Caught speeding 106mph on motorway

jimexbox

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

My rather simplistic view would be to remove all speed limits, and ban the use of speedometers. I don't believe there would be a rise in accident severity or frequency.

The sooner we get people away from thinking that the number on the stick is the safe speed at which to drive, the better. Teach them the COAST method of driving, and enforce it rigorously.

Im certainly not arguing that the speed limit on every occasion is safe, its clearly not, you must drive to the prevailing weather/surface conditions. Although I think you underestimate the sheer stupidity of many motorists, and it only takes a tiny minority to cause chaos on our roads. If we were all sensible, we wouldn't need speed limits, speed cameras or traffic police. Unfortunately we do, I see idiots driving too close, too fast every time I go to work.

You may argue with a little justification that at 2am, a higher speed on the motorway would be acceptable, its just I use the M25 every morning at 4am, and there are very few cars about, thus very few accidents. You get folk driving at these insane speeds during normal hours, when they are far more likely to cause an accident.

jaydeeuk1

I think a variable speed limit would be a great idea. Perhaps limit it not just to 'off peak' hours, but only motorists who have completed an advanced driving course or similar are allowed at speeds >70.

Rolandtheroadie

modern vehicles accelerate and brake much more efficiently than when limits were put in place.
Limits should be set to each and every individual road. I can leave my village and head to another local village on a single track road and legally do 60mph. Thats stupid.
I can also go another route, straight, plenty sighting distance, I'm limited to 60 MPH. Even saying that's an adequate speed, (B road, 2 way traffic) is 70 MPH a realistic speed for a road with 3 lanes each way seperated with a crash barrier? Straight? better maintained than any other roads?

It's the poor driving standards today that causes accidents, not speed.


Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Crazy_Jamie

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

I think a variable speed limit would be a great idea. Perhaps limit it not just to 'off peak' hours, but only motorists who have completed an advanced driving course or similar are allowed at speeds >70.

Two problems with the advanced driving course idea.

First, what exactly would this 'advanced driving course' entail? Driving tests are already wholly inadequate and regularly let absolute maniacs through, so how would an advanced driving training course filter out those maniacs and/or make them upstanding drivers worthy being allowed to go a higher speed?

Second, how would police or speed cameras distinguish between those going over the lower speed limit? How could you possible tell which drivers going 90mph have the 'qualifications' to go that fast and which don't?

HO87

If it was intended to use the existing ADT as the model then there are immediate problems. Firstly, there are almost certainly way too few instructors to be able to cope with the through-put required and, secondly, how could courses and tests be funded?

One could see how the existing course (which I believe has real benefits) would be cannabalised to make it more publicly acceptable (and easier, frankly) and if this was to happen would its value be lost?

Having a multi-tier driving licence is, I believe, a non-starter and certainly not one that permitted "advanced" drivers only to drive on certain roads or at certain speed limits. This would be seen to condone "speed" and that is a total anathema as far as the current political regime is concerned. There are other politically correct means of promoting the idea of advanced driving.

At the moment young drivers are those at particular risk and consequentally pay very substantial premiums. However, this is used as much as a tool to restrict those who come on the road as anything else - regardless of what the insurance companies tell you. If, rather than operating a negative incentive the insurers were to offer real positive incentives for younger drivers (in fact any driver) to take the ADT rather than paying lip-service to it then we might see an improvement in overall driving standards. If this was coupled with enforcement aimed at poor driving rather than the easy "kill" of speed then this might just work, given time.

Regardless of the way in which official statistics are spun the real influence of speed in terms of being a contributory cause in accidents is far lower (3% has been quoted) then we are led to believe. Commonsense dictates that speed (5mph is still a "speed") will always be a factor in collisions simply because it is very difficult for vehicles to collide if they are not in motion but that does not and cannot mean that it is a cause - in the way in which it is interpreted by the general public - in the proportion of accidents suggested.

An ADT would address some of the other causes such as lack of observation, car control, planning and anticipation but would also have the unintended affect of giving some wholly unsuitable people additional skills that would make them more of a nuisance than they are now. However, the greater number of better trained drivers would probably be able to cope with their idiocy to greater extent than they are currently.