Third speeding ticket in six months!!

[wim121]

Except that if the driver of the 200mph Veyron described has to stop for a child stepping into the road, or some other unexpected hazard, he will travel 60m while thinking about stopping, and another 750m before he can actually stop. Simple fact, the faster you are going the less reaction time you have

Very true. That is where you take in to account the road and its hazards. You anticipate others foolishness.

If you're travelling on a suitable road, 200mph can be safe. Motorways for instance, what causes the pile ups are people getting far too close. A highlight of this is the "keep apart two chevrons" signs. It's a massive distance, yet at 100mph+, that is the distance one should maintain so they have enough thinking and stopping time. Pile ups happen, but they shouldnt, as you should be able to see half a mile up the road the traffic is bunching and ease off the accelerator slightly.

When I first started driving in my own, I didnt fully anticipate how stupid other road users could be. For example, nothing prepares you until you get a couple of years experience of the twunts just stopping in the middle of the road, or changing lanes with no indication or mirror checks.

your exact point is vague - of course there almost never a single cause to a collision, but inappropriate speed - the topic of the thread - is certainly an aggrevating factor in some and a cause of others.

I wouldnt ever say it is a clear single cause. Speed doesnt cause people to get run over, the idiots misjudging the situation do that on their own.

I am not advocating 100mph in current 30mph zones just to be clear. Pedestrians are one of the most idiotic road users out there and one must anticipate someone running in to the road when you're mere feet away.

Yeah but no but. The NRA says that guns don't kill people, people do. This is true, sort of. And sort of not.

That is true.

Take away guns and a lunatic can use a knife. Ban them and they use razors, etc. All the proof for this is in prisons. The amount of weapons produced out of ordinary items shows the danger is the nut. They found items like plastic toothbrushes melted in to razor blades and kiddy fiddlers hacked against major blood vessels with them causing quick deaths.

A nutter wanting to kill you will do so, regardless of what weapon bans you impose. I even proved to a UK person posting on a US forum a while back that gun crime in the UK would surprise most and is overlooked quite well. Between certain periods (in the past couple of decades, a period of over five years compared), there has been more school gun crime shootings in UK schools than the US once we take in to account the size of the US. The same goes for tornadoes, we have more per square mile than the US. My point here though is that prohibition does not work, which was proved in the UK and US prohibition in centuries past with alcohol.

So long as idiots are allowed to drive, don't we have to try to limit the damage they can do?

EDIT. e.g. if speed limits were removed, the idiots would just drive faster, the rest of us would hopefully apply some common sense.

well this is the point isn't it, everyone has to succumb to the regime, because the regime has no other way of controlling the idiots. But instead of making a decent regime, they plump for the one that makes most money off the non-idiots and idiots alike

A lot of what wim says makes sense, the limits are there to make the roads safer because of the very bad driver. Which makes life tough for the good driver, because their judgement is removed from the equation.

Of course, there is no way in the world you can convince a bad driver that they are a bad driver, and its tough to spot them up front, it's a tricky one, to be sure

I agree that we do need speed control at least in urban areas, as some are idiots. However there are some roads that as discussed, where judgement to what speed and distance to use is limited because there are too many muppets about, case in point, motorways.

I would however like to see more effort put towards preventing accidents by changing peoples behaviour and recognising issues. For instance, some roads are in terrible condition or very confusing and dangerous, so with all the road tax we pay, change that and it will pay for itself over time.

Educate other road users. I am in favour of seeing re-testing every 15 years or so. People give young drivers a hard time, but they are educated and better drivers than older drivers. Older drivers who havent taken their test in decades, simply arent fit to drive.

For example; back when I first started preparing to take lessons, the old paper tests were still in effect. This changed to computer tests when I took my theory (read the highway code back to front but hadnt been driving long). However due to a move and family illnesses, my driving practise was limited and upon my return, my theory had expired. So upon re-taking my theory, it was more difficult than the computer question test as it then had hazard perception tests and was far more difficult than what most people passed their theory on, the simple paper test. In the following years, speaking to other young drivers, they continue to make the theory far more difficult.

The practical gets more rigid as well and this is where re-testing would be great. It would get people who have picked up dangerous habits to address them as they would fail their re-test. Nearly all of us pick up minor or serious bad habits, but some people pick up very dangerous ones and are a liability. It would also stop people who are medically unfit from driving as well. Instead of making people pay to renew their license picture, get them to a test centre.

As for further methods, driving courses instead of points are good ideas and should be rolled out further. Drivers involved in accidents should be referred to them. Some of them such as driving awareness courses teach you about potential hazards, what the road is telling you, etc, which is just a refresher from learning to drive. It could be encouraged to all with the same carrot and stick method like pass plus, which I took after passing, which takes you out on the motorway and teaches you a little extra and in return, lower insurance premiums.

[wim121]

Christ you are stupid.

Please elaborate?

You do seem a bit angry / grumpy lately. Is something disturbing your sense of inner calm?

Hahaha no nothing at all. I dont mean to come across as if Im ranting, Im saying all of it calmly and with love, no caps lock use here

[escapeUK]

Hahaha no nothing at all. I dont mean to come across as if Im ranting, Im saying all of it calmly and with love, no caps lock use here

Its ok, you can tell Uncle Escape what's wrong. <Strokes hair>

[Old Greg]

Please elaborate?

To what end?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Wim I have read your contribution, but it is a fail in two important areas.
You can't even spell licence.
Retesting cannot work - do the maths.

[wim121]

Wim I have read your contribution, but it is a fail in two important areas.
You can't even spell licence.

Ooooops got me there. Goodness knows why I did that.

Retesting cannot work - do the maths.

I have, have you?

Of course the testing facilities will need to expand, that is a given. However it will create more jobs and better safety for all.

There are 36,535,724 UK drivers (adding together the london and rest of UK driver total in a freedom of information request from the DVLA). Now some years may have a higher pass rate than others, but that figure equates to 3,653,572 drivers renewing each year. The amount of people currently taking their test each year is 1,789,882 (house of commons link).

So to simplify, nearly two million take a test each year and nearly four million renew. So from this we know that the test centres would need three examiners instead of one for example. Not such a stretch at all. The bbc estimates there are nearly 2,000 examiners in the UK, so we would need 6,000 instead. There are an estimated 24,000 instructors (can't find a reliable citation but that figure is off a driving school website) in the UK, so even after employing 4,000 instructors as examiners, (examiners are usually previous instructors taking an extra course that lasts under a week) there are still 20,000 instructors about, enough to cope with the influx of business while the next generation of instructors are trained.

I would say judging by the figures, we have enough staff and facilities to cope with the demand straight away. I dont relish an extra £20 or so on top of my licence renewal either, but if it means that all those unfit will be removed from the roads, that would be excellent.







Sources:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...0stats%201.pdf

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 04 Jun 2007 (pt 0026)

BBC News - Who would be a driving examiner?

[d000hg]

...

What tosh. Speed is what causes nearly all accidents - other than driving into things while looking the other way or swerving into another lane which already has a car in it.

Going too fast for the specific circumstances at a given moment leads to an accident... too fast to slow down in rain/ice, too fast to give time to react when something happens in front of you, too fast for your tyres to hold on as you turn a bend. Those values of "too fast" might all be lower than the speed limit but it's still the speed being too high for the vehicle/driver which causes them.

[wim121]

What tosh. Speed is what causes nearly all accidents - other than driving into things while looking the other way or swerving into another lane which already has a car in it.

Going too fast for the specific circumstances at a given moment leads to an accident... too fast to slow down in rain/ice, too fast to give time to react when something happens in front of you, too fast for your tyres to hold on as you turn a bend. Those values of "too fast" might all be lower than the speed limit but it's still the speed being too high for the vehicle/driver which causes them.

I might say what tosh at your post.

Explain to me then: Why can a normal considered driver, drive on a regional road at 50mph and be perfectly safe, yet another driver, driving at the same speed skid off the road and crash.

Both are going the same speed, so it has nothing to do with that.

The issues you mentioned but glossed over. I highlighted them in bold for you though. The problem is people dont know how to take a corner safely at speed, how to drive in adverse conditions, they dont keep enough distance, etc etc. In your example, it isnt that someone is going too fast to react to a changing situation, but that they don anticipate that situation. I can tell on the motorway for instance half a mile off when traffic is bunching up well before anyone touches their brake pedal.


Let me try to illustrate this to you in another way. When there was bad snow and ice, I saw plenty of accidents happening on a chaotic morning. People smashed in to other cars, in to the back of them at only a couple of miles an hour. Yet others managed to drive at 20mph on ungritted roads and not smash in to each other, at the exact same junction.

Speed wasnt a relevant factor that morning either although reports tried to claim it was. The issue was people for the most part, werent used to snow and didnt know how to drive in it. They didnt know about feathering controls, driving in a higher gear to lower rpm's more than usual and gentle control inputs. Most just drove like they normally do.

That is why some skidded out of control at a slower speed than walking pace, while others going near the speed limit (30mph) managed to stop in plenty of time and didnt get stuck at all.