Speeding? Manned equipment.

jase1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And 1000's more people killed on the roads.

Imagine if County Durham had the worst road fatality statistics in the country.

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

That logic only works if these generic speed limits are set at a level that's guaranteed to be appropriate for all - or even the vast majority - of conditions. Are you suggesting that's the case...?

Let's not forget that the default urban 30 was set in 1934, the default 70 motorway in 1965 in response to a series of big collisions in heavy fog, and the lower default for single carriageways was brought in through the early '70s energy crisis...



Be nice, wouldn't it?

That's why drivers are expected to use a certain amount of common sense when driving. If they can't then they shouldn't be driving.

AdrianC

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

That's why drivers are expected to use a certain amount of common sense when driving. If they can't then they shouldn't be driving.

So, basically, drivers have to be free and presumed competent to decide a safe and appropriate speed for the conditions - but only so long as it's below a semi-random number agreed up to 80 years ago?

Jamie_Carter

Froggitt wrote: »

Unfortunately not.


If they thought there was a hidden speed camera van at every turn, human nature is such that the vans is what the would be concentrating on looking for, leading to many more deaths on the roads.

If you stick to the speed limits, then you wouldn't need to.


When driving you should be aware of your surroundings. That way you would be aware of pedestrians, road signs, vehicles that may pull out on you, as well as speed camera vans. If you aren't capable of doing this then you aren't a very skilled driver.

Jamie_Carter

Froggitt wrote: »

Obviously not.


So now, as well as looking out for nuns/kittens/kids, you want me to look at my speedo how often......every 5 seconds/10 seconds......


I drive at a safe speed for the road and the conditions. I have never had an accident, insurance claim, or a speeding ticket (until now) in thirty years.


My driving record is a direct result of how I drive. I would rather carry on my current driving "technique" than reduce my effectiveness as a driver by looking out for speed vans and speedos.

A skilled driver should be able to judge their speed.

spacey2012

The distance travelled before braking has and never will change (mk1 human limitations)
If you travel at 40 mph in a 30 and a pedestrian or child makes a mistake, at the point you would have stopped if you were travelling 30 mph, you are still travelling at 30 mph.

The limits were not set for drivers, they were set for all road users including pedestrians.

AdrianC

spacey2012 wrote: »

The distance travelled before braking has and never will change (mk1 human limitations)

Possibly correct, but not the relevant distance. The only relevant distance is the total distance you can stop in. And you should _ALWAYS_ drive at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear. So long as roadside hazards are taken into account, that isn't incompatible with some other cretin doing something unforeseeable and stupid.

If this oblivious pedestrian steps into the road when your car is ten foot away from them, is it your fault for driving too fast?

Jamie_Carter

spacey2012 wrote: »

The distance travelled before braking has and never will change (mk1 human limitations)
If you travel at 40 mph in a 30 and a pedestrian or child makes a mistake, at the point you would have stopped if you were travelling 30 mph, you are still travelling at 30 mph.

The limits were not set for drivers, they were set for all road users including pedestrians.

Very true. Although those who are aware of their surrounding will be able to anticipate possible hazards, and be prepared for them. Thus shortening reaction times.


I remember a few years ago Clarkson tested Schumacher's reaction times, and concluded that they were no faster than anyone else. He was just able to anticipate what was going to happen.

Captain_Flack.

AdrianC wrote: »

Possibly correct, but not the relevant distance. The only relevant distance is the total distance you can stop in. And you should _ALWAYS_ drive at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear. So long as roadside hazards are taken into account, that isn't incompatible with some other cretin doing something unforeseeable and stupid.

If this oblivious pedestrian steps into the road when your car is ten foot away from them, is it your fault for driving too fast?

It is correct, no possibly about it.

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

Possibly correct, but not the relevant distance. The only relevant distance is the total distance you can stop in. And you should _ALWAYS_ drive at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear. So long as roadside hazards are taken into account, that isn't incompatible with some other cretin doing something unforeseeable and stupid.

If this oblivious pedestrian steps into the road when your car is ten foot away from them, is it your fault for driving too fast?

If you had seen the pedestrian approaching the kerb, then you would be able to anticipate their actions, and be ready to react, therefore shortening your thinking time.


When training to drive on blue lights, the first thing you are trained in is defensive driving.