Speeding? Manned equipment.

AdrianC

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

It is correct, no possibly about it.

I'd strongly suspect that reaction times of those who've been brought up in the video game generation are naturally faster than those who were brought up in the 1910s were at the same age.

But - as I said - it's not the relevant distance anyway.

The total stopping distance for a modern car doing 30mph will be SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than one made in the 1920s or very early 30s, which would have had cable-operated brakes, probably only on two wheels, and beaded-edge tyres about 3" wide.

And that, of course, doesn't even consider all those 30 limits which aren't in areas with much or any pedestrian traffic - and may well be lower risk than many NSL roads.

Captain_Flack.

AdrianC wrote: »

I'd strongly suspect that reaction times of those who've been brought up in the video game generation are naturally faster than those who were brought up in the 1910s were at the same age.

But - as I said - it's not the relevant distance anyway.

The total stopping distance for a modern car doing 30mph will be SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than one made in the 1920s or very early 30s, which would have had cable-operated brakes, probably only on two wheels, and beaded-edge tyres about 3" wide.

And that, of course, doesn't even consider all those 30 limits which aren't in areas with much or any pedestrian traffic - and may well be lower risk than many NSL roads.

But thinking distance hasn't changed. It's still deemed to be 30 feet at 30 mph.

Froggitt

Scrootum wrote: »

So you cannot judge your speed without looking at the speedo?

Obviously not.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

I have been perfectly capable for the past thirty years

AdrianC

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

But thinking distance hasn't changed. It's still deemed to be 30 feet at 30 mph.

Thank you for ignoring the relevant and important bit of the post, in order to focus on a side issue.

Captain_Flack.

AdrianC wrote: »

Thank you for ignoring the relevant and important bit of the post, in order to focus on a side issue.

You post nothing of importance.

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

I'd strongly suspect that reaction times of those who've been brought up in the video game generation are naturally faster than those who were brought up in the 1910s were at the same age.

But - as I said - it's not the relevant distance anyway.

The total stopping distance for a modern car doing 30mph will be SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than one made in the 1920s or very early 30s, which would have had cable-operated brakes, probably only on two wheels, and beaded-edge tyres about 3" wide.

And that, of course, doesn't even consider all those 30 limits which aren't in areas with much or any pedestrian traffic - and may well be lower risk than many NSL roads.

The 70mph limit on motorways wasn't set 80 years ago. 20mph limits in some residential areas weren't set 80 years ago. And 80 years ago there was a fraction of todays traffic on the roads. Cars may be safer, but there are far more hazards on a typical journey now than there were back then.


Pedestrians still die when hit by speeding vehicles.


Speed limits are decided using various criteria, including pedestrians, junctions, and other hazards. Just because some people think that it is safe to speed, doesn't mean that it is, and is no excuse.

Jamie_Carter

Froggitt wrote: »

Obviously not.

I have been perfectly capable for the past thirty years

Or maybe you have just been lucky up to now.

AdrianC

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The 70mph limit on motorways wasn't set 80 years ago. 20mph limits in some residential areas weren't set 80 years ago.

Congratulations. You did read my post.

Speed limits are decided using various criteria, including pedestrians, junctions, and other hazards.

Some are. Some are decided by political knee-jerk. Some are decided by default.

Just because some people think that it is safe to speed, doesn't mean that it is, and is no excuse.

Nor is a speed below the limit inherently safe.
Nor is a speed in excess of the limit inherently unsafe.

"Speeding" - exceeding the speed limit - is, in and of itself, a purely administrative offence. It completely ignores inappropriately high speeds which are within the limit. If a speed is unsafe for the conditions, then "speeding" isn't even the most appropriate offence. Careless driving or dangerous driving are more appropriate.

Captain_Flack.

AdrianC wrote: »

Congratulations. You did read my post.



Some are. Some are decided by political knee-jerk. Some are decided by default.



Nor is a speed below the limit inherently safe.
Nor is a speed in excess of the limit inherently unsafe.

"Speeding" - exceeding the speed limit - is, in and of itself, a purely administrative offence. It completely ignores inappropriately high speeds which are within the limit. If a speed is unsafe for the conditions, then "speeding" isn't even the most appropriate offence. Careless driving or dangerous driving are more appropriate.

A speeding offence is not appropriate as no offence of exceeding the speed limit occurs. Unless you think you can be charged for inappropriate speed, with you understanding of the rta I do wonder.

Froggitt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Or maybe you have just been lucky up to now.

If Im that lucky (say 15,000 miles a year for 30 years), then Im going down WIlly Hill this afters, putting on a treble of Villa to win the Premiership, Joey Essex for next Countdown presenter, and Stephen Hawking to win the next series of X-Factor.