Speeding cars, lorries, trains, etc.

[Pumbaa]

Anyway, my thoughts on speed cameras ....

They are completely misused. Instead of the odd camera around an accident blackspot, the entire stretch of road should be blanketed by them. IE. Cameras spaced every 200 yards or so for 1 1/2 miles, in both directions. If a driver has an accident then because (s)he was speeding, it's there on film, and the police will be able to throw the book at them.

I'm a firm advocate of average speed cameras, this is effectively the same thing. Traffic flows a lot better under a constant speed regime, and obviously people don't speed unless they like throwing their license away.

People who buy the software to detect speed cameras can grate me sometimes. Drive sensibly and be aware of the speed limit, and you won't need to be aware of them!

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

I'd say that downloading Camera POIs (Points Of Interest) is actually a contributory factor in road safety, as for those of us who have them installed in out satnavs know where all of the camera locations are & therefore don't brake sharply to avoid them, hence cause accidents.

All these cameras are are piggy banks, case has been proven in Swindon where they removed all of the speed cameras & the fatality rate went down. Mmm.
Of course politicians want them, they make a nice little earner out of them.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

All these cameras are are piggy banks, case has been proven in Swindon where they removed all of the speed cameras & the fatality rate went down. Mmm.

Do you have evidence to back that statement up?

 

[Pumbaa]

All these cameras are are piggy banks, case has been proven in Swindon where they removed all of the speed cameras & the fatality rate went down. Mmm.
Of course politicians want them, they make a nice little earner out of them.

Of course they act as an additional source of revenue - even they don't deny that. But then if you break the law, no reason why you should pay (either metaphorically or financially) for your mistake.

Ah yes - the Swindon example. The council loved trumpeting that, but always went quiet when the nosy journalists reminded them that a) overall traffic levels in Swindon had decreased by a similar amount, and b) other traffic calming measures were introduced in notorious problem areas!

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Maybe but at least it's not feeding some grubby money grabbing, little safety hitlerites pocket or feeding some "private" companies profits.

This man Bill Bryson has hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid_wales/10191162.stm

 

[142094]

camera locations are & therefore don't brake sharply to avoid them, hence cause accidents.

You've been generalising in this thread quite a lot and still haven't back up your statements with evidence. So can you prove that speed cameras do cause accidents due to people braking sharply?

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

As you can't be bothered to do the search.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=0...rome&ie=UTF-8&q=speed+cameras+cause+accidents

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That's not providing proof for statements you made.

I might as well say 9/11 never happened and post a search with those words. Doesn't prove anything.

 

[ainsworth74]

As you can't be bothered to do the search.

If you make a point its your responsibility to prove it, not ours. As many others here I would be interested in seeing your evidence, not a google search.

 

[stut]

Oh stut, when you get your head out of your backside & realise that by concentrating on a speedo you're chances of hitting something or someone increase at an exponential rate, similar to mobile phone usage, let me know.

I suspect that you're one of the idiot drivers who hogs the middle & outside lanes and won't do anymore than the limit & will hold up everyone else in the process! Personally I'll just go around you! Yes, undertake! No, it's not illegal to do so provided that the manoeuvre can be achieved safely. Done it loads of times & it's legal otherwise you could find that everything will grind to a rapid halt on motorways etc where the inside lane (lane 1) will move first before the other lanes (2, 3 & 4).

The ad hominem is uncalled for, and does little for your argument.

You're saying that you can only avoid speeding by concentrating on the speedometer. This is only the case if you're daft enough to treat the limit as a minimum. If you can't keep a reasonably level speed with only occasional glances at the speedo, you shouldn't be in charge of a ton of metal.

Personally, I always respect lane discipline. Which is more than you do. I won't do any more than the limit, because I respect the law. Which is more than you do.

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

OK Boy Blunder...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2212479.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-motorway-speed-camera-CAUSING-accidents.html
http://menmedia.co.uk/news/s/310/310221_visible_speed_cameras_cause_accidents__police_chief.html

Oh just you wait what happened on 9/11/01 in NY will soon seem like a tea party!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The ad hominem is uncalled for, and does little for your argument.

You're saying that you can only avoid speeding by concentrating on the speedometer. This is only the case if you're daft enough to treat the limit as a minimum. If you can't keep a reasonably level speed with only occasional glances at the speedo, you shouldn't be in charge of a ton of metal.

Personally, I always respect lane discipline. Which is more than you do. I won't do any more than the limit, because I respect the law. Which is more than you do.

The law is as everyone knows is an ass, it's written in favour of those who have the money. Don't say it's not because it is, because if it were in decent fair & equal, the poor people of this country would be able to afford justice as well as the likes of pop stars, judges, celebs etc.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh just you wait what happened on 11/09/01 in NY will soon seem like a tea party!

Care to elaborate on what seems to be a totally random point?

The law is as everyone knows is an ass, it's written in favour of those who have the money. Don't say it's not because it is, because if it were in decent fair & equal, the poor people of this country would be able to afford justice as well as the likes of pop stars, judges, celebs etc.

So that gives you the right to disobey the law by undertaking and speeding does it? Just because you feel that the law is unfair is no excuse not to heed it. Besides whether or not the law is fair the law is the law, you don't have a choice on which laws you listen to and which you don't.

 

[boing_uk]

To be fair, there are instances where it IS quite easy to drive above the speed limit, if that is what the road is telling drivers to do.

Its very much to do with driver psychology the compliance or otherwise with a particular speed limit.

Once upon a time, the 85%ile rule was applied in setting speed limits... that is the highest speed at which 85% of drivers travelled at - lop off the top 15% of recorded speeds and there you go.

Now, having had Roads Circular 01/06 allowing local authorities to use AVERAGE speeds - thus a lower limit than 85% - you automatically include in that those more confident drivers who can capably drive at a higher speed quite safely on that road.

Take a dual carriageway that once was derestricted, with no frontage development, street lighting but now with a 50mph speed limit... one which was applied due to 6 injury accidents one year (those 6 were all passengers in a minibus which overturned, not due to speed) then you get these rediculous speed limits popping up which most normal drivers will exceed because other than a sign saying otherwise the road is telling the driver to drive at a higher speed because it "feels" safe to do so.

Speed in itself is very much not a cause of the 33% oft claimed by road safety partnerships. More often than not, the highest cause of accidents is a driver putting their vehicle where it shouldnt be, either by pulling out in front of another vehicle, or crossing to the wrong side of the road.

Of course, speed IS a factor in ANY accident. A stationary vehicle isnt going to hit anything. But we also abandonned the red flag rule for a very good reason.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Nope. I won't elaborate on it. You'll just have to wait and see.

Undertaking is legal, provided it can be done in a safe manner & doesn't pose threat to other road users. If you didn't then the roads would become gridlocked, you can undertake on a motorway legally and a dual carriageway legally. If you didn't no one would go anywhere.

 

[Zoe]

Undertaking is legal, provided it can be done in a safe manner & doesn't pose threat to other road users.

Highway Code rule 268:

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

 

[boing_uk]

So that gives you the right to disobey the law by undertaking and speeding does it? Just because you feel that the law is unfair is no excuse not to heed it. Besides whether or not the law is fair the law is the law, you don't have a choice on which laws you listen to and which you don't.

Do you, therefore, carry out two hours of longbow practice at a weekend supervised by the local clergy? Because you are required by law to do so, IIRC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Highway Code rule 268:

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Yes. Do not. It does not say MUST NOT. MUST NOT's in the HC are legal requirements. Do nots are just strong guidance.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Highway Code rule 268:

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Oh, I just love these self righteous types, who never do a thing wrong.... :roll:

So some idiot sits in lane 3 doing 65mph, there's a space which I can move into safely on lane 2, so I will move into lane 2, I will then accelerate safely back up to 70mph the limit, if the idiot stays at 65mph I and anyone else will pass him on the inside... I then catch another car up as I'm doing 70mph, I'm quite legally allowed to use 10% overspeed to complete an overtaking manoeuvre, so I will use lane 3 again and then drop back to 70mph.

As long as I do it safely & considerately and I have used my indicators the police won't do a thing about it because I'm keeping traffic moving. They're more likely to take a dim view of an idiot who sits in lanes 2/3/4 doing 65mph delaying others.

 

[Oswyntail]

If this

Do you, therefore, carry out two hours of longbow practice at a weekend supervised by the local clergy? Because you are required by law to do so, IIRC.

(which is an old chestnut that is completely false, as the relevant legislation has been repealed for at least 150 years, along with the ones about shooting Welshmen in Chester and, unfortunately, making football illegal) shows your expertise in law, then we can take your opinion in this

Yes. Do not. It does not say MUST NOT. MUST NOT's in the HC are legal requirements. Do nots are just strong guidance.

with the pinch of salt it deserves.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Do you, therefore, carry out two hours of longbow practice at a weekend supervised by the local clergy? Because you are required by law to do so, IIRC.

That is a ridiculous argument. I suspect that law may have been repealed anyway.

Yes. Do not. It does not say MUST NOT. MUST NOT's in the HC are legal requirements. Do nots are just strong guidance.

I suggest you read the Road Traffic Act 1988 then.
Depending on the situation either reckless driving or careless or inconsiderate driving may apply.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So some idiot sits in lane 3 doing 65mph, there's a space which I can move into safely on lane 2, so I will move into lane 2, I will then accelerate safely back up to 70mph the limit, if the idiot stays at 65mph I and anyone else will pass him on the inside... I then catch another car up as I'm doing 70mph, I'm quite legally allowed to use 10% overspeed to complete an overtaking manoeuvre, so I will use lane 3 again and then drop back to 70mph.

Yes, you are allowed to do that. But I doubt they would be done for driving at 65mph. If they were going 30, then yes, but 5mph does not really make a difference to your safety or their safety at all.

 

[Tomnick]

I can understand how certain undertaking manoeuvres can be viewed as reckless or inconsiderate - the impatient motorist weaving between lanes in slow-moving traffic, trying to exploit any gap he can see to 'jump the queue', for example. In general though, what's reckless or inconsiderate about travelling in Lane 1 at 70mph, approaching a vehicle in Lane 2 travelling at 60mph, and remaining in Lane 1 to pass that vehicle on the inside?

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

@ Ralphchadkirk: This comes from someone who's age group is responsible for most accidents, outside pensioners. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Exactly Tomnick.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

This comes from someone who's age group is responsible for most accidents, outside pensioners. :roll:

Ah, the old trick of resorting to a personal jibe because one cannot think of an constructive argument to prove their point :roll:

 

[boing_uk]

If this
(which is an old chestnut that is completely false, as the relevant legislation has been repealed for at least 150 years, along with the ones about shooting Welshmen in Chester and, unfortunately, making football illegal) shows your expertise in law, then we can take your opinion in this
with the pinch of salt it deserves.

That is why I said IIRC. Clearly I recalled wrongly. However Highway Law IS my expertise, thank you very much.

Highway Code

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

Ergo, overtaking on the left (it is not called "undertaking".. thats what funeral homes do) is not in itself an offence. It is you manner of doing so that would be called in to question. Screaming up the inside might be considered reckless or careless. However proceeding at a steady speed not that much different from the vehicle you are overtaking would not be as clear cut and would be unlikely to land in a successful prosecution.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Nope. Just telling it like it is.

It's the teenage generation who go around on public highways thinking that they can drive like Lewis Hamilton & Schumacher, who caused this in the first place.

Then you add granny & grandad out on a little drive doing 20 in 40/50/60 zone, it ****es people off, they may have all day, but the people who are doing work & trying to keep this debt ridden island afloat haven't got all day, that then encourages them to take risks.

So we have you teenagers who've got no experience whatsoever, thinking you can drive like Lewis Hamilton & Schumacher, Granny & Grandad who's speed & reaction times are marginally quicker than a sloth, it doesn't make a good mix. Oh then we add to the mix the idiot who go Drink/Drug Driving & even more morons who think its acceptable to do use their mobile & drive with only one hand.

No wonder the roads are dangerous.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Again, stereotypes.

While some teenagers certainly drive stupidly it is unfair to tar us all with that brush "just because we are teenagers".

 

[Donny Dave]

Nope. Just telling it like it is.

It's the teenage generation who go around on public highways thinking that they can drive like Lewis Hamilton & Schumacher, who caused this in the first place.

Then you add granny & grandad out on a little drive doing 20 in 40/50/60 zone, it ****es people off, they may have all day, but the people who are doing work & trying to keep this debt ridden island afloat haven't got all day, that then encourages them to take risks.

So we have you teenagers who've got no experience whatsoever, thinking you can drive like Lewis Hamilton & Schumacher, Granny & Grandad who's speed & reaction times are marginally quicker than a sloth, it doesn't make a good mix. Oh then we add to the mix the idiot who go Drink/Drug Driving & even more morons who think its acceptable to do use their mobile & drive with only one hand.

No wonder the roads are dangerous.

To be contraversial, I'll add women drivers into the mix ....

Too fixated on the road in front of them to be abke to keep to a constant, safe speed, late/no indicating and not using mirrors to see what's around them.

Example (this happened roughly 30-45 minutes ago). I followed a woman driver of a roundabout here in Scunthorpe. The road we joined has a 40 mph limit. She crawls along it at 25mph. We both arrive at the slip road we both need, I indicate, she doesn't. I pull over into the slip road, she darts across and cuts me up. Meanwhile, another car has caught us up, but he's gone straight on, so he starts to overtake once we're on the slip road.

Now, the end of the slip road has a sharpish left turn, so the woman driver then pulls half way back across into the main carriageway to make the turn a bit easier. However, once again, she fails to check her mirrors and causes the car that's overtaking to brake heavily and swerve to avoid a collision.

While women don't have as many crashes as men (according to industry figures), they are a causal factor in a lot of crashes.

I don't say this as a ****ed of motorist, but as a lorry driver who has been there, done that, got the t-shirt and seen the results of too many crashes to mention.

 

[Tomnick]

Not keen on the stereotypes myself, I've got to say. The 'dangerous' sorts I've encountered recently (excessive speed, tailgating, weaving sharply between lanes, cutting sharply into an insufficient gap in a 'diverging' lane at the last second etc.) have generally been rather older than the 'teenage generation'. The old folk aren't the only ones who don't have a clue what's going on around them - middle-aged women seem to form a good number of those I've come across dithering along in the middle lane, oblivious to anything else, but various tradesmen/businessmen could come under the same category!

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Again, stereotypes.

While some teenagers certainly drive stupidly it is unfair to tar us all with that brush "just because we are teenagers".

Statistics prove otherwise.

Oh women... Ban them! Had a row with some dumb blond in a Red Honda Civic Type R, jabbering on her mobile phone driving down the wrong way of a one way street! Arrrrgh!

 

[ainsworth74]

Statistics prove otherwise.

Indeed they do and I won't dispute that. I will dispute the sterotype that all teenagers are boy/girl racers. Could not another explanation be simply that they have much less experience driving than the rest of the population? At most a teenager could have 2 years of experience of driving compared with the rest of the driving population who could have 5, 10, 15, 20 or more years behind the wheel. Therefore they are always going to be more likey to have an accident, they're less experienced.

 

[me123]

I haven't been on that section of road since the camera's appeared, but I did drive it last year before they put them in. They needed to go there as it was the only way to get people to respect the speed limit. I was doing 55mph (which is bad enough) but was still one of the slowest people on that road. The professionals (bus, coaches and lorries) we just as good as everyone else at ignoring it!

When I first drove on that road, I was a learner and the only one observing the limit. Most people flying by at 60-70mph, which is pretty scary when there's narrow lanes, contraflows and people actually working on the carriageway! The cameras needed to be installed, and they've probably made life a lot safer for the workers.

Now, a lot of people who use the road regularly have worked out how to get around the cameras. For example, you can go as fast as you like until you meet the first camera, you can go as fast as you like after you've cleared your last camera, and if there's only one camera between your junctions no limit applies! (They should probably have put cameras on the on and off slips as well to stop this).