80mph speed limits, Pah

[renault12ts]

Yes, my typo - I meant to say 'safest form of land travel'. I have an interest in aircrafts and often cite this statistics to worried passengers.

And yet...why do I feel so nervous flying?

 

[markjay]

...Trying to stay within the forum rules here for debate, but I get your point, but we used to trade for oil peacefully and did not send people to be killed for other peoples conflict....

I think we could get back to those days, do you?...

I don't think we did. In the past it was the government's responsibility (and prior to that, the King's) to ensure sufficient supplies of food for the population (and in dry countries, also water). And governments and kings have done all sorts of thing to secure these, not always using peaceful means. Energy is nowadays seen as an essential element next to food - and it's the government's responsibility to secure it for its people. I think we will see more wars about energy in future. Reducing our dependency on foreign energy supplies - mainly imported oil - will help us avoid violent conflicts in future.

 

[st4]

Yes, my typo - I meant to say 'safest form of land travel'. I have an interest in aircrafts and often cite this statistics to worried passengers.

It never makes it easier, I just don't like flying but have come to realise I probably will be ok

And yet...why do I feel so nervous flying?

Don't. I am off to Venice for two days the week after next, and the flight is not the bit I am looking forward to.

 

[renault12ts]

It never makes it easier, I just don't like flying but have come to realise I probably will be ok



Don't. I am off to Venice for two days the week after next, and the flight is not the bit I am looking forward to.

Flying is like going to the dentist...worry about it when you're in the seat...good luck.

 

[markjay]

And yet...why do I feel so nervous flying?

Because the human mind evaluates probabilities in a different way than a computer does... you only need to look at punters to know this. A lottery ticket makes absolutely no mathematical sense.. yet millions are playing every week. The large reward skews our judgement, and it is good that it does.... or we would not have all those greatest explorers. Great suffering has the same effect, in the other direction. What most people are afraid of is not simply dying, but the minutes of terror while the plane plunges down to earth...

 

[markjay]

I often try to calm down people who worry about flying, especially when conditions seem unfavourable (e.g. bad weather, or having been delayed due to 'technical fault' with the aircraft). I find that what works best is if I tell them to think about this: The pilots have families, too.... they would not fly if they thought it wasn't safe.

 

[Olivier]

Which is why you should check you tyres before every journey. Having had a blow out at 100mph on the M1 in w204 I can honestly say that if you allow the vehicle to coast, do not make sudden movements and only use the brakes once below 20mph on the hard shoulder there was little drama. Blowouts kill idiots. They do not kill experienced, competent drivers.

This is what had happen to hammond, hepushed on the brakes, while the constructor the the dragster told him if anything happen, do not push on the brakes...
top gear richard hammond Vampire dragster crash - YouTube

 

[Bellow]

(take the A90 stretch from Dundee to Aberdeen) and you will see many farm traffic joining the DCW.

Yes do. And realise that it is already bad enough being funnelled through Marykirk (substandard B-roads linking farms) when it all goes pear shaped. Raising limits cannot lessen the incidence of accidents or the severity of them. Even if the incidence and severity increased only fractionally, the added delays would all but wipe out the time savings from higher permitted peak speeds (the peak to average will be higher - the average speed not as great as might be expected).

Which then begs the question does the country function better when road travel is accomplished at a predictable but slightly lower speed, or with a possible higher speed but with an increased chance of delay? Something to ponder when sitting in an airport lounge having missed your flight...

I'm not blind to the usefulness of higher speed where and when possible - the M40 seems to be a case in point - and finding a method of permitting it (legally speaking) would be worth pursuing. How that can be achieved (with a lower limit when required) is surely a more pressing target than advocating an overall raising of limits, 24/7, all weathers? Can't variable, posted, limits achieve this?

 

[markjay]

Indeed - I heard a race driver say once - many years ago - that blow-outs are nothing but an unexpected pull on the steering wheel, keep holding it straight and you'll simply come to a halt.... said that, theoretical knowledge is not always enough, it is difficult to practice, and most drivers will not be prepared when it happens to them.

 

[Bellow]

Indeed - I heard a race driver say once - many years ago - that blow-outs are nothing but an unexpected pull on the steering wheel, keep holding it straight and you'll simply come to a halt.... said that, theoretical knowledge is not always enough, it is difficult to practice, and most drivers will not be prepared when it happens to them.

And seem unable to park without battering their N/S front wheel and tyre into the kerb. Now do 100mph on that tyre....

 

[st4]

Yes do. And realise that it is already bad enough being funnelled through Marykirk (substandard B-roads linking farms) when it all goes pear shaped. Raising limits cannot lessen the incidence of accidents or the severity of them. Even if the incidence and severity increased only fractionally, the added delays would all but wipe out the time savings from higher permitted peak speeds (the peak to average will be higher - the average speed not as great as might be expected).

Which then begs the question does the country function better when road travel is accomplished at a predictable but slightly lower speed, or with a possible higher speed but with an increased chance of delay? Something to ponder when sitting in an airport lounge having missed your flight...

I'm not blind to the usefulness of higher speed where and when possible - the M40 seems to be a case in point - and finding a method of permitting it (legally speaking) would be worth pursuing. How that can be achieved (with a lower limit when required) is surely a more pressing target than advocating an overall raising of limits, 24/7, all weathers? Can't variable, posted, limits achieve this?

Right, almost there.

Lets go back to post one.Look at the picture, its one of those variable jobs, my mate took it near Munich as I was driving along (obeying it would you believe)

Variable and adjustable limits, would you agree they could work on major routes.

I don't know how well you know the M42/M6 through Brum, I travelled on it enough to think a few things. Its a not a bad system and flow seems very consistant if very little speed differential but for large volumes, it works brilliantly....

I think the openning up the hardshoulder to traffic is not a good one, I know there are periodic refuge parts of the road, but in a nasty shunt ahead, emergency vehicle access would be hindered, as if there was a hard shoulder, they could use that?

I maybe did not word my post very well, but merely your bit in bold is the point I was making, plenty of quiet stretches (M40, M74 at times, M6 North, A1M from Scotch corner to York is often quiet and its very very high spec and just been done, drove it 5 weeks back, superb) where as you say, a higher speed would be useful.

Perhaps now, would be a good time to discuss the merits of if we keep the 70 limit, and never were to raise it, to lowering some non motorway DCW limits, so that would make more sense and reflect a greater risk to the public than doing 70 on an MWay.

You clearly know the North East well, what do you think about the 50mph limit for the turn of to St Cyrus on the A90? Do you think its a good idea, I do, given the number of risks there. Do you think redesigning the junction and carriageways there been of even greater benefit, like they did with the Ballinluig turn off the A9?

 

[Mercy1]

The pilots have families, too.... they would not fly if they thought it wasn't safe.

I am afraid that would not reassure me! Planes have and will crash regardless of what the pilot thinks at take-off...

 

[Bellow]

Right, almost there.

Where? Bridge of Dee then Forth Road Bridge an hour and 10 mins later?

You clearly know the North East well, what do you think about the 50mph limit for the turn of to St Cyrus on the A90? Do you think its a good idea, I do, given the number of risks there. Do you think redesigning the junction and carriageways there been of even greater benefit, like they did with the Ballinluig turn off the A9?

I'm usually further north, but when I am down that way, I want a functioning A90 devoid of accident related delays and want to be able to legally do 70mph. Messing with the DCW limits will screw up the north of Scotland. There is no motorway until Perth!

 

[markjay]

I am afraid that would not reassure me! Planes have and will crash regardless of what the pilot thinks at take-off...

Check the statics, then...

24 Hours of International Flights - YouTube

This will give you an intuitive feel as to how many commercial flights are there around the world every day. Yet US and West-European passenger jets only crash in the rate of around one a year in total.

And these are the fatal crash statistics, per airline:

Airline accident ratings

 

[st4]

Where? Bridge of Dee then Forth Road Bridge an hour and 10 mins later?

No comment

I'm usually further north, but when I am down that way, I want a functioning A90 devoid of accident related delays and want to be able to legally do 70mph. Messing with the DCW limits will screw up the north of Scotland. There is no motorway until Perth!

My point is that whilst 70 is legal on the A90, and on the M74 but the roads differ immensely in quality and that IMHO is not right.

Either the 70 is right for the A90, and therefore too slow for the M74, or the 70 is too fast for the A90 and right for the M74.

Out of the bits in Italics, which do you feel is best.

Remember what you said about accidents on the A90 and frequent B road diversions whilst its mopped up plus perhaps the merits of a slower speed limit but less accidents meaning journey times are more predictable?

I'd personally say from driving along the A90, 70 really is the upper limit of what I would say is acceptable and I tend to travel on it below 70 to be honest, seen a few near misses myself, whereas 70 on a quiet 3 lane motorway really is too slow.

Put it this way, if they put a 60limit on it I would not be annoyed, but if they didn't up parts of the motorway to 80 or above, I would be annoyed.

Do you feel the same? Do your experiences echo mine?

 

[LTD]

I think the best for all would be a sensible attitude to speed by all concerned, including the police, and to punish poor or dangerous driving.

This would allow drivers to press on where the weather conditions and road layout allow whilst forcing drivers to adopt better driving practices by penalising those guilty of lane-hogging or driving without consideration for other road users or the conditions.

The difficulty with this is the resistance most crap drivers will have to change and the legal minefield that is 'the police officer's opinion on what is unacceptable'. Proper guidelines in statute would be difficult to word apart from 'use common sense where necessary'.

 

[SJX]

Just to raise one point on the subject of the smaller cars and 'pocket rockets' that are driven by the younger set.

Invariably quite a high number of these cars are modified and messed with from standard with aftermarket tat. Whilst there is a proportion who do a proper job and seemingly the posts in their forums indicate money is no object. By comparison there must be an equal proportion who seem to think they have created a racing car by shortening springs and adding loud exhausts and go faster air filters. Add this to their balls-out driving style and they do not need any increase in speed limit to assist them to 'grow wings'.

How do these things affect their safety? Is handling impaired in the case of a blow out (Personally I think most of their sumps would be carving the tarmac) Rock hard suspension 'because Jezzer says it improves handling on a track' will not provide the straight line stopping distances or line through a corner more complient standard suspension would on our poor pot holed roads (there are some good holes opening up on motorways too!), worst still all this in a car as light as a feather. There are so many things that are being changed and tinkered with by the uneducated and although they still attain MOT status, drivability must be affected.

So with that I would say the likleyhood of carnage at 70mph for this catagory of vehicle would be more likley than in most others. Slide the scale on up to 100mph and the percentages I wager would not really change at all.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Rock hard suspension 'because Jezzer says it improves handling on a track'

Actually, I seem to recall him saying the opposite on an episode of Top Gear - that just lowering the suspension will ruin a car's handling.

 

[LTD]

Just to raise one point on the subject of the smaller cars and 'pocket rockets' that are driven by the younger set.

Invariably quite a high number of these cars are modified and messed with from standard with aftermarket tat. Whilst there is a proportion who do a proper job and seemingly the posts in their forums indicate money is no object. By comparison there must be an equal proportion who seem to think they have created a racing car by shortening springs and adding loud exhausts and go faster air filters. Add this to their balls-out driving style and they do not need any increase in speed limit to assist them to 'grow wings'.

How do these things affect their safety? Is handling impaired in the case of a blow out (Personally I think most of their sumps would be carving the tarmac) Rock hard suspension 'because Jezzer says it improves handling on a track' will not provide the straight line stopping distances or line through a corner more complient standard suspension would on our poor pot holed roads (there are some good holes opening up on motorways too!), worst still all this in a car as light as a feather. There are so many things that are being changed and tinkered with by the uneducated and although they still attain MOT status, drivability must be affected.

So with that I would say the likleyhood of carnage at 70mph for this catagory of vehicle would be more likley than in most others. Slide the scale on up to 100mph and the percentages I wager would not really change at all.

... and just how many of these are properly insured ?????

 

[markjay]

Driver training is key. The car's safety is secondary.

An experienced and well-trained driver will be safe in anything he or she drive. An inexperienced driver will be unsafe, and the more powerful the car the less safe he or she will be - even if the car is made by one of the finest British or German marques.