Scamera poll

Rhys wrote: I'm going to make a few observations regarding speeding on our motorways. 1. you are more likely to speed if everyone else is also braking the limit (as said before most people drive at or around 80mph)

If you don't concentrate on what you are doing & just go with the flow. Dangerous in itself in my view.

2. If you are driving on an empty motorway you are likely to brake the limit as you are less aware of the speed you are going with relation to others (or the lack of others) around you. Modern cars are stable at high speeds, I noticed a big difference between an '85 E30 316 which vibrated at 70mph and an '88 E30 320i which would cruise all day long at upto 80mph - my current '95 E36 318ti would probably cruise all day long at 90mph.

All cars have an optimum comfort speed that will vary on gearing etc.
I won't deny that keeping to limits requires concentration, but good driving demands concentration to the task at hand.

2. Speed cameras can cause people to brake even if they aren't going over the limit (can cause braking first then checking of speed) This can cause a knock on effect of making others brake behind them. Is this safe?

Again they'll brake unnecessarily if they aren't concentrating adequately & aren't aware of the actual speed they are doing. Periodic checks of the speedo are a very simple requirement & basic skill. One we all managed to do for our DSA test & we should all strive to improve as time passes with experience gained, not regress.

If you are a habitual speeder, try driving something slow.. After driving a Vitara, which is comfortable at 70 but wouldn't want to go much faster - you become more aware of others driving above the limit - and because you can't then you end up settling down and letting others get on with it (and having the odd laugh at others when they get caught)

I drive a variety of vehicles & of varying performance levels.
Concentration is a key element for successfully keeping within limits, as it is with a lot of other aspects.

livvy wrote: Perhaps it's because we do what we do that they are the safest. About 3,200 killed (mostly preventable deaths) & tens of thousands with life threatening or changing injuries is still too many.

Here's a thought for you, and before I get a barrage of abuse not one to be taken too seriously.

One of the biggest problems facing mankind is the increasing population. Even if you ignore the consequenses of global warming, in a few decades, maybe centuries time it is likely that in many countries starvation will take hold as the world struggles to grow enough food to support us. This won't just be the obvious ones like Africa, it will eventually reach our little island as well.

Now facing this propsect mankind spends a lot of time and effort trying to keep individual alive as long as possible. Any activity that is vaguely dangerous is banned or ledgislated out of exisitence, diseases are cured, people are kept alive for years on ventillators and with 24hr care etc etc.

It's a bit off the wall I know but it occured to me as I was thinking about the whole issue.

Also I find the whole issue kind of ironic. Driving fast is bad for the environment, since fast = less mpg/more emmisions. Also driving fast is apparently more dangerous so more likely to kill you and others, or so where told. So if we slow down, or even take to our bicycles, we will be saving the environment and helping the population to grow......Which ironically will be helping us further on our way to dying of starvation as the population explodes.

Also if the population drops then so will carbon emmissions and hence the problem of global warming will be aleviated (spelling?)

Therefore surely the solution to the worlds problems is to allow more of us to die on the roads and in out hospitals. let us drink, smoke, drive like madmen and eat junk food until our hearts content. When the health service fails under the weight of fat cancer ridden slobs then so what! the population will go down, carbon emmisions will be reduced and mankind will stand a much greater chance of survival in the long term.

Now how's that for outside of the box thinking!!

 

Didn't work for me spokey.

I have never advocated that speed in itself is dangerous & I'm not about to start now.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: If you don't concentrate on what you are doing & just go with the flow. Dangerous in itself in my view.

Going with the flow still requires concentration - keeping a safe distance between yourself and other drivers around you.

All cars have an optimum comfort speed that will vary on gearing etc. I won't deny that keeping to limits requires concentration, but good driving demands concentration to the task at hand.

This in my opinion is regulated by the surrounding conditions - traveling at 70mph on an open three lane motorway at night requires the same amount of concentration as driving at 80mph on the same. What you say could also be an argument for the removal of cruise control in cars - one less thing to concentrate on - which in turn is an argumant against speed limiters. Having your foot planted to the floor knowing that some box of gps trickery is preventing you from braking the limit also removes the need to concentrate on how fast you are going.

I drive a variety of vehicles & of varying performance levels. Concentration is a key element for successfully keeping within limits, as it is with a lot of other aspects.

I don't deny this, but people also rely on a collective concentration. watching other drivers to see if they are braking will cause an expectant reaction in yourself.

"But speed itself isn't the problem."

I can kill you just as dead in a 70 zone if I'm doing 40 as I could if
I'm doing 140. So instead of teaching people how to drive appropriately
to the conditions, we stick another artificial constraint on their
driving to keep them "safe". Then, when that doesn't work, we'll impose
a mechanical restriction on the cars so that they don't have to think
about it.

Much better.

Speed kills.



Er, what do we do when we discover that the limiters don't work?


once is enough thanks.

Edited by Rhys

spokey wrote: "But speed itself isn't the problem." I can kill you just as dead in a 70 zone if I'm doing 40 as I could if I'm doing 140. So instead of teaching people how to drive appropriately to the conditions, we stick another artificial constraint on their driving to keep them "safe". Then, when that doesn't work, we'll impose a mechanical restriction on the cars so that they don't have to think about it. Much better. Speed kills. Er, what do we do when we discover that the limiters don't work? once is enough thanks.

Nigel can't even get you to take up the further training you are saying that people need to do, so what hope is there elsewhere ?

People don't take up the training to equip themselves & it's an impossible task to retrospectively get everyone to do it for the government, so they limit the speed & damage they can do instead as it's easier.

Doing 40 in a 70 zone dramatically reduces the chance of the collision occuring in the first place than if you were doing 140. Some crashes at 40 will be surviveable dependent on what you hit & how you hit it. At 140 it is extremely unlikely to be surviveable for you or anything you hit.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: Nigel can't even get you to take up the further training you are saying that people need to do, so what hope is there elsewhere ?

I used to be dead keen on the idea of doing IAM training, but after dealing with a couple of IAM members, I'm not sure I could stand it.

livvy wrote: Doing 40 in a 70 zone dramatically reduces the chance of the collision occuring in the first place than if you were doing 140. Some crashes at 40 will be surviveable dependent on what you hit & how you hit it. At 140 it is extremely unlikely to be surviveable for you or anything you hit.

OK, then, I could kill you just as dead doing 60 in a 70 zone as I could doing 70 in a 70 zone. Or I could kill you just as dead doing 70 in a 70 zone as I could doing 80 in a 70 zone. If I'm doing 70 MPH, I'm legal, if I do 71 MPH, I'm an irresponsible killer.

livvy wrote: I have never advocated that speed in itself is dangerous & I'm not about to start now.

I think saying "doing 40 in a 70 zone dramatically reduces the chance of the collision occuring in the first place than if you were doing 140" sounds a lot like "speed in itself is dangerous". So does "some crashes are survivable at 40 MPH".

And the government seems to agree with that. That's why we have scameras to enforce the limits, blindly.

If they put as much effort into addressing hospital-acquired infections as they do into controlling speed, they'd save a lot more lives. But that isn't gloriously revenue generating and would not have the delightful fascist side effect of turning us all into cowed little sheep.

Just remember, folks: speed kills.

It certainly seems that nothing else does.

spokey wrote:   If I'm doing 70 MPH, I'm legal, if I do 71 MPH, I'm an irresponsible killer.

Your words not mine.

I would say instead 70 is legal , 71 is illegal. The speed itself confers nothing about the relative safety without referrence to the conditions in which it is performed.

spokey wrote: I think saying "doing 40 in a 70 zone dramatically reduces the chance of the collision occuring in the first place than if you were doing 140" sounds a lot like "speed in itself is dangerous". So does "some crashes are survivable at 40 MPH". And the government seems to agree with that. That's why we have scameras to enforce the limits, blindly. If they put as much effort into addressing hospital-acquired infections as they do into controlling speed, they'd save a lot more lives. But that isn't gloriously revenue generating and would not have the delightful fascist side effect of turning us all into cowed little sheep. Just remember, folks: speed kills. It certainly seems that nothing else does.

I'm talking about 40 & 140 in the same conditions. In the same conditions 40 is inherently safer than 140, irrespective of what the limit is. If 140 was safe, 40 could be regarded as safer simply because it offers a greater margin for error & more time to correct errors.

All drivers should be able to assess a safe speed for the circumstances on a road upto the indicated speed limit. That should be within the skill level & competency of all drivers. Speed limits are set on that basis.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: The speed itself confers nothing about the relative safety without referrence to the conditions in which it is performed.

A difference of 1 MPH is no difference at all, relative to any conditions whatsoever.

But arbitrarily, that 1MPH turns me from a "safe, responsible" driver into a selfish, criminal mastermind, singlehandedly trying to cull the aged and murder children.

Yes Spokey, 1mph makes little difference but there have got to be limits, don't you agree?  And if there are limits then they have to enforced or don't you agree?  Put simply, you either have everyone driving at whatever speed they feel is okay, so granny at 35mph in lane 2 of the motorway, trucks doing 70+ cos they can, me doing 140 cos I can, that has got to be a recipe for disaster, agreed?  So we have limits, they are easy to follow and it reduces (if only slightly) the number of hazards.

Falling 100ft or 10,000ft, makes little difference, the last 1 foot does the damage, but fall from 10 foot and the damge is going to be less.

I think we need better driving awarness, higher standards and we all need to do something about it.  There is no case for increasing limits or reducing enforcmentr until the driving public learn to drive properly!
That means indicating, using mirrors, not pulling out in front of people, using lane 1 on the motorway.

I drive most days, sometimes in a car, somtimes abike and sometimes in a fire appliance, every single day I see more people do stupid things than do good things!  So I don't want those people going any faster!