JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A SPEED CAMERA ON 50MPH ROAD

[NotYoMomma]

Does NOT mean you should drop your speed to 35MPH!!!!

Ianbu!

HATE this, seriously why do 50, traffic moving nicely and then bang on the break just as you go past?!

Note I didn't nearly crash but we had to slow right down and of course it was muggins here who got stuck at the next set.of traffic lights of doom

GRrrr twitch

people seem to have different perceptions Ilovemyself. Which is why I think country road speed limits should be officially lowered. No way could I have braked safely around any of those bends from 60mph last weekend in a heavy van if there had been a horse or tractor because there wee many. And many hidden dips. Yet arseholes were up my behind beeping away because I was driving safely. And they thought it was too slow. A fair few times some knob went to overtake and realised at the last second that a van gives me a greater sight line because of the height and I could see things they couldnt but their impatience and rage to beat me to the next set of lights had destroyed their reason.

"If I can see far enough ahead to stop at the speed I am doing - be it 30mph or 130mph - then it is not unsafe."

It's not just about visibility or do the laws of physics (stopping distances) not apply to you?

I was wondering that. And knowing the precise stopping distance of your vehicle on every road surface is quite impressive too. Plus being able to judge it by eye.

Are we going to have more traffic police officers on roads rather than just relying on cameras then?

That would be quite good but I can't see it happening.

Er. If you don't know how your vehicle performs then you shouldn't be driving. Of course the laws of physics apply. But it is those laws that govern the stopping distance.

I know how far my car or bike take to stop and therefore I travel at a speed I know I can stop in. Part of that calculation is allowing a % for error.

And infamous. The driver travelling in your boot was obviously an idiot if he couldn't stop safely in the distance he can see.

We should enforce dangerous driving more and forget about speed

You know the stopping distance of your vehicle on every single surface in every difference condition?! Wow, incredible!

On an unfamiliar road in icy conditions If I cannot predict stopping distance safely, of course speed matters.

Crash doll. You are now being daft. As has been said IF CONDITIONS ALLOW. No one in their right mind would travel as fast on an icy road that they don't know.

But on a dry day with good visibility. Then you can travel much closer to the vehicles limits.

if you ride a motorcycle you learn the capabilities of your machine and you ride accordingly or you fall off. Perhaps if all tin box drivers had to do,time on a bike they would understand driving a little better!

You're wasting your time, ILM. Some people have wilfully chosen to interpret those of us who have stated we will drive to - possibly even slightly over - the speed limit when the conditions are safe to do so as having actually said we drive to/over the speed limit all the time, everywhere, rain hail or shine. And so have mentally pegged us as proto-Clarksons squashing kittens under our wheels as we blast past primary schools doing 80, regardless of the repeated assertions to the contrary.

I drive the same stretch of road which goes 30 - NSL - 30 a minimum of eight times a week. The NSL stretch is not narrow, not windy - there are a couple of bends which are shallow and sweeping. There is one side road which has good visibility from both directions. There is a separate shared cycle lane/pavement. The main condition which alters driving on this stretch of road is the weather. On dry days with no mist or lingering frost there is no reason NOT to drive at 60, but I can guarantee that on between a third and half of my weekly journeys in such conditions I will end up behind someone doing 40. Who then continues to do 40 when we reach the 30 stretch. That is not "safe" driving or "driving to the conditions". It is at best over-caution and at worst lack of observation. Neither of those things add up to "good driving".

Orange I was not talking about the speeding limit, I was querying if anyone really could know the stopping distance of their vehicle on every road in every condition. Then, I got told I do not know my own vehicle's capabilities. Don't act the martyr when we're on the same page anyway. I drive at the speed limit 99.9% when it is safe to do so. I do not exceed the speed limit very frequently as given the routes I drive, there is often no need.

Crashdoll. I didn't say you didn't know your cars capabilities.

But yes, an exxperienced driver would know the capabilities of their vehicle and would drive below that or the limit of their capabilities. It's simple. YOU misinterpreted my comment as I could travel as fast as I want in any condition. I did not say that and never had. But I know where at 150mph I would not pose a risk to other road users as I have enough forward visibility and there are no junctions, but I also know roads where I would not travel at more than 15 mph even though the limit is 30.

I am lucky in that I have the opertunity to travel at very high speeds on private roads or race tracks. Therefore I have a good understanding of how the vehicles I drive react at speed and the braking distances from very high speed.

That on its own though would not make me a better driver than anyone else. What makes a good driver is their ability to read the road and and drive according.

I am sure that there are better drivers than me, but I drive with consideration to other road users and according to the conditions.

As has been said by me and others before. Speed doesn't kill, but inappropriate speed does.

@NotYoMama - if you were driving 48/50 on a dual carriageway in perfect conditions, then I'm afraid you might have driving badly. The national speed limit on a dual carriageway, unless otherwise indicated, is 70. Amazes me how few people seem to know this. Including one former BBC transport correspondent of my acquaintance!

And that includes dual carriageways with any number of lanes. So NSL on a single lane dual carriageway is also 70

People who drive at 40mph everywhere should be shot.

And it's a target, not a limit, where conditions allow.

Now I know who all the maddening slowpokes are who trundle around my area.

Probably giving a BIG hint as to where I live/outing myself, but here we have a 4 lane dual carriageway (I.e 8 lanes) 'A' road that is a motorway in all but name & then changes to 2 lanes as a motorway, go figure which is used (or used to be before the test centre moved) for driving lessons & tests. I feel it really helped me being a knowledgeable & confident motorway driver afterwards.

And my excellent driving instructor taught me to aim to get to the limit if conditions allow so I "don't annoy other drivers" both during lessons & as a new driver. Having only ever been in one accident, where it was the other driver's fault (he was speeding in slight rain & with poor visibility around a bend/parked cars etc), I figure I've pretty well on that advice & experience.

I also hate tailgaters. IME they're men who drive massive penis substitute BMWs or similar & resent a woman doing 80-85mph on the motorway, overtaking cars on inside lanes, in smaller cars. They have a sense of entitlement, think their time is more important & everyone should be getting out of their way, regardless of whether everyone is making good progress or driving reasonably.

Chunkychicken. I was with you all the way, including about tailgaters but to say they are all men is bull. In this day and age that sort of aggressive and road ragey driving is shown by both sexes.

IME Ilovemyself it has been men trying to intimidate the smaller car into moving over. I didn't say they ALL were. There was mad blonde woman driving like a lunatic and ended up having to go all the way around the roundabout because she was trying to cut everyone up and going in the wrong lane BUT she wasn't driving up MY arse. If I can't talk about my experiences, what can I talk about?!!

Fair enough CC

I guess this will enrage a few people but wouldn't it be better to educate drivers rather than lower speed limited that bad drivers will ignore anyway !

is it stil the case that fuel consumption is optimum at 55-60 mph?

Infamouspoo. What had that got to do with safety - unless you run out of fuel on the motorway lol

It's relevant to the debate about speed because if we raised the speed limits on motorways as some of the Clarksonwannabes suggest, the UK will fail its emissions targets.

As well as costing us all more in NHS costs, legal costs, insurance costs etc. Each fatality on the road costs the country an average of £1m and the balance of research shows that where speeds are higher, fatalities increase. There's just no getting round that. Higher speeds come with a price and surprisingly, lots of people seem willing to pay it. Personally I think it's a waste of money, but lots of people disagree.

When Montana moved from no daytime limits to an enforced daytime limit fatalities went up by 111%. Similary the Germans seem to manage to travel at 150mph+ without killing all the children and fluffy bunnies in a 10 mile radius. As for emissions - who gives a fuck!?

BasilBabyEater
It's relevant to the debate about speed because if we raised the speed limits on motorways as some of the Clarksonwannabes suggest, the UK will fail its emissions targets.

That's not a debate about speed. That's saying "Because of this irrelevant thing, speed limits should not be raised." You're not debating the safety of speed, you're trying to use emissions laws to block a rise in the speed limit.

As well as costing us all more in NHS costs, legal costs, insurance costs etc. Each fatality on the road costs the country an average of £1m and the balance of research shows that where speeds are higher, fatalities increase.

Where on earth does that figure come from? And the 'balance of research'? I somehow doubt there's any balance to it at all.

Fatalities are more likely at higher speeds because of physics. However, the safest roads in the UK remain those ones which have the highest average speed - the motorways.

There's just no getting round that. Higher speeds come with a price and surprisingly, lots of people seem willing to pay it. Personally I think it's a waste of money, but lots of people disagree.

Because we recognise the value of reaching our destination in the same season we set out. It depends what you do for a living and where you live.

Hey everyone. I have an idea. Lets just ban the internal combustion engine, go back to the horse and cart, and keep the green lobby and those scared of more than walking pace will be happy!

And yes, a crash at higher speed will be likely to cause more injury, but if I took my bike to its 150 mph max on a piece of road with good surface, good visibility, and good weather conditions, with no junctions onto the road I will be safer than the person driving past a school at kicking out time on their phone at 40mph. That person would more likely be the one costing the NHS money.

Lets find the research that shows the speeds at which fatalities occur. I bet it is in the 30-40 mph range.

Speed does not kill in itself. Inappropriate speed is a different matter.

Basil

the balance of research shows that where speeds are higher, fatalities increase

I don't think that's quite true. Stats actually show that the hightest proportion of all fatalities (involving motorised road vehicles) occur in 30mph zones.

I know this as I have attended a speed awareness course very recently and the stats were presented by the Police.