speed limits

Bongles

mikey72 wrote: »

If you disconnect your speedo, and try it past a few cameras, after 4 goes you'll know if every one agrees you shouldn't be doing it.
Post back and let us know.

Well yes - obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to leave the cameras up if nobody's got a speedo. I wasn't going to try the theory out for myself like that! . Much as my primary concern is to stay safe, I'm also quite fond of staying legal.

jase1

So, in which case the answer is a 10mph limit "idiot lane", with a second lane with standard 30mph limit on all roads that only drivers who have passed a "non-idiot" test can enter

That should sort out the safety on the roads -- the lowest common denominator then get their piece of road to use, sticking to the limits blindly at the highest possible speed that takes in all eventualities, and the better drivers can use their common sense accordingly within the old, higher limits.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

:T

And this is my issue with the whole "speed kills" campaign, and the "hit me at 30" ad which I'm sure you've all seen.

Whether it's an urban 30 limit or a rural B road a competent driver will be constantly making judgements as to what the appropriate safe speed is. Sharp corner coming up, slow down a bit; oh wait there's a giant puddle on that corner, slow down some more; I've got Linglongs fitted on the front, slow down even more again; wide open 4 mile long straight section with nothing but grass either side and not a single living thing in sight, wayhey! time to boot it a bit.

It's a skill, nobody sits there with a mathematical formula to calculate the exact speed, same as nobody uses a compass and protractor to calculate where they need to be to catch a cricket ball. At best the limit is going to be an approximation of a safe speed in average conditions, at worst it's downright misleading and dangerous.

Urban 30 limit, transit van parked at the side of the road. You do not want to pass that van at 30 as someone could step out from behind it, you probably don't want to pass it at 20 unless you can give it a decent wide berth, but hey the government man on the telly says stick to 30 and you'll be fine, no need to think about that pesky van and whoever could be standing behind it.

Then just add in a healthy dose of paranoia from all the cameras about causing even more people to concentrate on matching the number on a dial with the number on a sign rather than what is going on around them and you can easilly see why road safety hasn't really improved much over the last ten or so years, despite previously having year on year improvements for the last 40+ years beforehand.

That would work if you were happy to be prosecuted for a subjective crime.
If you pass the van at 25, and the copper thinks it should have been 20mph, points and a fine. No arguement, no defence.

Otherwise, you accept a free for all with no rules at all, and every one is a brilliant driver, driving how they know is best, or you have enforcable measureable limits, and if it's that dangerous at 30mph reduce urban to 20mph across the board.

mikey72

jase1 wrote: »

So, in which case the answer is a 10mph limit "idiot lane", with a second lane with standard 30mph limit on all roads that only drivers who have passed a "non-idiot" test can enter

That should sort out the safety on the roads -- the lowest common denominator then get their piece of road to use, sticking to the limits blindly at the highest possible speed that takes in all eventualities, and the better drivers can use their common sense accordingly within the old, higher limits.

And a lifetime ban for any better driver that has been lieing, and is involved in any inccident of any type. Either they caused it, or they didn't see it coming, so one strike and you're out.

mikey72

Actually, I think we should build a few roads only the self certified best drivers can use.
No limits, no pesky signs, no rules, no emergency services.
Close it every third day, take a bulldozer down it, then open it again for general use.
Then again, why close it, a skilled driver would see the bulldozer, and act accordingly.

Bongles

mikey72 wrote: »

That would work if you were happy to be prosecuted for a subjective crime.

Err.. is anyone not happy with that? The test for careless and dangerous driving is hardly objective in the way that a speed camera is.

mikey72

You won't do that without a speedo though.

Bongles

mikey72 wrote: »

You won't do that without a speedo though.

Who won't do what?

jase1

mikey72 wrote: »

And a lifetime ban for any better driver that has been lieing, and is involved in any inccident of any type. Either they caused it, or they didn't see it coming, so one strike and you're out.

Who said anything about self certified?

mikey72

Most of the posters on this thread are self certified better drivers.
No one appears to like the existing driving test we all passed, so there's little point in another one.