a few seconds only - in return you get many minutes of clear vision and no obstructions.
Its not my fault you live in an over crowded part of the UK. Move house.
OK GreenV8S - next time I see a tractor on a rural road in front of me I WONT Overtake - as its way too dangerous. If asked why I just sat behind it I will mention your wisdom.
If overtaking is dangerous then Ban it. Lobby the government now. Dont just talk about it. The Highways Agency/Council/police tell us when its not safe to overtake with double white lines. the rest e.g. making sure nothing is coming the other way is easy. Use your eyes. maybe you need to go see an optometrist?
You said some HGVs cant corner or stop as well as cars. Weird. Id say none of them can corner or brake as well as cars. Name me one HGV that can outcorner or outbrake a car? Very weird. Hence they need a lower speed limit. Thankyou. You agree with me - in a roundabout way.
next time I see a "cross over" on the Motorway I will tell (whats left of) the occupants of the cars that HGVs aren't a menace. And they never swerve into the hard shoulder as they eat while driving. No sir!
I am trying to decide who has the lowest IQ - you or the HGV driver "heebeegeetee". I think its you. Congrats! As a polluting V8 driver Im not surprised you are pro HGV.
rudel123
I can see where your coming from with the OP but it is the job of the police to enforce speed limits with all types of vehicles,
Offenders are dealt with as and when offences are detected and not by vehicle type or any other reason.
Whilst their are always exceptions, in my own experience for the best part most HGV drivers are generally good at what they do and take their position seriously, in other words professional drivers.
As you state yourself you agree with and stick to the speed limit because you appreciate exactly what the outcome would be if you lost control of a 44 ton vehicle without adding increased speed to the equation, most drivers I come into contact with generally share your opinion.
It's nice to see that you don't buckle for the impatient brigade who wish to sacrifice safety for speed but similarly some HGV drivers do not make the best use of passing places to allow traffic behind to get past safely.
Overtaking is not always an easy maneuver and in the circumstances you describe the safe option where visibility is so poor because of spray would be to follow from an increased distance!
Bikes on the other hand unfortunately are often (not always)ridden by people who may have passed a test but don't really have much of an idea of how to ride a bike with near 200bhp that only weighs 100 odd kilos.
The area where I work has a major trunk road running through it and every year attracts hoards of bikers to the area.
Every year despite safety campaigns and enforcement you always have the minority who choose to ride to fast for the surrounding conditions and their own abilities. Some invariably end up as a fatality which often involves other casualties and always means a lengthy road closure.
Offset that with never having heard of (talk about tempting fate) an accident involving a heavy goods vehicle on the same road in my entire service and you might start to get the picture.
I can see where your coming from with the OP but it is the job of the police to enforce speed limits with all types of vehicles,
Offenders are dealt with as and when offences are detected and not by vehicle type or any other reason.
Whilst their are always exceptions, in my own experience for the best part most HGV drivers are generally good at what they do and take their position seriously, in other words professional drivers.
As you state yourself you agree with and stick to the speed limit because you appreciate exactly what the outcome would be if you lost control of a 44 ton vehicle without adding increased speed to the equation, most drivers I come into contact with generally share your opinion.
It's nice to see that you don't buckle for the impatient brigade who wish to sacrifice safety for speed but similarly some HGV drivers do not make the best use of passing places to allow traffic behind to get past safely.
Overtaking is not always an easy maneuver and in the circumstances you describe the safe option where visibility is so poor because of spray would be to follow from an increased distance!
Bikes on the other hand unfortunately are often (not always)ridden by people who may have passed a test but don't really have much of an idea of how to ride a bike with near 200bhp that only weighs 100 odd kilos.
The area where I work has a major trunk road running through it and every year attracts hoards of bikers to the area.
Every year despite safety campaigns and enforcement you always have the minority who choose to ride to fast for the surrounding conditions and their own abilities. Some invariably end up as a fatality which often involves other casualties and always means a lengthy road closure.
Offset that with never having heard of (talk about tempting fate) an accident involving a heavy goods vehicle on the same road in my entire service and you might start to get the picture.
Edited by G51CAV on Sunday 10th February 20:31
^Slider^ said:
Yes i am,
I am not singling out bikers here, im just saying that they are a vulnerable group of road users, not just with the speed they can do / acceleration etc but from other road users poor observations / driving.
I didnt think you were picking on bikers at all. others in the thread who as far as i can tell have never used the roads in this country are but not you.I am not singling out bikers here, im just saying that they are a vulnerable group of road users, not just with the speed they can do / acceleration etc but from other road users poor observations / driving.
the main risk i get on bikes is the fact im invisible even with the lights on etc. oddly i get less problems on the classic bike ive got & i ride that without lights in the day - but it is a 'touch' louder.
A very odd attitude the Authorities have in the UK towards HGV's. Its like they are untouchable. Especially the Police.
Its so much more sensible on the Continent. In France I noticed they have "no HGV overtaking" stretches on the motorways.
In the UK you often get 2 wagons alongside each other for mile after mile whilst one overtakes the other at 1mph! Why bother ???? This inconveniences dozens of car drivers who are often middle management. Surely that damages the Economy?
Also on dual carriageways HGVs move over into lane 2 to let another HGV join the road from a slip road, causing overtaking cars to brake hard. In the Highway code it says the vehicle on the slip road waits for a gap. Never seen a HGV pulled for that either.
Also, the Lorries on the Continent actually wait until theres a gap in the overtaking lane before making the overtake manouvre on the vehicle infront. Imagine that! In the UK they just pull out and sod the car drivers who have to brake. We've all seen it many times.
Lastly, many of them drive tired. They use phones whilst they drive. They eat whilst driving. They dont always wear seatbelts.Its like they play with our safety.
Fact is bikers hurt themselves when they crash. HGV drivers usually hurt others.
This problem needs attention/escalating. Or maybe the EU will step in like they often have to.
Its so much more sensible on the Continent. In France I noticed they have "no HGV overtaking" stretches on the motorways.
In the UK you often get 2 wagons alongside each other for mile after mile whilst one overtakes the other at 1mph! Why bother ???? This inconveniences dozens of car drivers who are often middle management. Surely that damages the Economy?
Also on dual carriageways HGVs move over into lane 2 to let another HGV join the road from a slip road, causing overtaking cars to brake hard. In the Highway code it says the vehicle on the slip road waits for a gap. Never seen a HGV pulled for that either.
Also, the Lorries on the Continent actually wait until theres a gap in the overtaking lane before making the overtake manouvre on the vehicle infront. Imagine that! In the UK they just pull out and sod the car drivers who have to brake. We've all seen it many times.
Lastly, many of them drive tired. They use phones whilst they drive. They eat whilst driving. They dont always wear seatbelts.Its like they play with our safety.
Fact is bikers hurt themselves when they crash. HGV drivers usually hurt others.
This problem needs attention/escalating. Or maybe the EU will step in like they often have to.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff