Fed up with whinging speeders ?

conradmum

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

no i fell asleep on page 4 when taking my test so i never bothered again.

What point are you trying to make with . Please define 'when safe to do so'. Is that when there is nothing coming in the opposite direction or when you've received a written statement from everybody who'll be using that road, promising that they won't come screaming out of nowhere when you're attempting to overtake?

you don't make any sense at all. You are overtaking when it's safe to do so but you do not know what is going to happen.

Pretty unlikely i'll come screaming out of nowhere although the chances are you're more at risk to cause an accident by tootling past people refusing to break the speed limit to ensure safetly.

Also.. would you overtake a 40ft lorry at 30mph and be certain that you've plenty of time to pass it as 'it was safe' to overtake when you started? the answer is a blatant no and you madam, are a dangerous driver.

It's really worrying the amount of people who have no idea when it's safe to overtake. You DO know 'what's going to happen' if you can see far enough ahead to be sure no one will 'come screaming out of nowhere'. Please define 'nowhere'. I can usually see the road ahead of me.

And if you break the speed limit to overtake then YOU are the person on the wrong side of the road and YOU are the person putting others at risk.
It's completely unnecessary to speed in order to overtake safely. If you think it is necessary, then you're overtaking when you can't see far enough ahead.

Why would I overtake anything at 30 mph? Why would I be overtaking in a residential area? By your logic it would be okay to do 40 to overtake in a 30mph zone. Have you seen the statistics on the difference in survival rates between people hit at 40 as opposed to 30 mph? Why would you risk someone's life for the sake of arriving at your destination 2 minutes earlier?

I regularly drive the A43 from Northampton to Kettering. It's the road with the most fatalities in the county. In the 7 years I've driven this road ALL of the near misses I've seen (and some of them have been terrifying) have been caused by drivers overtaking when it wasn't safe to do so. It doesn't matter how fast they're going, it just wasn't safe in the first place. And the irony is that at peak periods it's impossible to do more than 50 on that road anyway. They overtake in order to catch up with the next line of traffic that's travelling at 50 mph.

Please have more patience.

conradmum

gazhawkins wrote: »

Reply to conradmum: not sure what your point was in reply to my previous post.

Yes - you're right that road traffic volumes have increased since the early nineties.

However, since the mid to late nineties road fatalities have remained pretty much constant - regardless of the mass introduction of gatsos, truveloes and specs.
.

Yes, I thought you don't understand the stats, otherwise you wouldn't have posted them in the first place.
Let me explain. Imagine fatalities as a percentage of total number of journeys. If in the early nineties the total number of journeys was 3 million (I'm making this up - it's obviously a lot more than that) and the fatalities were 3000, then the percentage of fatalities is 0.1 percent of total journeys.
If today the total number of journeys is 30 million, and the number of fatalities is still 3000, then the percentage of fatalities drops to 0.01.
Hence my comment that the statistics for road safety are good. Despite the huge increase in traffic on the roads in the last 15 years, fatalities have stayed roughly the same. You're making a point for the opposing side. Had speed cameras etc. had no effect, the amount of fatalities would have increased in number in line with the increase in number of journeys taken.

daleyd

conradmum wrote: »

Yes, I thought you don't understand the stats, otherwise you wouldn't have posted them in the first place.
Let me explain. Imagine fatalities as a percentage of total number of journeys. If in the early nineties the total number of journeys was 3 million (I'm making this up - it's obviously a lot more than that) and the fatalities were 3000, then the percentage of fatalities is 0.1 percent of total journeys.
If today the total number of journeys is 30 million, and the number of fatalities is still 3000, then the percentage of fatalities drops to 0.01.
Hence my comment that the statistics for road safety are good. Despite the huge increase in traffic on the roads in the last 15 years, fatalities have stayed roughly the same. You're making a point for the opposing side. Had speed cameras etc. had no effect, the amount of fatalities would have increased in number in line with the increase in number of journeys taken.

But how can you say any of this is down to speed cameras? Car safety, general improvements in road layout, better tyres etc could all have contributed, no?

marty1888

ts_aly2000 wrote: »

What I want to know is the address of the DVLA department which gives out the certificates protecting BMW drivers from prosecution? We're seriously thinking about buying a BMW in the coming months and this is one of the things we're interested in.

I've never seen the exemption certificates advertised and the Police don't seem to know anything about them. The Officer just smiled at the desk when I asked him.

class!!!!

marty1888

conradmum wrote: »

The best, safest way to get past slower drivers on a single-carriageway road is to wait until it is safe to pass them without breaking the speed limit.

and how exactly do you do that if they are constantly driving AT the speed limit??

exel1966

oldbill1969 wrote: »

I fail to see the argument that speed cameras make roads less safe, if we are taking it that drivers slam on the brakes when they see a camera ( had they been recognizing the speed limit, they wouldnt have had to slam on when they see a camera.) This is not a reasonable case because we all know the speed limits and let us not forget that they are maximum speed limits and there is nowhere in law which says you have to drive to the maximum limit.

Regardless of whether breaking the limit or not a high percentage of drivers will still break when approaching a speed camera, sometimes very eratically causing problems for other drivers.

It doesn't say anywhere in law that you have to drive at the maximum, but it does say in law, there is a MINIMUM (on certain roads) and you should have due care and attention for other road users.

BritBrat

I have never been done for speeding in over 30 years.

But speed cameras are a joke, I would laugh it was not such a stupid system.

Say you are driving in a 30MPH limit past a school at 3PM when school is coming out I would drive at 20MPH. But if I was driving the same route at 3AM on a Sunday morning 40MPH would be safe.

All cameras are for is generating money and an easy catch for normally law abiding people.

AndieJagain

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

the one thing that's worse than people whinging when they get a ticket for speeding is the 'i've never exceeded the speed limit in my life and you speeders will kill somebody one day' brigade.

ah yes, that wouldn't just be the 'i've never exceeded the speed limit' brigade, but the 'ive never exceeded the speed limit because I drive 20mph below it, causing massive tailback irritated drivers who have deadlines to keep to, I'm constantly amazed at the people who try to overtake me when they've only being behind me at 40 in a 60 for 15 miles, hold on while I brake for the light bend ahead, think i'll take that at 25, even thought the 'slow' on the road only really means slow from 60 to 50' 'and why is it when i come down the motorway slip road at 35, I always have to stop & no one will let me out?' - it's a slip road, the idea is you get UP to speed and slip out into a gap in the traffic flow.

innapropriate speed is not always about going too fast, it is quite often about going to slow, those who drive like the above may not have the accidents, but they're around to see plenty of what they've caused or contributed to.

Hapless_2

BritBrat wrote: »

But speed cameras are a joke, I would laugh it was not such a stupid system.

Say you are driving in a 30MPH limit past a school at 3PM when school is coming out I would drive at 20MPH. But if I was driving the same route at 3AM on a Sunday morning 40MPH would be safe.

Many schools these days have a 20mph when the school crossing sign is flashing.
If you are driving the same route at 3am at 40mph, bear in mind that most schools are in built up residential areas and you are breaking the the law.

It amuses me that many drivers (many not all) will say "oh I never do anything illegal but....." then they go on to say how they drive by exceeding the speed limit!

AndieJagain

oldbill1969 wrote: »

I fail to see the argument that speed cameras make roads less safe, if we are taking it that drivers slam on the brakes when they see a camera ( had they been recognizing the speed limit, they wouldnt have had to slam on when they see a camera.) This is not a reasonable case because we all know the speed limits and let us not forget that they are maximum speed limits and there is nowhere in law which says you have to drive to the maximum limit.

not always the case, too many cameras do not have the speed limit displayed
anywhere near them. Your driving along a country b road that feels like it should be a 60, in & out of villages that are 30's & 40's rightyly so, but then you hit a camera on an open stretch 5 miles between civilisation, it's a 60, surely?, but is it?, why the camera then?, better slow it just in case it's a 50, 40 , or 30?.
I was on the m42 near birmingham this week, with the variable speed limit & cameras, as I approached on (10 yds from going under it) it dropped from 50 to 40, if I get a fine for that, bet your life I'm fighting the !!!!!!. if everyone locked on in response to that, there'd be carnage.

or these new average speed cmeras, make you so paranoid more time is spent watching the damn speedo than the road & other users actions