9 points , a speed awareness course ..now a fine

Trebor16

e999sam wrote: »

Driving at 20mph is always going to be more safe than driving at 30mph.

Speed limits are maximum allowable speeds on a given road. You should never aim to drive at the maximum speed but to drive to the conditions prevailing at the time.

To come out with a blanket statement that 20 is safer than 30 shows a lack of understanding....................or, looking at your post count, you are just trolling.

Trebor16

Lum wrote: »

Reckless driving is a completely separate offence. Very few cases of speeding count as reckless driving, and reckless driving can also happen below the speed limit. Driving at 60mph on a NSL single carriageway, through a village in thick fog is a good example of dangerous or reckless driving that's likely to result in someone getting killed.

One of the worst parts of camera enforcement is that the fast drivers who really are reckless or dangerous aren't witnessed by a copper and brought to justice anymore. Instead they get done for the much lesser offence of speeding.

There is no such offence of reckless driving anymore in the UK.

Trebor16

Lum wrote: »

It becomes a stealth tax as soon as the limits are made artificially low, such as the project in Oxfordshire, and surrounding areas, of changing all NSL single carriageways into 50 limits.

It's hardly a stealth tax if the speed limits are properly signposted. But it would be a stealth tax if they didn't have any speed limit signs and then started to issue fines to speeding drivers.:D

Harry_Flashman

e999sam wrote: »

So now you have answered the question do you agree in Lum's hypothetical scenario that I could have been correct in never exceeding 20mph because of the nature of the road even under normal conditions.

No, because I can't imagine the road that is only safe to drive on at 20mph all the time (during school in and out times, perhaps).

Lum

Height Kills

The traffic engineer was quite pleased with himself, he had finally managed to stop the local bus drivers trying to take their double deckers under the low bridge under the railway, so Councillor Prescott might finally concede that he knew what he was doing. But as he entered Prescott's office he saw that the councillor was in an ominously thoughtful mood.

'I see we've had a reduction in accidents in Railway Terrace' said Mr Prescott, 'Yes' said the engineer, anxious to demonstrate his success, 'You see I did a survey and found that the maximum safe height under the bridge was 12'2", so I arranged for some warning signs to stop anyone taking a vehicle more than 12' high...'

But the Councillor had already lost interest. 'I've been studying some statistics' said the Councillor (the engineer winced, Councillor Prescott's grasp of mathematics was notoriously shaky) 'and it seems that when those new warning signs went up the average height of vehicles using Railway Terrace fell by 9 inches', 'Well, yes..' replied the engineer, 'and accidents dropped by 18%' continued the Councillor triumphantly'. The traffic engineer tried to figure out where this was leading, 'Do you realise what this means? Every inch of average height reduction leads to a 2% reduction in accidents! All we have to do is alter the warning signs to read 11' and accidents will drop by another 24%!'

His head spinning, the traffic engineer tried to reason with the Councillor, 'but if a 12 foot vehicle can get through perfectly safely, what is the point in imposing extra restrictions?' Councillor Prescott was having none of this, 'you don't seem to understand, Height Kills, if every inch of height reduction causes a 2% drop in accidents, surely we must have a height limit reduction program, let's speak to the bus company and see if they can lower the single deckers somehow.'

The traffic engineer thought quickly, there was no point in trying to explain the facts, Councillor Prescott always regarded knowledge of road traffic and accident causation a fatal disqualification for making decisions on the subject, but there was a possible way to turn the situation to advantage. 'There is another low bridge, under the disused railway in Beeching Close, where lorries do sometimes get stuck, but I haven't had the funds to tackle the problem before, I suggest that should be the first priority for the height reduction program'. Councillor Prescott agreed and the traffic engineer set off for Beeching Close with measuring rod in hand.

At first it wasn't clear why there was a problem at this particular bridge, there was already a height restriction of 7 feet, so why on earth were drivers ignoring it? After an examination of the bridge the reason became clear, the maximum safe height was over 14 feet. On receiving a recommendation that the 7 foot height limit was unrealistic and should be raised, Councillor Prescott was apoplectic, 'lorries are getting stuck because they are too high' he yelled, 'surely the limit needs to be lowered'. The engineer tried to point out that it was precisely because the limit was obviously ludicrous that it was being ignored, and that raising the limit would increase compliance, but the Councillor did not understand. 'In Railway Terrace, reducing the height reduced accidents, therefore Height Kills' he argued, 'surely raising the limit in Beeching Close will increase average heights, therefore increase accidents,' 'But it isn't the average height that matters' the engineer tried to point out, 'a 14 foot limit will be taken seriously and will reduce instances of excessive height, therefore reduce accidents, whether the average goes up or down is totally beside the point'. 'But Height Kills' bellowed the Councillor, 'no it doesn't' the engineer bellowed back, of course he should have said 'not necessarily' but this is not an easy thing to bellow.

'How can you say height didn't cause this?' Councillor Prescott produced a press photo of the mangled remains of a double decker wedged under the Railway Terrace bridge and dropped it on the desk with the air of one producing the ace of trumps. 'The point was that the height was excessive for the situation, it is excessive height that causes the problem, not height itself' the engineer protested, but the Councillor wasn't listening, 'I've already decided to introduce a height reduction program, reducing all existing height limits by a foot, if this succeeds in reducing heights, I'll introduce a host of new height limits, if it doesn't I'll reduce the limits further until it does....'

The engineer stopped listening; once Councillor Prescott had made up his mind, there was no point in giving him the facts.

grizzly1911

pineapple wrote: »

I see terrible driving daily - not just little 'slips' but wilful, wanton, dangerous driving. I would like to see more unmarked police cars on the roads to catch these people but of course it's far easier (and more productive) to slap a Gatso by the road.;)

You are spot on.

Years ago most people that drove had a real nouse for doing it. they probably had a smattering of knowledge about how things worked and too.

Over the years Uncle Tom Cobbly and all want to drive.

The test hasn't really been upgraded that much and often people are taught to pass and not how to drive with any credability and understanding.

Lots of people simply get in switch it on and go, like turning the TV on.

They have no real idea about space, time, observation and lack basic common sense.

There are a few drivers than can multitask, have very good hazard perception, road and spatial/speed awareness , who can drive well in all conditions. They have the ability to take balanced, understood risks assessments and drive accordingly.

Unfortunately the majority can't yet they are still on the road, some follow the rules OK and get by, others are a liability whether the speed or not.

Just try driving up the Motorway late at night and it is so easy to spot those that can and those that can't.

pendulum

Lum wrote: »

Height Kills

...

The engineer stopped listening; once Councillor Prescott had made up his mind, there was no point in giving him the facts.

That post deserves some kind of award.