Speed Cameras ... ::sigh::

cyclonebri1

exup wrote: »

Many motorcyclists believe that if they put their lights on they will be easier to spot. :T:T

Bright colours (fluourescent etc) only make a difference if the weather is dull :T:T QUOTE]




Regardless of what you "think", what you posted is actually true, provided it is "received" by a competant motorist.

Oh, forgot to add, fluorescent colours do show to their best advantage in bright conditions;)

Gandalfthesecond

Fluourescent for daylight and good weather, the reflective strips to reflect light from headlight etc.

Lum

alastairq wrote: »

Interesting comment....certainly I would be asking the question, if the overtaking vehicle had not been exceeding the speed limit, would they have in fact had sufficient time to cope with the unlit vehicle? And what if, it had been an unlit cow?

Cow's fault?

Cows, parked cars and other unlit obstructions wouldn't be heading towards the overtaker at 40+mph, so the overtaker will have more time to react.

jase1

alastairq, I apologise for having misinterpreted your words -- but you surely must agree that someone in, I presume, pitch darkness without lights has gone beyond mere "forgetfulness" and is well into careless, if not dangerous driving territory?

As such, I think you should choose your words more carefully before apparently apportioning responsibility to the speeding driver.

Let's take the scenario where the overtaking car collides with the unlit vehicle when the former is travelling just under the limit. We cannot apportion responsibility to the overtaker on the grounds of speeding here, because he's driving within the law.

Now, increase the speed of the overtaker by 5mph. Are we really saying that responsibility switches to the overtaker the minute he exceeds 60? Seems an awfully arbitrary notion to me.

And as Lum says, a stationary target gives much more time to react. Speed differential again.

Flip the switch. Say the overtaker is within the limit, but the unlit driver is doing 60. Does the unlit driver increasing his speed to 65 make any difference to who is responsible? I would say not.

As I keep saying, road safety is MUCH more nuanced than simply keeping to speed limits, and the sooner certain drivers get this into their heads the better.

Lum

jase1 wrote: »

As I keep saying, road safety is MUCH more nuanced than simply keeping to speed limits, and the sooner certain politicians get this into their heads the better.

Fixed that for you

I really hoped that, on this issue at least, having the Tories in would see an improvement, but apparently it's not to be.

jase1

Very good point!

cyclonebri1

jase1 wrote: »

As I keep saying, road safety is MUCH more nuanced than simply keeping to speed limits, and the sooner certain drivers get this into their heads the better.

Quite correct, but is it the drivers who are to blame??
It's been drumed into motorists that SPEED KILLS for years. Now most believe if they drive slowly they can get away with any other minor infractions.:eek:

Never seen a sign saying bald tyres kill or changing cds kills etc???;);)

alastairq

To start with...any driver engaged in overtaking has a responsibility to only overtake.'if it is safe to do so'..............

This means, if when overtaking, something goes wrong, the overtaking driver has failed..to a degree, in their duties.

Exceeding the speed limit whilst overtaking would exacerbate that situation further.

The nub of the matter is......does the overtaking driver [exceeding the speed limit, as it happens] conduct themselves in the same manner as a 'competent, careful driver?'

Or, does their driving fall below the standards expected of a 'competent careful driver?'

Would a 'competent, careful driver' expect everything else on the road to be lit?

I used analogies of cows, badgers, parked vehicles, or even, a stranded vehicle to show that an unlit [maybe moving...but maybe not?] obstacle could be present, needs to be coped with..and is a fact of life.

Whether they 'should be there', or not really isn't the issue at the moment.

The OP is really relying upon 'assumptions' when driving...in this scenario.

Assumptions that it's ok to overtake, because they cannot see anything 'lit' in front?


Ok..so a motorist unintentionally moving without lights 'presents a risk.' Just parking a vehicle at the roadside presents a risk. If I come across an unlit, moving vehicle, I know I have 'coped' with it.....it presents no further risk to me as a result. Because of the manner in which I am driving I have reduced [potential] risk levels as a result.

But overtaking and deliberately exceeding the posted speed limit at the same time, increases the risk levels, [not just to that individual, but to those being overtaken as well.....], the opposite to what should be happening..ie the drive/rider concerned should be doing everything to decrease risk levels when carrying out a course of action. The faster one goes, the less time one has to respond. Regardless of whether any object is moving or stationary.

alastairq

'speed kills' is very simplistic...but makes a point. It is a graphic response to the fact that drivers and riders have been 'enabled' to move fast...perhaps faster than they imagine they can cope with?


I note that when looking at the 'speed' issue...especially when considering RTC's, and causal factors....there is an automatic assumption that any reference to 'speed' implies 'high speed'.

Or even, simply, 'exceeding the posted limit'...

Thus, 'speed' as such appears to have a very low causal rate in RTC's.

I find this totally misleading......


all sorts of causal 'excuses' are put forwards regarding RTC's........or, even, 'near-misses' [which sadly are not recorded.....]

But the reality is, somewhere down the line...someone did not have enough time to cope with the developing situation!

When a driver does not give themselves time to cope, pro-action becomes re-action.......and any form of dramatic action is pushing the limits for being 'in control'.

[un?]fortunately, technology allows a driver/rider a better chance of remaining 'in control' when re-action is the only possible response....

[thus drivers 'feel' more empowered..ie more in control at higher speeds....an illusion, perhaps?]

But..time is speed, speed is time...the two are the same, really.

so it follows, speed does in fact have an effect on RTCs and near-misses......don't forget, the difference between 'coping' and 'struggling to cope' may well be only 2 or 3 mph!

Yet we are led to believe, when 'speed' is mentioned, it is all about mega differences.

Lum

alastairq wrote: »

To start with...any driver engaged in overtaking has a responsibility to only overtake.'if it is safe to do so'..............

This means, if when overtaking, something goes wrong, the overtaking driver has failed..to a degree, in their duties.

Exceeding the speed limit whilst overtaking would exacerbate that situation further.

The nub of the matter is......does the overtaking driver [exceeding the speed limit, as it happens] conduct themselves in the same manner as a 'competent, careful driver?'

It all comes down to probabilities and level of risk. If you avoid doing your manoeuvre until there is a 100.00% possibility that nothing will ever get in the way then you will never leave your own driveway. A satellite could fall from the sky and land in your path.

A competent and reasonable driver would know how long they are going to spend on the wrong side of the road, add in a fudge factor in case the overtakee speeds up and not start their overtake until they can see this distance to be clear of oncoming traffic and obstructions, lit or otherwise.

I can count on one finger the number of vehicles I have seen travelling without lights on unlit single carriageways*. It happens so rarely it just isn't something you would normally take into consideration. Unlit vehicles on lit single carriageways is a different matter, but these are much easier to spot.

*It was me, years ago, in a Honda Civic hire car. Went to switch on full beam and managed to poke the stalk in such a way that it also rotated one notch, changing from Auto to Off. Utterly terrifying experience as everything literally went black and you couldn't see a thing, including the control to turn the light back on.