Variable Speed Limit Cameras - M1 Nottingham

[Stratman]

.................

If a car crashes at 70mph its game over for those inside it, why then does it matter if its going 100mph, the net result is the same?

If one car travelling at 70 and another at 100 both do an emergency stop at the same time, when the car doing 70 stops the other will still be doing 70 mph.

Better to avoid an accident in the first place I reckon.

 

[davidjpowell]

Can I just point out that if speeding was inherently dangerous, most of us would be dead!

What is dangerous is driving inappropriately to the road conditions. If it's wet and you can't see two feet in front of you with standing water on the road, then you would not be able to pull up in the distance and hence wold be driving too fast.

Equally 90 on a motorway in clear daylight, where you have plenty of time to see and assess hazards is probably not as dangerous.

 

[Timmy M]

I Think I had better bow out of this debate as I can see it leading to tempers flaring. My only point here is that Cars are weapons we have the ability to control, and we must be respectful of that. Enough said thanks everyone

 

[Timmy M]

I am sorry for your loss Timmy.

However, your judgement will be clouded on this one.

I'll rephrase the question, people speed every day, of those that speed, how many actually die because of that. A tiny tiny proportion.

If a car crashes at 70mph its game over for those inside it, why then does it matter if its going 100mph, the net result is the same?

Sorry *** I missed your post. Thank you for your comment, i think also we must consider the consiquences of speeding in built up areas too where the risk in much greater

 

[st4]

Well for a start you are far more likely to have a fatal accident at 100mph. Other road users won't anticipate your speed and a car is far less forgiving of any tiny error of judgment at 100mph than it would be at 70mph.

Really, a bad error of judgement or poor steering at 70mph is going to end nastily, pretty quickly.

Even at 50mph, and I speak from experience on black ice, a car losing traction is a highly unpleasant experience. At 70 or 100mph, its curtains so the speed is really irrelevant in extreme situations.

Lets also consider the fact that if everyone drove at 100mph, there would not be this differential in speed. And anyway, one car going 70 into the back of another is nasty and even at 100mph is very nasty, but consider a rural road where two cars are going 50mph withing feet of each other, what if they hit. There is your combined 100mph. Should everyone drive no more than 20 in case something goes wrong?

Often it's the consequences for those not in the speeding vehicle. The kinetic energy of an object increases proportionally to the square of the speed. Therefore a vehicle travelling at 100 mph has twice the kinetic energy of one travelling at 70 mph. That can have a devastating effect on innocent people and object s caught up in any incident.

If we have a desire to explore what the law deems as excessive speed, then the appropriate place to do that is the controlled environment of the track - less roadside furniture, everyone (hopefully) travelling in the same direction, mandatory safety gear, etc.

If one car travelling at 70 and another at 100 both do an emergency stop at the same time, when the car doing 70 stops the other will still be doing 70 mph.

Better to avoid an accident in the first place I reckon.

I was making the point that if both cars hit something at 70mph and at 100mph and make no attempt to stop or swerve, the outcome is the same. Death for the occupants and bystanders, actually, hit a person at 40mph, its game over. Why not make sure no one goes above 20mph in the very slim chance someone gets hit.

On a motorway or DCW there are times you can see a distance which allows you to stop a car, with room, from speeds greater than 100mph. On these occasions, its not dangerous. And if you use the what if you get a rear blow out at 100mph, I'd ask what if you get a rear blow out at 70mph. Its probably curtains time, so the speed really is an irrelevance.

I am not speculating on the odds of the chances of a collision being greater at 70mph or 100mph or that of peoples abilities to control a car at either speed worse case. Just the absolute net effect of a crash at 70mph. Something I hope I never experience.

Sorry *** I missed your post. Thank you for your comment, i think also we must consider the consiquences of speeding in built up areas too where the risk in much greater

Correct, we should, and I should have made my post clearer that I did not mean built up areas. This is probably the area of driving where you speed will have a much greater outcome to the affect on human life in the event on a collision. Drive at 30mph or under and if you hit, chances are in the persons favour, drive at 40mph, chances are they will not. Combine that with reduced stopping distances. On a DCW, 70mph...90mph, net effect is the same really.


People, at my work tell me off for driving fast (I like driving fast on rural A and B roads and an element of speed on a DCW/Mway when there is nothing else around).

Those very people, all of them parents of young children, are the very same ones that shoot past me on an urban DCW on school run time yet chastise me for the manner I drive on quiet, fast, sweeping roads. The speed limit is 40mph, there are two stops where lollipop ladies come out, and every day I obey this, and multiples of people do not.

 

[Benzster]

True but if you do see a camera that is able to record speed I wouldn't contemplate speeding through it. Risk vs reward and all that.

A similar analogy is overtaking a police car. It's going 70mph. Would you try and pass it?

I wouldn't take the chance

It is best to err on the side of caution whenever you encounter a camera, it is a good discipline for the day they might all get switched on! It;s cheaper than having to admit to a speeding fine to your insurers and see your premium increase. Set the cruise and bumble along, it's a little frustrating but gives peace of mind.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I think what also needs to be taken into consideration is the car that's being driven when doing above the NSL.

Do 60mph in one of my vans and you feel as though you're doing 100mph, yet do a 100mph in a W211 for example and you feel like you're doing 60.

In the same way that guns don't kill people, it's people that kill people and speed is not the defining factor. Just there are different ways and means....

 

[st4]

I think what also needs to be taken into consideration is the car that's being driven when doing above the NSL.

Do 60mph in one of my vans and you feel as though you're doing 100mph, yet do a 100mph in a W211 for example and you feel like you're doing 60.

In the same way that guns don't kill people, it's people that kill people and speed is not the defining factor. Just there are different ways and means....

Think of all the extra road tax etc a more powerful car has to pay. Its only fair they get to drive at higher speeds.

I'd also like to see the shopping trolley £35 and £free VED cars get penalized for not paying into the system, perhaps exclusion from motorways or a reduction in speed limit to that of lorries etc.

Afterall, if the sole intention of these cars is to save CO2 they shouldn't be driving at 70mph but at a more economical 60mph.

 

[Londonscottish]

Think of all the extra road tax etc a more powerful car has to pay. Its only fair they get to drive at higher speeds.

I'd also like to see the shopping trolley £35 and £free VED cars get penalized for not paying into the system, perhaps exclusion from motorways or a reduction in speed limit to that of lorries etc.

Afterall, if the sole intention of these cars is to save CO2 they shouldn't be driving at 70mph but at a more economical 60mph.

Fantastic logic - I love it

 

[davidbilyk]

I'm sure if you put a hi-viz jacket on a stick at the side of a motorway, they would brake for that too.

I literally laughed out loud at that

 

[Scott_F]

Think of all the extra road tax etc a more powerful car has to pay. Its only fair they get to drive at higher speeds.

I'd also like to see the shopping trolley £35 and £free VED cars get penalized for not paying into the system, perhaps exclusion from motorways or a reduction in speed limit to that of lorries etc.

Afterall, if the sole intention of these cars is to save CO2 they shouldn't be driving at 70mph but at a more economical 60mph.

Maybe they should build an extra lane on all motorways and dual carriageways just for people who have a car with a great big engine. Surely that's the least that they deserve ??

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Maybe they should build an extra lane on all motorways and dual carriageways just for people who have a car with a great big engine. Surely that's the least that they deserve ??

I like it ^^

To qualify for these privileges, you must be driving at least a V6 or above.

 

[st4]

Maybe they should build an extra lane on all motorways and dual carriageways just for people who have a car with a great big engine. Surely that's the least that they deserve ??

At least, and instead of bus only lanes, there should be special big engined car lanes for the simple fact of

1. When new more VAT was paid
2. They use more fuel so pay more tax on fuel
3. Because they cost more, the odds is that the owner has a decent job, and therefore needs to get to his destination more than the manky students and dole seekers on the bus.

 

[Scott_F]

At least, and instead of bus only lanes, there should be special big engined car lanes for the simple fact of

1. When new more VAT was paid
2. They use more fuel so pay more tax on fuel
3. Because they cost more, the odds is that the owner has a decent job, and therefore needs to get to his destination more than the manky students and dole seekers on the bus.

But why limit your idea just to road use ? Why not apply your theories to all public services and those who use them ? For example, when people go to A&E they could be made to produce their P60 to see how much income tax they pay. Those who pay a lot would be given priority as those who pay the most should always get most in return. People with low-paid jobs would be made to wait whilst students, those on benefits, carers, pensioners and other non-income tax payers could be thrown out into the car park with a sticking plaster.

It's only fair.

 

[JohnDeere8530]

I always wondered why drink driving is so much socially worse than driving whilst excessively tired or breaking the speed limit by an appreciable factor.

In my book they are all approx the same, as I bet there are many more times the fatalities caused by excessive tiredness and speeding than drink driving.....

 

[st4]

But why limit your idea just to road use ? Why not apply your theories to all public services and those who use them ? For example, when people go to A&E they could be made to produce their P60 to see how much income tax they pay. Those who pay a lot would be given priority as those who pay the most should always get most in return. People with low-paid jobs would be made to wait whilst students, those on benefits, carers, pensioners and other non-income tax payers could be thrown out into the car park with a sticking plaster.

It's only fair.

Sounds good

 

[corned]

But why limit your idea just to road use ? Why not apply your theories to all public services and those who use them ? For example, when people go to A&E they could be made to produce their P60 to see how much income tax they pay. Those who pay a lot would be given priority as those who pay the most should always get most in return. People with low-paid jobs would be made to wait whilst students, those on benefits, carers, pensioners and other non-income tax payers could be thrown out into the car park with a sticking plaster.

It's only fair.

Quite right too. That way, people of most use to society will be back to being of most use in the quickest time. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[malluboy77]

But why limit your idea just to road use ? Why not apply your theories to all public services and those who use them ? For example, when people go to A&E they could be made to produce their P60 to see how much income tax they pay. Those who pay a lot would be given priority as those who pay the most should always get most in return. People with low-paid jobs would be made to wait whilst students, those on benefits, carers, pensioners and other non-income tax payers could be thrown out into the car park with a sticking plaster.

It's only fair.

Not going that far but..would be interesting to see how our A&E attendances go if a discretionary £10.00 fee is set!

 

[Dieselman]

Not going that far but..would be interesting to see how our A&E attendances go if a discretionary £10.00 fee is set!

So, there you are on your stretcher with your leg hanging off and the receptionist says "That'll be £10 please before we can admit you".

 

[st4]

So, there you are on your stretcher with your leg hanging off and the receptionist says "That'll be £10 please before we can admit you".

No, I'd just ask if I could lease a new leg. It will be cheaper...