speed on motorway

[mark.t]

We need to have a device like parking sensors to go on the front bumper/grill area that can warn people that they are too close for their current speed. That thing bleeping away would probably reduce accidents in any conditions. Once again the technology already exists for this and some manufacturers (like MB - Distronic and Jaguar) have this as an option for their cruise control.

its the last thing you want too many of these contraptions in cars, if people need the warning they are not paying attention and that could be disastrous reversing cameras.parking aids.. distronic ...moronic more like...these people are not driving the car they are in the car and are oblivious to all around them and lets face it anyone who bumps one while making a manoeuvre with these aids in place ...(which I have seen )need taking off the road...so what next sorry officer my distronic failed to notice the car in front or my park tronic filed to see the child I reversed over ...please good old honest driving anyday good observation and if in doubt slow down ...some of the ideas car makers have are very good and save lives ...nuff said

 

[Shude]

its the last thing you want too many of these contraptions in cars, if people need the warning they are not paying attention and that could be disastrous reversing cameras.parking aids.. distronic ...moronic more like...these people are not driving the car they are in the car and are oblivious to all around them and lets face it anyone who bumps one while making a manoeuvre with these aids in place ...(which I have seen )need taking off the road...so what next sorry officer my distronic failed to notice the car in front or my park tronic filed to see the child I reversed over ...please good old honest driving anyday good observation and if in doubt slow down ...some of the ideas car makers have are very good and save lives ...nuff said

I honestly think a device that can accurately measure the distance between you and the car in front would be very useful. I can't picture the physical stopping distance in rain at certain speeds, I'm pretty sure no-one can to any kind of accuracy. No amount of "judgement" is going to be better than a scientific measurement for the current speed, especially at night when distance judgement is poorest. You know those chevrons they seem to paint miles apart on some stretches of motorway, that's meant to be a safe distance apart, seems like you could fit about 20 cars in the gap!

 

[mark.t]

I honestly think a device that can accurately measure the distance between you and the car in front would be very useful. I can't picture the physical stopping distance in rain at certain speeds, I'm pretty sure no-one can to any kind of accuracy. No amount of "judgement" is going to be better than a scientific measurement for the current speed, especially at night when distance judgement is poorest. You know those chevrons they seem to paint miles apart on some stretches of motorway, that's meant to be a safe distance apart, seems like you could fit about 20 cars in the gap!

if the sensors are dirty or faulty that could be a problem I would sooner drive as ive always done and do not hold too much faith in these contraptions because of the fact that humans do have to get envolved eventually and if they forget to clean them or have them calibrated whats happens then they have got into the lazy way and the driving instincts are diminished

 

[Mr E]

This is close to some research being carried out at the mo on my certain types of car are involved in more accidents than others (no names / types mentioned as I don't want to be lynched....)

ANyway, the theory is that we chose cars that are "safe" on the basis that they have a number of "active" features (ABS, airbags, etc) and are familiar and cosy environments (nice soft seats, good stereos, cup holders, etc). A a simple level this is borne out by the majority of persons picking an SUV-type as "safe" while the 2 seater convertible is "unsafe".

However, by whatever measurement used (accident per pax mile, per journey, per vehicle) the sports car is safer - why?

It's the passive elements - fundamental chassis design that optimises brake and suspension performance (handling), good feedback through wheel, pedals and seat, even engine sound - that make cars safe.

So a rise in control systems will, as some have stated, result in less-safe driving conditions overall. This, some researchers will say, is the reason why the death rate on the roads remains fairly static.......the accident rate actually rises, but the active componants are saving more lives per accident. But prevention is better than cure.

Anyway - motorways speeds............raise to 90/70 for good/wet conditions and police heavily. Controversial, but a 1 week ban for each 5mph over the limit will soon focus the mind. It would also be possible to automate identification of tailgating offenders (they do this in parts of Canada) - radar and photo shows speed and distance between vehicles - same type of penalty structure.

Oh yes........and all drive nice two seater sports cars (I wish)

 

[glojo]

However, by whatever measurement used (accident per pax mile, per journey, per vehicle) the sports car is safer - why?

I am enjoying reading your thread, but I have another question.

If the sports car is 'safer'

Why do they always appear to have an insurance premium over a similar powered saloon?

With your access to statistics are individual accident claims decreasing? (not values, just the basic claim form)

Regards,
John

 

[mark.t]

This is close to some research being carried out at the mo on my certain types of car are involved in more accidents than others (no names / types mentioned as I don't want to be lynched..



bet thier nissan micras poss k reg driven by wrinkleys

 

[JumJum]

Italy put the speed limit up from 80 to 93mph to reduce accidents because drivers concentrate more.

ACPO Guidelines are 10% plus 2mph

So you should be okay at 79mph on the motorway.

Above 94mph is a court matter, usually a fixed penalty up to that.

57% of car drivers exceed the 70 mph limit, Department of Transport 2002 (limits too low perhaps ?)

Given that soon we may not be able to exceed the limit I would say increase to 90mph, with HSV limiting it would not be 90 plus ACPO, but 90 max.

 

[glojo]

ACPO Guidelines are 10% plus 2mph

Hi JumJum,
That is exactly what I thought. I wonder how the Chief Constable's of both North Wales (wash my mouth out) and Lincolnshire get on with their zero tolerance??

Regards,
John

 

[Swiss Toni]

Italy put the speed limit up from 80 to 93mph to reduce accidents because drivers concentrate more.

ACPO Guidelines are 10% plus 2mph

So you should be okay at 79mph on the motorway.

Above 94mph is a court matter, usually a fixed penalty up to that.

57% of car drivers exceed the 70 mph limit, Department of Transport 2002 (limits too low perhaps ?)

Given that soon we may not be able to exceed the limit I would say increase to 90mph, with HSV limiting it would not be 90 plus ACPO, but 90 max.

I read that ACPO wanted Govt to change the Motorway limit to 80mph (which with the 10% +2mph guide makes it a "true" 90mph).

I think the Chief for Wales recommended an adoption of appropriate limits (ie the ACPO suggestion) but with no 10% + 2mph for enforcement.

And I think Lincs was where the Ambulance Driver was NIP'd?

 

[glojo]

I read that ACPO wanted Govt to change the Motorway limit to 80mph (which with the 10% +2mph guide makes it a "true" 90mph).

I think the Chief for Wales recommended an adoption of appropriate limits (ie the ACPO suggestion) but with no 10% + 2mph for enforcement.

And I think Lincs was where the Ambulance Driver was NIP'd?

Hi,
There are two constabularies in Wales, so no Chief of Wales North Wales Chief Constable is continually trying to enforce zero tolerance regarding speed.

It was indeed the Lincolnshire Constabulary that reported the Paramedic for speeding when conveying a donor organ. The Police in my opinion were wrong to go ahead with a prosecution (no doubt in agreement with CPS) On the day of the court case it was decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute!!

The Traffic Officer should have had more sense!!! His supervisor should have recommended NFA, but the prosecution was recommended from bottom to top. I respectfully critise this department because transplant organs are literally life or death for someone, and providing that Paramedic was driving in accordance with Home Office recommedations then that so called Police Officer needs a good ****** seeing to.

If the Paramedic was not in compliance then he would have committed numerous motoring offences, and the prosecution would have gone ahead.

Regards,
John

 

[Swiss Toni]

The Lincs thing was through a speed camera - no Traffic Cop involved.

I understand that the Police do the investigating and the CPS make the decision to prosecute - all the articles quote a CPS Manager amking the decision.

Local paper says it was agreed that the organ was "non-urgent" and could have been transferred at any time throughout the night - without damage at "normal" speed, so there was no actual need to speed, and it seems the driver knew it too?
I know a local taxi driver who transfers blood and organs through a contract with the local NHS - all non urgent, and a perfectly regular way of moving them about.

Mind. He used to deliver Pizzas too....

 

[glojo]

The Lincs thing was through a speed camera - no Traffic Cop involved.

I understand that the Police do the investigating and the CPS make the decision to prosecute - all the articles quote a CPS Manager amking the decision.

Local paper says it was agreed that the organ was "non-urgent" and could have been transferred at any time throughout the night - without damage at "normal" speed, so there was no actual need to speed, and it seems the driver knew it too?
I know a local taxi driver who transfers blood and organs through a contract with the local NHS - all non urgent, and a perfectly regular way of moving them about.

Mind. He used to deliver Pizzas too....

Hi Toni,
Thanks for the info, in most Forces emergency vehicles that go through speed camera's get 'highlighted' the recommendation to prosecute is not automatic. The decision to prosecute an emergency vehicle is made by the Police who on difficult or contraversial decisions do so after liasing with the CPS.

I totally agree with your remark about the CPS Manager and hopefully you understand my point that it should never have got to that stage. We both are aware of the limits of what can be said on an open forum, but once it landed on that managers lap, it would need strength of character to have recommended NFA? (hopefully I am being tactful here)

This particular case I believe became a 'propaganda' implement where both sides used the media. Most Health authorities do indeed use the cheapest method of transporting medical products, that is why I query the alleged use of a highly trained Paramedic to convey a non urgent item?

Thanks again for your interesting observations,
John

 

[anarchy-inc]

Unlimited like Germany, with restrictions in certain areas and for bad weather.

 

[Guy]

RICHARD BRUNSTROM :- [A selection. taken from the first 20 results after entering his name in Google] -

RICHARD BRUNSTROM is a typical sort of driver.

He reckons motorways were designed to handle cars doing 80 mph and cheerfully admits to breaking the speed limit when he feels it is safe to do so.

There is just one snag. Richard Brunstrom is the Chief Constable in charge of Britain's speed cameras.

And as head of the Association of Chief Police Officers' technology committee, he wants to see a trebling of cameras on our roads.

The Chief Constable of North Wales told Radio 5: "I still speed on occasions but increasingly I am ashamed of myself. I ought to be showing leadership and practise what I am preaching."

He added: "I would be a laughing stock if I were to pretend that nobody in the police service ever broke the speed limit."

No charge against police chief daughter


Richard Brunstrom has been accused of an 'obsession' with speeding drivers
The daughter of the North Wales Police Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom will not be prosecuted after a newspaper allegedly caught her speeding.
The Sun claimed its reporter had clocked Kate Brunstrom doing 69 mph in a 50 mph zone in Colwyn Bay.

Journalists from the tabloid newspaper were trying to catch Kate Brunstrom's father Richard Brunstrom breaking the speeding laws after his force's high profile crackdown on speeding provoked severe criticism.

It began earlier this year when Mr Brunstrom compared a 71-year-old driver who had been speeding to a "17 year old yob" after the pensioner complained about the fine he had to pay.

Mr Brunstrom had also described speeding motorists as "anti-social" and "criminals" - leading to accusations that he was "obsessed" with speeding motorists at the expense of fighting crime.

A Sun reporter had set out to catch Mr Brunstrom speeding

In August the newspaper published pictures of the Brunstom family's Ford Focus which it alleged was doing nearly 20 miles per hour over the limit on the A55 near Llandudno Junction.

It went on to claim it had used the same type of speed gun as the police themselves use and forwarded its "evidence" to North Wales Police who in turn passed it onto the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

But on Thursday it emerged that the CPS had said that Kate Brunstrom will not be prosecuted, as the speed gun was not an approved device and that The Sun's reporter was not trained in using it as a police officer would be.

The CPS called in colleagues from outside Wales to deal with the case, and has stressed it was dealt with in the same way as any other motorist.

In the past, Mr Brunstrom has defended his tough stance on speeding motorists.

In an interview with BBC Wales Today he said: "A quite unpleasant thread running through some of the national media and some of the interest groups pursuing an obsessional and irrational scheme to discredit the government's National Safety Camera project."

"They're not going to succeed."

A statement issued by North Wales Police on Thursday read: "The investigation and assessment of this matter has been conducted outside North Wales.

"We understand that the Crown Prosecution Service have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Kate Brunstrom.

"The chief constable will not be making any personal statement about this matter, and as far as we are concerned the case is now closed.

Clarkson described him as "the man who described speeding motorists as criminals and then regretted it shortly afterwards when a national newspaper allegedly caught his daughter speeding. He also said there is no more excuse for drifting over the speed limit than for driving a knife into someone."

Mr Brunstrom has labelled Clarkson and his colleagues "petrol-heads" and accused them of having too much influence on government policy on speed cameras.

Richard Brunstrom, who is in charge of North Wales police, said he believed that the drug laws were doing "more harm than good." They left vulnerable people in danger, while enabling criminals to make massive profits.

"Heroin is very addictive, but it is not very, very dangerous," he told the Dragon's Eye programme on BBC Wales. "It is perfectly possible to lead a normal life for a full life span and hold down a job while being addicted to the drug.

"I don't advocate anybody abusing their bodies with drugs, but clearly some want to. What would be wrong with making heroin available on the state for people who want to abuse their bodies?"

He went on: "The question is actually not, 'Am I prepared to see the Government selling heroin on the street corner or through the pharmacy?' but 'Why would we not want to do that? What is wrong with that?

Mr Brunstrom, a spokesman on wildlife issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), has been jointly responsible for bats becoming a police priority.

"The emphasis of Operation Bat is on prevention rather than enforcement," he said.

"The overall aim of it is to raise awareness of the legislation that protects bats so as to provide a clear message that bat crime is police business and will not be ignored.

Admittedly, it is slightly unfortunate that our hero’s force actually achieved the lowest ever percentage clear-up of burglaries anywhere (6.1%), but you can’t have everything.

He adds that his most satisfying achievement with the force was gaining an A-grade pass in Welsh at A-level.

That's enough

 

[mercedes lover]

Any people here that has driven all over the country, I would like to know who you find the fastest drivers, most dangerous and rudest, eg what city or maybe one part of the country side or have you found it a much of a much?

 

[glojo]

Any people here that has driven all over the country, I would like to know who you find the fastest drivers, most dangerous and rudest, eg what city or maybe one part of the country side or have you found it a much of a much?

Hi Mercedes Lover,
Unfortunately I think your question is too much of a generalization. I think I understand your question, but am not 100% sure.

When we go up to Lincolnshire we find that in general vehicles are driven at much faster speeds on the de-restricted roads.

However the roads in Lincolnshire are far, far more conjusive to this faster driving. Flat (level) roads with no blind hills. Open sweeping bends, by 'open' I mean a bend where you have an unrestricted view of the complete bend and can see oncoming traffic. Whereas in Devon flat areas are certainly not the norm and open bends are something we see on race tracks. The sad reality though is that there are still a high number of very serious accidents on the beautiful roads ofLincolnshire.

Having said this and just to make a mockery of the 'Speed Kills' debate. The majority of fatal road traffic accidents occur at speeds of less than 30mph??

It would be unfair to say that certain areas have bad drivers, or good drivers. I think young males are the most likely drivers to have accidents no matter where they live, but Mr E would no doubt be the person to correct me on this last generalization.

Good luck with your question,
John

 

[mercedes lover]

That is true, but one thing I think you can say is, I live in London and work outside London, London drivers in general are much more agressive and impatient.

 

[Dieter]

Hi all,
I understand that even Brunstrom now feels that not all current speed limits are valid (i.e. some are too low) and that if appropriate speed limits were seen to be set then perhaps there would be more compliance etc.

Quote: "There is no excuse for breaking speed limits, but the solution is not ever-greater enforcement. We need a root- and-branch reform of every speed limit in the UK, because if it is the duty of every citizen to obey the law, then they have to respect it in the first place. It has to have credibility and we do not have that."

So some light at the end of the tunnel (perhaps?).

The most important aspect to driving, IMHO, is the ability of the driver. Middle lane hoggers have very little, if any, spatial awareness etc. and thus advertise themselves as inept (so beware if undertaking etc.). Following passing of current test (predominantly 'local' in nature) drivers should have to subsequently take another test for use of M/ways etc. (i.e. green? L-plate gives access etc. but warns other drivers of their inexperience).

All lanes on M/ways are same i.e. there aren't any fast lanes (outside lane hoggers please note). The best speed for travel is the one most appropriate to the conditions etc. but this implies an element of driving skill/experience etc. This is one of my main gripes against speed cameras as, unlike traffic police, there is no discretion (i.e. dangerous/careless driving can/may/does occur below speed limits etc.). I would settle for an increase of the M-way limit to 80mph. After all when speed limits were unrestricted speed testing (AC Cobra @150mph) took place etc. which indirectly led to introduction of speed limits. Is it practical/cost effective to introduce camera controlled variable limits etc.? I think not.

I don't agree we should place ever more reliance on more sophisticated cruise control systems etc. to control speed as proper use of the human brain is a much more flexible solution (apart from middle lane hoggers who don't have fully functional brains and who couldn't use cruise control anyway!).

That's all for now.

 

[Satch]

Right then. Read this and much of the "current thinking" will be explained. Very good site and a lot of common sense

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html

Key bits for those short of time:

"Research shows that crash risk alters with speed and this is shown by the red crash risk curve. At the 85th to 90th percentiles we tend to find drivers with above average skill and competence, and this is why their crash risk is the lowest. Above the 90th percentile we tend to find drivers exceeding safe limits and their accident risk increases as a consequence. Note that the "average" driver at the 50% percentile has a greater crash risk than the 85th percentile driver. Below the 30th percentile crash risk is significantly increased and these speeds tend to be used by less skilled and competent drivers"

"Our 70 mph motorway speed limit is frequently exceeded and the 85th percentile speed in clear conditions is in excess of 85 mph. Since the theoretical prosecution threshold is 79 mph (=70mph + 10% + 2 mph) it is quite possible that the safest group of drivers will be prosecuted"

and

Conclusions

Speed limits based around 85th percentile of traffic speeds with discretionary enforcement served us very well in the UK up until about 1993 when the silly season started.

Now we have many speed limits set wrongly by the wrong people for the wrong reasons and enforced by cameras without discretion. This damages the credibility and usefulness of speed limits and leads to millions of pointless prosecutions, which in turn lead to hardship.

The bleatings about "we're only trying to save lives" do not stand scrutiny, because in camera infested Britain we're seeing the poorest overall road safety improvements in recent decades. (click here)

We must not allow our legal system to penalise the competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people.

We must not allow speed limits to be improperly set. It is clearly dangerous to do so.

We must avoid the speed limit trap. (believing that speed limits can force drivers to set safe speeds)

And above all we must urgently return to the sensible speed limit and road safety policies which gave us (more or less) the safest roads in the World in the first place."

Oh yes indeed.

 

[anarchy-inc]

This is one of my main gripes against speed cameras as, unlike traffic police, there is no discretion (i.e. dangerous/careless driving can/may/does occur below speed limits etc.).

Totally agree with everything you said. The problem is that most of the do-gooder "slow down" brigade also equate high speed with dangerous driving. That will be the biggest hurdle to overcome in their minds.