Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
I don't actually approve of speeding, but nevertheless I sometimes speed when in a hurry
25%
[ 50 ]
I don't approve of speeding and never consciously break the speed limit
12%
[ 24 ]
Total Votes : 197
Author
Message
Tim Buxton Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 14/09/2002 20:56:18 Posts: 5231 Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:48 am Post subject:
At those speeds I don't think it would matter too much either way. Let's just get the man with the red flag out again, that would sort it. _________________ Tim
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:01 am Post subject:
Ako wrote:
I tell you what. I'll play devils advocate. While I agree with some of the points I'd like to pose a question. I guess everyone has seen the advert showing the kid laying at the side of the road with bones broken and the film reverses to show him being put back together (so to speak) and saying "if you hit me at 30mph I've got an 80% chance of surviving". The question is this: Would anyone prefer to have a blowout (if it had to happen) and hit a motorway bridge column at 70mph or at 95mph. Just a question looking from the drivers safety point of view.
Dave
Quoted on another Member Forum - Do Speed Cameras Save Lives?
Quote:
According to the RAC Foundation Speeding Factfile, excessive speed is a contributory factor in over 1,000 deaths and over 38,000 injuries every year. If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian’s chances of dying rises to 90%. The Department of transport claim "Broadly each 1 mph reduction in average speed is expected to cut accident frequency by 5%".
Joined: Oct 11, 2005 Posts: 26 Location: Hinckley, Leicestershire
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:26 am Post subject:
I have read with interest all the comments so far posted on the speeding topic. I drive all over the country doing 35-40000 a year in a modern Vauxhall van with all mod cons. Driving is all down to concentration plus weather, traffic and road conditions. If all three conditions are good why not do what ever speed is comfortable to you and your vehicle.
I wouldn't do 80mph in a built up area in a blizzard on a rutted inner city road, then again I wouldn't do 20mph on a motorway in ideal conditions - common sense. _________________ TomTom Go premium
...snip...
The question is this: Would anyone prefer to have a blowout (if it had to happen) and hit a motorway bridge column at 70mph or at 95mph. Just a question looking from the drivers safety point of view.
Dave
Good point, We here lots of comments about cars being better, ABS, better tyers, and such. But at the end of it a human cannot withstand any more deceleration than we could 50+ years ago.
If you hit that bridge in an Hilman Imp at 70 or a new car at 70 chances are you won't be walking away. (Could you get an Imp to do 70?)
As for -1MPG=-5%AFR (accident frequency rate) this is a classic 'BS baffles brains'. The result of this is if you set A roads to 40mph there would be no accidents.
Again we're heading towards adaptive speedlimits, used properly with penalties. Maybe we should include minimum speeds so that you don't get fustrated following some 'sunday' driver.
But the thing is, simply doing the speed limit is not enough. Accidents are not caused by speeding, they are caused by errors of judgement (most of the time, mechnical failure is a very rare cause). The error may be driving too fast, but more often it's just not paying attention.
I've said it before in this forum, we need 'tw*t cameras' that can record idiots and ban them. Stick on where there are chevron on the road and nick those who overtake on them, crossing solid whitelines, failing to stop at stop signs, yello box cameras (Oh, they have those in London!) twonks who have scrapped a keyhole in te ice on their windscreen then drive. This list is endless. Get these off the road and it'll beat the pants of you AFR.
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject:
nej wrote:
Everone seems to think that speed limits by schools should be lowered, a very sensible thing. I drive past one in the morning that has a 20mph limit, and I find I'm probably doing less than that.
We have two schools nearby that have both recently had flashing speed limit signs fitted which are radar activated, they come on and flash the speed limit - they also have the capability to lower that speed limit and flash 20 instead at certain times during the day (I have seen this once in three months) I thought these were a great idea until they stopped bothering adjusting them - Mike
Joined: May 09, 2005 Posts: 283 Location: Reading, UK
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject:
The trouble about speeding 'when it is safe to do so' is that everybody has a different idea of what that means. Sensible people will allow for drunken drivers, drivers falling asleep at the wheel, drivers who've forgotten to put their lights on, especially at 2.30 am, while others assume that anything goes as long as they feel safe. Also I know that my BMW sports saloon has much better handling at speed than an off-roader or loosely-loaded white van.
I think that it is consideration and understanding of other drivers that is just as important as your 'safety feeling'.
To me, the most dangerous driving at speed that I see is tail-gating, and the wish to do that only really disappears as you get older, and realise that it is just stress-inducing. I happily drive at speed, but I don't need to sit on people's bumpers to do that.
The trouble is that, while the police are probably more likely to pull over a driver who is tailgaiting at 70 than a careful driver who is doing 85, safety cameras make no such distinction. I learnt to drive before national speed limits were introduced, and it was always considered polite to speed up to overtake, to minimise the inconvenience to other drivers who, for example, might be waiting to pull out behind you on a multi-lane highway. Now with ever-present cameras, overtaking can take much longer. _________________ Ian
iPaq 2210
Globalsat BT-338
Seidio G2500 Amplified Vent Mount
CoPilot 6, GPS Tuner 4.2, Navio 3.01
BMW 330ci Sport
Joined: Jun 16, 2004 Posts: 454 Location: London, Ingerlund
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject:
acmp wrote:
Ako wrote:
...snip...
The question is this: Would anyone prefer to have a blowout (if it had to happen) and hit a motorway bridge column at 70mph or at 95mph. Just a question looking from the drivers safety point of view.
Dave
Good point, We here lots of comments about cars being better, ABS, better tyers, and such. But at the end of it a human cannot withstand any more deceleration than we could 50+ years ago.
If you hit that bridge in an Hilman Imp at 70 or a new car at 70 chances are you won't be walking away. (Could you get an Imp to do 70?)
As for -1MPG=-5%AFR (accident frequency rate) this is a classic 'BS baffles brains'. The result of this is if you set A roads to 40mph there would be no accidents.
Again we're heading towards adaptive speedlimits, used properly with penalties. Maybe we should include minimum speeds so that you don't get fustrated following some 'sunday' driver.
But the thing is, simply doing the speed limit is not enough. Accidents are not caused by speeding, they are caused by errors of judgement (most of the time, mechnical failure is a very rare cause). The error may be driving too fast, but more often it's just not paying attention.
I've said it before in this forum, we need 'tw*t cameras' that can record idiots and ban them. Stick on where there are chevron on the road and nick those who overtake on them, crossing solid whitelines, failing to stop at stop signs, yello box cameras (Oh, they have those in London!) twonks who have scrapped a keyhole in te ice on their windscreen then drive. This list is endless. Get these off the road and it'll beat the pants of you AFR.
Rant over
I don't know, airbags, crumple zones, seatbelt pre-tensioners etc. They may make a small difference even in an impact at that speed.
Mind you, to paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson: It's not speed that kills people. It's when you stop speeding in the space of a meter.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The drunk driver point is totally correct. Me sober doing 45 in a 30 at 1am is doing nobody any harm. A drunk driver doing 30 is far more likely to crash into something.
That 'something' could be you doing 45mph. Just a thought.
Also the idea of raising speed limits on motorways is OK but it takes longer to stop. e.g. From Highway Code. (I realise with modern tyres, brakes and ABS, EBD etc the stopping distances are now shorter but the car behind may not be as modern as your own).
Columns are:- mph - thinking distance (feet) + stopping distance (feet) = total distance in feet (and in brackets yards).
Assume driver 'a' is sticking to 60mph and driver 'b' 80mph over an 80 mile jouney.
The best possible for driver 'b' is 1 hour, this would put driver 'a' 20 miles behind but at 60 mph he would arrive just 20 minutes later.
Half the journey to 40 miles and the difference is only 10 minutes.
This would be under ideal conditions from a mark on the motorway to a second mark 80, or 40 miles, further on, but in the real world you have to take into account getting to the motorway from home and from the motorway to your destination. Also don't forget the occasional hold up waiting to pass a vehicle travelling at the 70 mph limit overtaking in the outside lane. Probably only 5 or 10 minutes difference in the above scenarios.
Then there is fuel costs. There is a big difference between travelling at 60 and 80 or more. And don't forget wear and tear.
Joined: May 09, 2005 Posts: 283 Location: Reading, UK
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject:
nej wrote:
I don't know, airbags, crumple zones, seatbelt pre-tensioners etc. They may make a small difference even in an impact at that speed.
They can make a significant difference, although not all modern cars are that safe. You can see Smart cars speeding along while glued to your rear bumper, with absolute disregard to their vulnerability in a crash. I believe that cars like that should be speed-limited. It always scares me when I'm following an estate car that has rear-facing child seats in the back. Like Smart cars, run in the back of one of those and you could regret it.
I also find it hypocritical that mothers seem to lose all sense of reason when they're on the school run. Not only do they drive like nutters, they do it when they have children in the car, and when there are other children trying to cross the roads. They also tend to stop on the no-stopping areas of pedestrian crossings, so obscuring views of traffic and pedestrians. _________________ Ian
iPaq 2210
Globalsat BT-338
Seidio G2500 Amplified Vent Mount
CoPilot 6, GPS Tuner 4.2, Navio 3.01
BMW 330ci Sport
Joined: Apr 18, 2005 Posts: 176 Location: Swansea, UK Napoli, Italia
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject:
iankb wrote:
I also find it hypocritical that mothers seem to lose all sense of reason when they're on the school run. Not only do they drive like nutters, they do it when they have children in the car, and when there are other children trying to cross the roads. They also tend to stop on the no-stopping areas of pedestrian crossings, so obscuring views of traffic and pedestrians.
I have seen them do all that plus talking on a mobile phone!!!!!!!
Going back to the poll, at least there aren't any people that wholeheartedly approve of speeding!! _________________ -------------------------------------------------------
Nokia N95
McGuider V7
Latest Maps
(Internal GPS)
Joined: Jan 08, 2006 Posts: 10 Location: Norwich, UK
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:
The thing that I hate is when the mothers have there "Mothers Meeting" in the street, you end up diving past with your eyes locked at the kids playing by the road, praying that they dont shoot out in front of you.
Joined: Aug 15, 2005 Posts: 156 Location: Windsor, UK
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject:
Quote:
did I read somewhere that digital images (even digital video) are not fully allowable as evidence of speeding in court?
S'not true. Most of the Safety Camera Partnerships have a mix of wet film and digital. Most are gradually moving to digital.
In any event, most camera offences result in the acceptance by the driver of a fixed penalty and points. Few go to court.
An exception is those partnerships that offer Speed Awareness courses for minor violations - you pay for the course (about the same amount as a fine) but at least don't get any points. However, you're only allowed one course in a fixed period of time - offend again and it's back to fines and points.
You might be confusing this with another issue - that is, that many Court Prosecutors won't accept digital documents, only the originals. So in a contested speeding case, the NIP, Conditional Offer etc all have to be passed across as bits of real paper rather than printed digital files.
One day, the CPS might just advance with the rest of the world and join the 19th century. _________________ Garmin 2360LT
iPaq 2210 TTN5.2
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject:
astrocompass wrote:
Quote:
did I read somewhere that digital images (even digital video) are not fully allowable as evidence of speeding in court?
Quote:
S'not true. Most of the Safety Camera Partnerships have a mix of wet film and digital. Most are gradually moving to digital.
In any event, most camera offences result in the acceptance by the driver of a fixed penalty and points. Few go to court.
Thanks for that astocompass. Does anyone have the figures as to what percentage get as far as court? Has anybody here got as far as court? If so, what was your experience?
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
