mandatory speed limiters to be fitted from 2022?
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
vonhosen said:
Advanced driving organisations aren't beholden to your idea of what amounts to 'advanced driving'.
They have their own criteria.
Their literature doesn't read as you'd like it.
https://www.iamroadsmart.com/courses/on-road-manag...
Er, not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse to make a point or are struggling to understand how the world actually works?They have their own criteria.
Their literature doesn't read as you'd like it.
https://www.iamroadsmart.com/courses/on-road-manag...
Let me ask you a two questions:
If you ask a court judge what is the legal motorway speed limit, what will he reply?
At what speed does a court judge drive on the motorway?
Max_Torque said:
Or to put it another way:
The official motorway speed limit in the uk is 70 mph
The pollice are extremely unlikely to prosecute drivers travelling up to around 80 to 85 mph unless other factors apply (dangerous driving,poor conditions, tailgating, aggression etc)
So do you think any motorist group can put in writing, in any officially released documentation, that they condone breaking a legal speed limit?
Yet the Police do prosecute people below those speeds & they do set out what they'll do clearly in print.The official motorway speed limit in the uk is 70 mph
The pollice are extremely unlikely to prosecute drivers travelling up to around 80 to 85 mph unless other factors apply (dangerous driving,poor conditions, tailgating, aggression etc)
So do you think any motorist group can put in writing, in any officially released documentation, that they condone breaking a legal speed limit?
Published tolerances & the reservation of the right to prosecute below them where they deem fit.
People are repeatedly actioned for 80 to 85mph speeds, on no other basis than exceeding the posted limit.
Max_Torque said:
This is another case of the same thing we have been discussing. The legal limits are necessary but they have to be completely black and white in the eyes of the law. ie 70mph is legal, 71 mph is not.
The real world does not work like that, it is much more complex. Doing 71mph whilst unarguably illegal and indeed being potentially slightly more dangerous than doing 70, is in reality irrelevant on the sliding scale of risk.
The important factor for breaking the posted legal limit is the same things as for any driver making a choice about their speed, ie the drivers own capabilites in making a valid assessment of the true risk from doing the speed they are doing. This is why learner drivers are taught to simply not exceed the posted limit (which itself is often far too high a speed in a lot of situations) because they do not yet have a proven capbility for self assessment.
The bases for advanced driving is self assessment and self awareness. Most drivers stopped for speeding say something like "oh, sorry officer, i had no idea i was going so fast" which is imo, even worse than the speeding itself. It's basically saying, "hey i was speeding and paying no attention to my driving either". Advanced driving tution which includes things like doing the verbal commentary are not actually about learning to do "commentary", but the fact that by learning to do commentary you are both learning how to assess a situation but also getting into the habbit of doing just that. Without your examiner in the car, you do the same thing instinctively for your own benefit, and hence automatically gain and practice the critical skill of assessment.
As an Advanced driver, if you speed then:
1) You accept the punishment if you are caught speeding (BTW if you are caught speeding your observation skills are terrible and need work, heck they even paint the cameras and vans bright yellow and put up their locations on facebook....)
2) You always must have a obserservationally linked, valid rationale for the speed at which you are travelling at any given moment, both when below and above any posted limit.
Yet the IAM literature does clearly state an importance on legality, they don't have to say that.The real world does not work like that, it is much more complex. Doing 71mph whilst unarguably illegal and indeed being potentially slightly more dangerous than doing 70, is in reality irrelevant on the sliding scale of risk.
The important factor for breaking the posted legal limit is the same things as for any driver making a choice about their speed, ie the drivers own capabilites in making a valid assessment of the true risk from doing the speed they are doing. This is why learner drivers are taught to simply not exceed the posted limit (which itself is often far too high a speed in a lot of situations) because they do not yet have a proven capbility for self assessment.
The bases for advanced driving is self assessment and self awareness. Most drivers stopped for speeding say something like "oh, sorry officer, i had no idea i was going so fast" which is imo, even worse than the speeding itself. It's basically saying, "hey i was speeding and paying no attention to my driving either". Advanced driving tution which includes things like doing the verbal commentary are not actually about learning to do "commentary", but the fact that by learning to do commentary you are both learning how to assess a situation but also getting into the habbit of doing just that. Without your examiner in the car, you do the same thing instinctively for your own benefit, and hence automatically gain and practice the critical skill of assessment.
As an Advanced driver, if you speed then:
1) You accept the punishment if you are caught speeding (BTW if you are caught speeding your observation skills are terrible and need work, heck they even paint the cameras and vans bright yellow and put up their locations on facebook....)
2) You always must have a obserservationally linked, valid rationale for the speed at which you are travelling at any given moment, both when below and above any posted limit.
You state a driver would fail for sticking to 20 in a 20 where it is safe to do more, yet I have heard quite the opposite from advanced driving organisations (not just in print & it's them that define test criteria not you).
You give your own rationale for believing it fine to habitually drive outside the Police prosecution limits for extended periods, again not what I've heard from advanced driving organisations & not just in print.
I say again, your interpretation of advanced driving doesn't fit with theirs (as stated publicly or to me privately) & individual interpretations don't really hold up for much other than that individual (certainly when you start talking about organisational test criteria).
I have observed that when speed limits are reduced, for a long time people used to the previous high limits continue to drive over the new limit, but eventually they get used to the new limits and comply with them. This seems to apply in what I regard as inappropriate and unwelcome 20mph limits. The suggestion that keeping to 20 is unsafe is dubious because of the safety inherent in such a low speed.
On a stretch of smart motorway which I use regularly I attempt to travel at a true 72 mph and very few people go faster. One of the reasons I dislike smart motorways is that they increase journey times.
The example of traffic using rat runs to avoid a 20 mph limit is clearly transitory because the side roads will soon have 20mph speed limits introduced.
You cannot expect advanced driving organisations to accept breaking law any more in their tests than in their literature.
On a stretch of smart motorway which I use regularly I attempt to travel at a true 72 mph and very few people go faster. One of the reasons I dislike smart motorways is that they increase journey times.
The example of traffic using rat runs to avoid a 20 mph limit is clearly transitory because the side roads will soon have 20mph speed limits introduced.
You cannot expect advanced driving organisations to accept breaking law any more in their tests than in their literature.
Blakewater said:
They were thinking about nothing but the speed limit and that overruled rational judgment.
So having speed limiters will enable drivers to concentrate on the road more, and spend less time looking at the speedo?Thanks for pointing out another advantage of speed limiters.
Max_Torque said:
techguyone said:
If they did 20 in a 20 they'd be failed? That makes no sense at all.
Let us consider the two primary rules for advanced driving:1) Drive in a way to maximise overall safety and to minimise risk
2) Drive in a way to efficiently get from A to B with the least potential conflict to all other road users of any type
Pretty simple really.
So lets take our road, a road that has been a 40 mph limit for the last 26 years at least, but is now marked with "Temporary 20mph limit"
Because a 20 mph limit is inappropriately slow, and this road is driven by a lot of people who have driven it day in, day out for years at 40mph, naturally most drivers exceed that 20 mph limit. Now note, they are mostly not doing 40, but somewhere between 20 and 40. The problem, the CONFLICT comes when someone who is simply following a completely arbitrary sign applies a rigid and highly inappropriate response, namely, the limit sign say 20, so i'm doing 20.
The is NO reason to do 20, other than the sign, but doing so now brings massive conflict, an conflict that significantly raises the risk of an accident, both directly on this road, and afterwards where the road joins a busy dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit, where i've seen people racing each other and cutting each other up down the slip road because they have got so frustrated.
Lets aslo be clear, the primary fault is the people "speeding" but this is the MAJORITY of uses because the limit is totally inappropriate, in effect the law in this case is criminalising the majority.
So, as an advanced driver i would expect the follwoing actions, and if on a examination, a verbal explanation of these actions:
1) From observations and conditions i assess this road as safe at speeds above 20 mph, the road layout, sightlines and conditions all support a speed above 20 mph.
2) Driving at less than or equal to 20 mph is likely to bring me into close conflict with other motorists, as i can see from other users this road.
3) I am therefore going to choose to drive slightly above the posted temporary limit, whilst i observe it to be completely safe to do so, in order to minimise that conflict and allow me to create a larger exclusion zone around my car
4) I am continuing to observe and assess conditions and will modulate my speed as appropriate.
What speed do i drive this road? for me, a little under 30.
This is significantly faster than the posted temporary 20 limit, which is incredibly slow on a wide open road (hence the conflict with white van man who just wants to get home), but also significantly slower than the original posted 40 mph. I may choose to use some of the road features (such as the roundabouts) to actually open up a gap behind me to the tailgater by carrying more speed through those features, where clearly safe to do so, for example i may briefly accelerate hard to say 40, then coast back down to 30 coming out of that roundabout. This opens the gap behind and buys me some safety bubble.
The other thing i should note about this inappropriate limit is that it is now causing people to "rat run" through the previously less used small roads that run parralel through the housing estates of which this road was a bypass, ie a road expressely designed to take drivers AWAY from where people live! You'll regularily now see a car peel out of the 20 mph nose to tail queue and speed off down a side road, because they know it's now quicker to drive the 30 mph limit roads instead......
NMNeil said:
Blakewater said:
They were thinking about nothing but the speed limit and that overruled rational judgment.
So having speed limiters will enable drivers to concentrate on the road more, and spend less time looking at the speedo?Thanks for pointing out another advantage of speed limiters.
Driving at a constant and unvarying speed that feels too slow for the road is soporific. Like watching a long and boring film with nothing really happening, there's only so long the human mind can maintain attention 'just in case' before it starts to wander onto something else.
I think there are two positions to the discussions we are seeing here - and only two, because it's the internet and shades-of-grey is impossible
Either:
- total compliance with the limit 'because that's what someone has said is safe';
or
- drive at an appropriate speed regardless of what the speed limit is, taking it into account amongst other environmental factors.
My understanding of advanced driving is that it is all about having the skills to be flexible in your driving plan and not to just stick rigidly to rules at all times. A mindless automaton can do the latter (see also: Tesla) - the former reflects the application of skill and judgement in decision-making, and the taking of responsibility for one's own actions and their outcomes, those potential outcomes informing the choice of action.
I appreciate the IAM's position in terms of not wanting to be seen to promote 'law breaking', but they lost my respect when they previously said speed limiters were a good idea. Either they are training their candidates to be skilled or they aren't.
By supporting them they are effectively saying 'you can rely on speed limiters so you can 'pay more attention to other things''. If you as a driver are aware that your concentration is stretched you would reduce your speed to increase safety - use of a speed limiter in lieu of personal judgement would suggest travelling too fast for the surrounding environment and increased risk.
vonhosen said:
85th percentile is a bit of hogwash as far as I'm concerned.
How can you have a speed limit set at the true 85th percentile with a speed limit already in force when you are measuring for an 85th percentile?
You'd need to have a de-restricted road to determine the true 85th percentile. Unless you are saying of course that people's choice of speed is never ever chosen or influenced by the prevailing speed limit at all.
I see what you are saying. How can you have a speed limit set at the true 85th percentile with a speed limit already in force when you are measuring for an 85th percentile?
You'd need to have a de-restricted road to determine the true 85th percentile. Unless you are saying of course that people's choice of speed is never ever chosen or influenced by the prevailing speed limit at all.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 7th May 21:33
At some point everything was derestricted unless it was Restricted (to 30mph). I'm pretty sure that 30mph was chosen through researching vehicle speeds and applying the 85th percentile rule.
Once restrictions are in place... yes, of course, the limit will influence speeds to some degree, but look at the graphs I posted previously - 20mph limits are ignored by 80+% of people - arguably the limits do not really have that much influence absent constant enforcement. This is also shown by the HGV speeds barely changing after their limits changed.
On that basis, the 85th percentile approach is perfectly reasonable and was working perfectly well since its invention. Circular 01/2013 (or whatever it was) that introduced Mean Speed limit setting overtly stated its aims were to get lower limits in place, and when you look at the results of the approach (e.g. the 20mph speed survey results) it clearly shows that setting a limit that only <20% of the drivers would choose to drive at or under is a nonsense.
RSTurboPaul said:
vonhosen said:
85th percentile is a bit of hogwash as far as I'm concerned.
How can you have a speed limit set at the true 85th percentile with a speed limit already in force when you are measuring for an 85th percentile?
You'd need to have a de-restricted road to determine the true 85th percentile. Unless you are saying of course that people's choice of speed is never ever chosen or influenced by the prevailing speed limit at all.
I see what you are saying. How can you have a speed limit set at the true 85th percentile with a speed limit already in force when you are measuring for an 85th percentile?
You'd need to have a de-restricted road to determine the true 85th percentile. Unless you are saying of course that people's choice of speed is never ever chosen or influenced by the prevailing speed limit at all.
At some point everything was derestricted unless it was Restricted (to 30mph). I'm pretty sure that 30mph was chosen through researching vehicle speeds and applying the 85th percentile rule.
Once restrictions are in place... yes, of course, the limit will influence speeds to some degree, but look at the graphs I posted previously - 20mph limits are ignored by 80+% of people - arguably the limits do not really have that much influence absent constant enforcement. This is also shown by the HGV speeds barely changing after their limits changed.
On that basis, the 85th percentile approach is perfectly reasonable and was working perfectly well since its invention. Circular 01/2013 (or whatever it was) that introduced Mean Speed limit setting overtly stated its aims were to get lower limits in place, and when you look at the results of the approach (e.g. the 20mph speed survey results) it clearly shows that setting a limit that only <20% of the drivers would choose to drive at or under is a nonsense.
I'd personally exceed pretty much all limits a lot of the time & by large margins too in places where I deemed it safe to, given the choice.
What stops me is the threat to my licence/livelihood (it doesn't result in saintly behaviour but does curb excesses most of the time).
Vary rarely will I be driving at the maximum safe speed possible, though I'd like to do that a lot of the time.
So the differences between what I would do & what I actually do most of the time are very marked.
In that respect the 85th percentile is pretty irrelevant because of the posted limit's influence & threat of action towards me. It's not got any accurate gauge of what my free flowing speed would be to include in that assessment.
Every speed limit is low by a good margin (at least some of the time), so them tinkering with them ultimately makes little difference to me. They are not suddenly restricting me when they've been tweaked, they've been doing it all the time. But then I recognise that it's not all about my wishes/desires in isolation, everybody else's have to be considered too by the government when they form & set policy.
Contrary to your claim though, that limit on my speed doesn't result in a loss of concentration or boredom. I can still derive pleasure & engagement through anticipation & accuracy.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th May 22:43
I can’t be the only one who believes that this is just more nanny statism. It’s more leverage for the corrupt and far too powerful insurance industry to get more control and charge us even more cash.
As said previously this is just a stupid and backwards “solution” because road laws are antiquated already. The motorway speed limit should be increased to 80 and when the vast majority of the country is participating in full autonomous driving it should be pushed to the maximum speed limit where it is safe.
Restricting the speed limit of our cars to the speed limit of the road is not going to stop most of the idiots on our road crashing. Some roads should be higher than 30 but there are a lot of roads where it is actually too dangerous to do the NSL anyway? Why doesn’t the EU put more effort in to preventing driver distractions (I love my infotainment but I’m finding myself having to take my eyes off the road much much longer than before to operate simple functions) than just keep continously reducing the speed limits and now prevent us from going over them!
I’m all for not speeding excessively (90/95+ on a motorway, 35+ in a 30, 50+ in a 40) and even then I rarely if not ever speed apart from on a camera free section motorway when on a long distance drive and even then I don’t go silly speeds, usually just sitting at 75-80 real speed. But I don’t believe this or automatic braking is the solution, because I’ve seen first hand automatic braking “work” and nearly cause a massive accident. We’re human and we need to reduce the level of driver error instead of making stupid legislation like this which only causes more problems than this. I can think of many different situations where this is a hinderance and a safety issue and not a benefit.
The backlash is very quiet now but I can imagine next year when Joe public experiences the problems it will probably be in the papers continuously.
All I can do is hope the insurance companies don’t “punish” us for “errors”
As said previously this is just a stupid and backwards “solution” because road laws are antiquated already. The motorway speed limit should be increased to 80 and when the vast majority of the country is participating in full autonomous driving it should be pushed to the maximum speed limit where it is safe.
Restricting the speed limit of our cars to the speed limit of the road is not going to stop most of the idiots on our road crashing. Some roads should be higher than 30 but there are a lot of roads where it is actually too dangerous to do the NSL anyway? Why doesn’t the EU put more effort in to preventing driver distractions (I love my infotainment but I’m finding myself having to take my eyes off the road much much longer than before to operate simple functions) than just keep continously reducing the speed limits and now prevent us from going over them!
I’m all for not speeding excessively (90/95+ on a motorway, 35+ in a 30, 50+ in a 40) and even then I rarely if not ever speed apart from on a camera free section motorway when on a long distance drive and even then I don’t go silly speeds, usually just sitting at 75-80 real speed. But I don’t believe this or automatic braking is the solution, because I’ve seen first hand automatic braking “work” and nearly cause a massive accident. We’re human and we need to reduce the level of driver error instead of making stupid legislation like this which only causes more problems than this. I can think of many different situations where this is a hinderance and a safety issue and not a benefit.
The backlash is very quiet now but I can imagine next year when Joe public experiences the problems it will probably be in the papers continuously.
All I can do is hope the insurance companies don’t “punish” us for “errors”
If 20mph are to be stringent we need to address cyclists - especially where no formal cycle lane exists.
Cyclists easily average more than 20mph and some easily above 30mph in a 30mph. They undertake you - if no cycle lane they need to overtake you OR they need to have to follow the lower speed limits as currently there is a higher risk of an accident as most people do not expect undertaking.
Most when turning left are looking ahead on a single track lane when they are in L1 they simply turn which they may do at the prevailing speed limit or a very slow turn in. A cyclist could then simply crash into the side of the car thrown over the car into the road and potentially under a vehicle pulling out of that junction.
Cyclists easily average more than 20mph and some easily above 30mph in a 30mph. They undertake you - if no cycle lane they need to overtake you OR they need to have to follow the lower speed limits as currently there is a higher risk of an accident as most people do not expect undertaking.
Most when turning left are looking ahead on a single track lane when they are in L1 they simply turn which they may do at the prevailing speed limit or a very slow turn in. A cyclist could then simply crash into the side of the car thrown over the car into the road and potentially under a vehicle pulling out of that junction.
How do Accidents Happen? A report in the Daily Telegraph a while ago:
Now, for the first time, a report, Licensed to Skill, has broken down what happens in those mysterious "lost" moments leading to road accidents, analysing who is to blame, what sex or age they tend to be – and what they did wrong. Using data gathered by police and spanning 700,000 accidents from 2005-2009, the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) has analysed, in breathtaking detail, the anatomy of a road accident.
Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that speeding plays in road accidents that kill six people each day in the UK, leave 68 others seriously hurt and 535 with less serious injuries.
"It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the IAM. "Not just in terms of what causes an accident but in terms of dispelling some of the popular myths. For instance, if you look at Government campaigns they seem to say that speed is the number one problem.
But the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK today? The statistics are quite clear on this and it's "driver error or reaction". It's listed by police as a factor in more than 65 per cent of fatal crashes and the heading covers a multitude of driving sins many of which you're probably on first-name terms with. Topping the charge sheet is failing to look properly (the Smidsy factor – "Sorry mate, I didn't see you', relevant in 20.5 per cent of fatals involving driver error), followed by "loss of control" (34 per cent) which, says Greig, often means leaving yourself with "nowhere to go" after entering a bend or other situation, too quickly. Other errors include "poor turn or manoeuvre" (12 per cent) and "failed to judge other person's path or speed" (11.6 per cent.).
Second biggest cause of fatal accidents, to blame for 31 per cent, is the "injudicious action", an umbrella term for "travelled too fast for the conditions' (wet or icy road for example) (15.9 per cent of those labelled injudicious), "exceeded speed limit" (13.9 per cent) or "disobeyed give-way or stop sign" (2.1 per cent)?
Third culprit in the daily gamble on who lives and who dies is "behaviour or inexperience" (28 per cent), which covers faults such as "careless, reckless or in a hurry" (17 per cent), "aggressive driving" (8.3 per cent) and "learner/inexperienced" (5.3 per cent).
The fourth main category is "impairment or distraction" (to blame for 19.6 per cent of fatal accidents) covering "alcohol" (a factor in 9.6 per cent of fatal accidents) and "distraction in vehicle" (2.6 per cent).
But you should watch out more carefully for pedestrians. A separate heading shows that "pedestrian only, casualty or injured" accidents account for more than 18 per cent of collisions, with (sound familiar?) 10 per cent of them "failing to look properly".
Delve further into the report and a colossal range of possible causes of accidents, 77 in all, emerges, including vision affected by the sun, vegetation or spray from vehicles and scratched windscreens. Of those motorists judged by police to have been distracted, only 0.8 per cent were using a mobile phone and 0.4 per cent had defective eyesight.
Other reasons accounting for 6.1 per cent of fatal accidents include "stolen vehicle" (1.1 per cent), "emergency vehicle on call" (0.3 per cent) and "vehicle in course of crime" (0.4 per cent).
Vehicle defects are a factor in only 2.8 per cent of fatals, with tyres mostly to blame (1.5 per cent) followed by dodgy brakes (0.7 per cent).
Time of day is important; between 7pm-7am 'loss of control' is the key factor while at other times, it's the familiar 'failed to look properly'. Motorists are more likely to be 'distracted or impaired' at weekends (17 per cent) than on weekdays (10 per cent).
"Drivers can learn a lot by reading this and if you take just one thing away from it," says Greig, "it's that paying a little more attention, taking that little bit more time to look properly, will save your life. Mostly, crashes aren't about cars going dramatically out of control and up in smoke. It's small errors suddenly having greater consequences. But if you are a good, trained driver, you can avoid becoming a statistic." And you'll get to that appointment on time, too.
Now, for the first time, a report, Licensed to Skill, has broken down what happens in those mysterious "lost" moments leading to road accidents, analysing who is to blame, what sex or age they tend to be – and what they did wrong. Using data gathered by police and spanning 700,000 accidents from 2005-2009, the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) has analysed, in breathtaking detail, the anatomy of a road accident.
Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that speeding plays in road accidents that kill six people each day in the UK, leave 68 others seriously hurt and 535 with less serious injuries.
"It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the IAM. "Not just in terms of what causes an accident but in terms of dispelling some of the popular myths. For instance, if you look at Government campaigns they seem to say that speed is the number one problem.
But the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK today? The statistics are quite clear on this and it's "driver error or reaction". It's listed by police as a factor in more than 65 per cent of fatal crashes and the heading covers a multitude of driving sins many of which you're probably on first-name terms with. Topping the charge sheet is failing to look properly (the Smidsy factor – "Sorry mate, I didn't see you', relevant in 20.5 per cent of fatals involving driver error), followed by "loss of control" (34 per cent) which, says Greig, often means leaving yourself with "nowhere to go" after entering a bend or other situation, too quickly. Other errors include "poor turn or manoeuvre" (12 per cent) and "failed to judge other person's path or speed" (11.6 per cent.).
Second biggest cause of fatal accidents, to blame for 31 per cent, is the "injudicious action", an umbrella term for "travelled too fast for the conditions' (wet or icy road for example) (15.9 per cent of those labelled injudicious), "exceeded speed limit" (13.9 per cent) or "disobeyed give-way or stop sign" (2.1 per cent)?
Third culprit in the daily gamble on who lives and who dies is "behaviour or inexperience" (28 per cent), which covers faults such as "careless, reckless or in a hurry" (17 per cent), "aggressive driving" (8.3 per cent) and "learner/inexperienced" (5.3 per cent).
The fourth main category is "impairment or distraction" (to blame for 19.6 per cent of fatal accidents) covering "alcohol" (a factor in 9.6 per cent of fatal accidents) and "distraction in vehicle" (2.6 per cent).
But you should watch out more carefully for pedestrians. A separate heading shows that "pedestrian only, casualty or injured" accidents account for more than 18 per cent of collisions, with (sound familiar?) 10 per cent of them "failing to look properly".
Delve further into the report and a colossal range of possible causes of accidents, 77 in all, emerges, including vision affected by the sun, vegetation or spray from vehicles and scratched windscreens. Of those motorists judged by police to have been distracted, only 0.8 per cent were using a mobile phone and 0.4 per cent had defective eyesight.
Other reasons accounting for 6.1 per cent of fatal accidents include "stolen vehicle" (1.1 per cent), "emergency vehicle on call" (0.3 per cent) and "vehicle in course of crime" (0.4 per cent).
Vehicle defects are a factor in only 2.8 per cent of fatals, with tyres mostly to blame (1.5 per cent) followed by dodgy brakes (0.7 per cent).
Time of day is important; between 7pm-7am 'loss of control' is the key factor while at other times, it's the familiar 'failed to look properly'. Motorists are more likely to be 'distracted or impaired' at weekends (17 per cent) than on weekdays (10 per cent).
"Drivers can learn a lot by reading this and if you take just one thing away from it," says Greig, "it's that paying a little more attention, taking that little bit more time to look properly, will save your life. Mostly, crashes aren't about cars going dramatically out of control and up in smoke. It's small errors suddenly having greater consequences. But if you are a good, trained driver, you can avoid becoming a statistic." And you'll get to that appointment on time, too.
Welshbeef said:
If 20mph are to be stringent we need to address cyclists - especially where no formal cycle lane exists.
Cyclists easily average more than 20mph and some easily above 30mph in a 30mph. They undertake you - if no cycle lane they need to overtake you OR they need to have to follow the lower speed limits as currently there is a higher risk of an accident as most people do not expect undertaking.
Most when turning left are looking ahead on a single track lane when they are in L1 they simply turn which they may do at the prevailing speed limit or a very slow turn in. A cyclist could then simply crash into the side of the car thrown over the car into the road and potentially under a vehicle pulling out of that junction.
Great, so what you're saying then is that 20mph speed limits are restricting cycle journeys as well as cars and increase danger to cyclists because they make it more likely for them to be caught out when coming alongside a left-turner. If you're experiencing this a lot while you're doing 20 mph it must be a big enough problem to consider getting rid of them.Cyclists easily average more than 20mph and some easily above 30mph in a 30mph. They undertake you - if no cycle lane they need to overtake you OR they need to have to follow the lower speed limits as currently there is a higher risk of an accident as most people do not expect undertaking.
Most when turning left are looking ahead on a single track lane when they are in L1 they simply turn which they may do at the prevailing speed limit or a very slow turn in. A cyclist could then simply crash into the side of the car thrown over the car into the road and potentially under a vehicle pulling out of that junction.
RSTurboPaul said:
vonhosen said:
85th percentile is a bit of hogwash as far as I'm concerned.
How can you have a speed limit set at the true 85th percentile with a speed limit already in force when you are measuring for an 85th percentile?
You'd need to have a de-restricted road to determine the true 85th percentile. Unless you are saying of course that people's choice of speed is never ever chosen or influenced by the prevailing speed limit at all.
I see what you are saying. How can you have a speed limit set at the true 85th percentile with a speed limit already in force when you are measuring for an 85th percentile?
You'd need to have a de-restricted road to determine the true 85th percentile. Unless you are saying of course that people's choice of speed is never ever chosen or influenced by the prevailing speed limit at all.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 7th May 21:33
At some point everything was derestricted unless it was Restricted (to 30mph). I'm pretty sure that 30mph was chosen through researching vehicle speeds and applying the 85th percentile rule.
Once restrictions are in place... yes, of course, the limit will influence speeds to some degree, but look at the graphs I posted previously - 20mph limits are ignored by 80+% of people - arguably the limits do not really have that much influence absent constant enforcement. This is also shown by the HGV speeds barely changing after their limits changed.
On that basis, the 85th percentile approach is perfectly reasonable and was working perfectly well since its invention. Circular 01/2013 (or whatever it was) that introduced Mean Speed limit setting overtly stated its aims were to get lower limits in place, and when you look at the results of the approach (e.g. the 20mph speed survey results) it clearly shows that setting a limit that only <20% of the drivers would choose to drive at or under is a nonsense.
MKnight702 said:
Does anyone know how they calculate this 85th percentile. Say you have 1 car in a 60 limit doing 60 behind this the next car is Doris with her nose pressed against the windscreen roaring along at 35 with a train of 9 other cars stuck behind her. In the strictest sense the 85th percentile would be 35.
Perhaps a sample size greater than two is used?
2gins said:
Great, so what you're saying then is that 20mph speed limits are restricting cycle journeys as well as cars and increase danger to cyclists because they make it more likely for them to be caught out when coming alongside a left-turner. If you're experiencing this a lot while you're doing 20 mph it must be a big enough problem to consider getting rid of them.
Sorry I know it’s not even ten am but reading that have you had an early start on the booze as it doesn’t make any sense. sleepera6 said:
The backlash is very quiet now but I can imagine next year when Joe public experiences the problems it will probably be in the papers continuously.
All I can do is hope the insurance companies don’t “punish” us for “errors”
What problems?All I can do is hope the insurance companies don’t “punish” us for “errors”
Newspaper headline "Driver was prevented from breaking the speed limit by the cars speed limiter, demands that the limiters be removed"
It reminds me of a newspaper article from many many years ago when speed bumps were first installed. An irate motorist demanded they be removed because he couldn't go faster than 30mph in a 30mph zone.
The reply was "Good, they work then"
Intelligent Speed Assist is part of the EU general safety regulation.
Apparently the UK did not adopt it when we left the EU so there is a chance it might not actually happen in the UK unless a similar regulation is made.
I actually think they're a good idea as they prevent people accidentally speeding, but still let you deliberately speed. This means that your average 40mph everywhere driver might actually stick to 30.
I personally can't see them ever being non switchable or unable to be overridden. They're simply not going to be right 100% of the time.
Apparently the UK did not adopt it when we left the EU so there is a chance it might not actually happen in the UK unless a similar regulation is made.
I actually think they're a good idea as they prevent people accidentally speeding, but still let you deliberately speed. This means that your average 40mph everywhere driver might actually stick to 30.
I personally can't see them ever being non switchable or unable to be overridden. They're simply not going to be right 100% of the time.
blank said:
Intelligent Speed Assist is part of the EU general safety regulation.
Apparently the UK did not adopt it when we left the EU so there is a chance it might not actually happen in the UK unless a similar regulation is made.
I actually think they're a good idea as they prevent people accidentally speeding, but still let you deliberately speed. This means that your average 40mph everywhere driver might actually stick to 30.
I personally can't see them ever being non switchable or unable to be overridden. They're simply not going to be right 100% of the time.
My C63 and new SMax has this it shows the sped limit of the current road be it temp or normal so you have it in the dash. If you go above it in the SMax it flashes no noise which is fine. In fact there are plenty of occasions I’d like to know the limit just incase I’ve missed a limit change. Apparently the UK did not adopt it when we left the EU so there is a chance it might not actually happen in the UK unless a similar regulation is made.
I actually think they're a good idea as they prevent people accidentally speeding, but still let you deliberately speed. This means that your average 40mph everywhere driver might actually stick to 30.
I personally can't see them ever being non switchable or unable to be overridden. They're simply not going to be right 100% of the time.
Cliftonite said:
MKnight702 said:
Does anyone know how they calculate this 85th percentile. Say you have 1 car in a 60 limit doing 60 behind this the next car is Doris with her nose pressed against the windscreen roaring along at 35 with a train of 9 other cars stuck behind her. In the strictest sense the 85th percentile would be 35.
Perhaps a sample size greater than two is used?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff