Speed Cameras ... ::sigh::

Strider590

heretolearn wrote: »

I saw a black van approach but had time to get into my right turn so started crossing the oncoming side, double checked the approaching van before committing. Well blow me there was a black motorbike with a rider all in black leathers and black helmet in front of him.

I know what your saying, bikers often don't help themselves! but...

What if it had been a white motorbike, with white leathers and a white helmet in front of a white van?

Or a retro-reflective motorbike, with a hi-vis jacket and helmet with retro-reflective stickers in front of a stripey retro-reflective van?
Like oh I dunno a Police bike?

alastairq

Therefore I do not like the mantra that the speed limits are "limits not targets". Actually I feel that limits on open roads *are* targets, where the limit is safe for the conditions. Obviously there are exceptions -- trucks limited to 40mph on single carriageways for instance -- but these are predictable aspects of driving.

So you advocate, everybody must drive as fast as the speed limit will allow?

As you later point out, not only are there widely differing limits on a given stretch of road..[and the reasons for them are to aid you, the car driver.....as much as any recognition for size and weight]......but you also comment, rather as an afterthought, which is worrying, about the need to adjust speeds to suit road and traffic conditions...

which all comes back to the idea that a speed limit is not a target?

Don't forget, for every one of you 'skilled' drivers, there will be a hundred less skilled.....and more easily influenced...drivers out there.

Drivers, who have only what amounts to a half-baked idea of the link between speed, time and 'safety'.....drivers who will think...under all circumstances, that if the powers-that-be have decided to put that particular limit on that particular stretch of road, it MUST be safe to drive at that speed.

However.......if someone is travelling along at a slower speed than the limit..and of course, some other drivers [but probably not all]....does it not raise the question of whether they have actually seen something..or know something...or even may have issues with the type and condition of the vehicle they're driving, which the rest of us haven't?

And if one cannot get past Captain Slow, because of the density of oncoming traffic, then is it actually wise to travel at a greater speed than Captain Slow?

Given that options for dealing with a problem are drastically reduced by that traffic density?

All questions which too many drivers actually don't want to ask.. because it would likely be a gross inconvenience?

alastairq

Strider590 wrote: »

I know what your saying, bikers often don't help themselves! but...

What if it had been a white motorbike, with white leathers and a white helmet in front of a white van?

Or a retro-reflective motorbike, with a hi-vis jacket and helmet with retro-reflective stickers in front of a stripey retro-reflective van?
Like oh I dunno a Police bike?

it is for this reason [or rather, the legal complications resulting from lost claims]...that military vehicles,when driving within the UK [and elsewhere] have their dipped headlights on.

Because, when asked [in a court?] the purpose of the military colour scheme, the answer is..'to blend in with the background'

But then, as every lorry driver knows..or soon will do....one can hide an artic behind the door mirrors....

ever noticed that if a couple of cars are approaching...and the rear one has headlights on, but the front one is on sidelights only....how the rear one gets seen first?

Hopefully, the poster now realises there is a need not fr sheer casual observation, but anticipatory observation...one better driver out there now?


[incidentally, there seems to be growing evidence that headlights and hi-vis seem not to result in fewer near-misses or RTCs....and growing movement away from the need for these? Not something I subscribe to...just an observation.....I've never been missed when out riding.....may be something to do with my size?]

alastairq

anyway, 'we're apparently due for a power cut this aft.......so I'm off to annoy everybody out on the roads....

Strider590

Hypothetical journey here.... Well actually it's mostly true.

I leave for work at 7:30am, I hit massive traffic in my home town and end up late for work.
I leave at 7:15am, I hit some traffic and I get to work just in time to grab a parking space before walking the last mile to work.
I leave for work at 7:00am, I miss the traffic but I can't park when I get to work (because people in that area haven't gone to work yet)

I need to leave at spot on 7:15am and I do this 95% of the time.... But on occasion some numpty is driving at 30mph down a 50mph road.... Peering into his rear view mirror, smirking at the cars behind and saying to himself "it's a limit not a target".

It's unpredictable, but running into one of these can literally cause a HUGE hassle and ruin my days productivity with having to run outside every 45mins to move my car and avoid a parking ticket.....

If im early it's not such a problem, but it means driving in circles around the cities one way system until someone leaves a parking space.... You could argue that I could slow down on my journey to work, but I WILL NOT set out inconvenience other drivers, who like myself have work to do!

jase1

alastairq wrote: »

So you advocate, everybody must drive as fast as the speed limit will allow?

No. I advocate that all drivers should be making an effort to travel at the prevailing consensus as to the safe speed at the time. In the absense of any other measure, the limit is all we have most of the time. Any driver who deviates significantly from everyone else is causing an inconvenience, and potentially a danger, to everyone else, and should be asking the question to themselves as to exactly why their interpretation of a safe speed is not the same as the drivers' around them.

As you later point out, not only are there widely differing limits on a given stretch of road..[and the reasons for them are to aid you, the car driver.....as much as any recognition for size and weight]......but you also comment, rather as an afterthought, which is worrying, about the need to adjust speeds to suit road and traffic conditions...

No afterthought at all. I do not travel at the speed limit at all times. It's all a question of using intelligence. We have the rather nasty phenomenon on many rural roads of the driver who does 40 in a 60, then 40 in a 30 past a village school -- this driver is clearly not using his nouse.

which all comes back to the idea that a speed limit is not a target?

The problem comes when people play fast (pun unintended) and loose with this one. 30mph on a clear, straight and wide 60mph-limit road is no more acceptable than 65mph IMO. The 60mph should be, let's say, an aspiration if the road is clear.

And if one cannot get past Captain Slow, because of the density of oncoming traffic, then is it actually wise to travel at a greater speed than Captain Slow?

A question that can only be answered at the time.

I have said this before -- if a driver is not willing to drive at the prevailing speed which is deemed safe for the road conditions at the time, all that I ask is that they cooperate with the driver who wants to get by. Adequate indication, not speeding up when being overtaken, and use of intelligence (i.e. not coming up the overtaker's rear when they hit the 30 and slow down to the correct speed for example) is not an onerous request. I'll be holding back at a safe distance, and will be past them at the earliest safe opportunity -- I will always hold back rather than take on an overtake that I am not 100% sure of.

Inactive

@ Strider; Leave at 0700 and just wait until someone moves there car.

Sorted.;)

( I'm sure they don't all leave at exactly the same time)

Strider590

^^ There's nowhere to wait.... It's a busy city centre.

jase1 wrote: »

The problem comes when people play fast (pun unintended) and loose with this one. 30mph on a clear, straight and wide 60mph-limit road is no more acceptable than 65mph IMO. The 60mph should be, let's say, an aspiration if the road is clear.

I would agree, the limit should be the speed of travel if the road and conditions are good.

I've seen 44 tonne trucks trying to overtake 25mph drivers on the notorious 60mph stretch of the A449 near Stourbridge.... Scary stuff, but I can understand these guys wanting to keep that that rolling, because if they grind to a halt on a hill, they might not be able to get moving again!

foofi22

Strider590 wrote: »

Hypothetical journey here.... Well actually it's mostly true.

I leave for work at 7:30am, I hit massive traffic in my home town and end up late for work.
I leave at 7:15am, I hit some traffic and I get to work just in time to grab a parking space before walking the last mile to work.
I leave for work at 7:00am, I miss the traffic but I can't park when I get to work (because people in that area haven't gone to work yet)

I need to leave at spot on 7:15am and I do this 95% of the time.... But on occasion some numpty is driving at 30mph down a 50mph road.... Peering into his rear view mirror, smirking at the cars behind and saying to himself "it's a limit not a target".

It's unpredictable, but running into one of these can literally cause a HUGE hassle and ruin my days productivity with having to run outside every 45mins to move my car and avoid a parking ticket.....

If im early it's not such a problem, but it means driving in circles around the cities one way system until someone leaves a parking space.... You could argue that I could slow down on my journey to work, but I WILL NOT set out inconvenience other drivers, who like myself have work to do!

I'm sure they are just leaving their cars there to annoy you.

Lum

Strider590 wrote: »

Hypothetical journey here.... Well actually it's mostly true.

This one scales up too.

Say I leave Hull at 1pm. I can't leave any earlier because that's how long the job takes. Under normal circumstances I will be on the M42 before 3PM which is just before that roads starts to get stupidly busy. I can be back in Cardiff by 5 or 6 PM

If I hit a couple of "I'm going to enforce the law by doing '70' in the outside lane" numpties (who are almost invariably doing more like 62mph) and Captain Slow who is overtaking a lorry at no higher speed differential than that of the lorry overtaking the other lorry, then I may not hit the M42 until 3:45PM, at which point it turns into a car park and I don't get home until 7 or 8 PM.

When I'm out for the week on several long jobs* this gets even worse, after 10 PM there is nowhere open at/near the hotel that serves anything resembling proper food. Just pizza and kebab places which isn't exactly great for my health.

* A typical week in my last job would see me doing full day jobs at, e.g. Liverpool on Monday, Glasgow on Tuesday, Dundee on Wednesday, Hull on Thursday and Basildon on Friday.

Another factor to consider here is tiredness. It's already been mentioned about how going faster gets the adrenalin going and keeps you alert. The opposite is also true, if you are kept at an artificially slow speed, such as the 12 miles of 50mph SPECS on the M1 that was enforced 24/7 even though the roadworks are daytime only, then the mind is going to wander and things get missed.

The longer you spend on the road the worse the problem gets. It's often imperceptible unless you're experienced in this area and know the signs to look for* being able to knock an hour off your journey through a higher speed is often the less risky option.

* The fact that I am experienced in this area is one of the many reasons why I quit that job. From time to time I was forced to stop for the night and check into a hotel. Every time they refused to pay for it. On one occasion they also refused to pay for the actual hotel I'd booked, still 3 hours away, because I didn't turn up!

I realise I'm digressing here a little, and I'm not proud of what I've done in the name of putting food on the table, even if I've never had or caused an accident due to any of it, but my point is that you do need to weigh up the risks of speeding vs the consequential risks of not speeding.