Then why not limit all vehicles to 70 mph max? It is simple enough to do with modern cars with sophisticated control electronics.
But maybe that would remove a nice source of income for the authorities, and that is why it has not been done.
Ah. A little englander?
Never driven sur le continent?
Very dangerous thing to so.
The government when they first introduced them. I was questioning what they are now (rhetorically, sorry that confused your programming).
Whoosh.
Yup, like the Sonic Elephant repellents are working here.
Ok, try *actually* explaining how a 50, 40, 50 can take away congestion around the 40 that didn't exit in the first place (when ITRW the 40 was likely to actually 'cause' congestion, given no side roads etc).
Ah yes, the robots that do as requested all day / night over many
100's of miles without a single *tiny* (+1mph) error. That or do as I suggested and make 35 the new 40 (etc).Yes, 'never been caught' rather than never actually exceeded the speed limit. It was very frustrating actually ... I took my 'producer' to the local Nick, they checked it out, heard my description of events and suggested the 'Traffic' had got it wrong in that my privately taxed, MOT'd (not plated), privately insured and fully legal Morris Minor Van, being driven safely at 7mph under the speed limit for that dual carriageway, wasn't a 'goods vehicle'. It toll a Police Sergeant mate a session in the library at Hendon to find the actual rules that applied.
Ding! How you enforce a tolerance on ordinary human beings without them creating their own safety buffer?
Pre zero tolerance on the motorways, a 50 mph speed 'limit' meant that typically someone could accidentally stray up to say 55 without much risk of prosecution (probably even higher in most cases. De Minimis at work etc). Now, someone is penalised on their first offence with 3 points and 50% of a weeks wage fine (if their first office then may get the option of the speed awareness course).
Even of I had lost a family member to a 'speeding driver', I wouldn't consider that driver *just* doing 51 in a 50 limit as being a specific danger to anyone (from the speed alone).
Time will tell eh ... (as you said elsewhere, you have just not yet been 'caught'). ;-)
No explanation to that last bit?
So, what they have effectively done is (for most normal people, not robots like you dennis) reduced the speed limits on motorways to probably ~5 mph under the indicated 'limit', so a real reduction of around 10mph in many cases.
I have no real issue with that as I have never been interested in speed, I do however like to 'make good progress' and feel that (again) ITRW (so doesn't apply to you of course), many people 'safe drivers' are going to fall foul of this new scheme and it will therefore go against the general spirit of what road safety enforcement is supposed to be about.
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a form of uprising against it and it being relaxed / revoked (even if only to some degree).
Speed itself doesn't and never has killed, 'inappropriate speed' often does and most of us were able to manage that without all the Big Brother / draconian penalties (whilst those causing most the accidents won't get picked up by this system at all). ;-(
Cheers, T i m
Do those countries who have higher national speed limits suffer more speed related deaths than we do OOI?
Quite.
Cheers, T i m
No. speed never kills. Acceleration kills
I would have agreed with you had you said it's 'deceleration that kills' (the more rapid the deceleration the more likely someone will cop it).
Unless the acceleration is from a catapult or the consequence of the rapid deceleration of something else. ;-)
The point was that doing say 41 mph on a variable speed limit of 40 on a smart motorway carries the same (or higher) penalty as jumping a red light? Are they *really* the same level of offence?
Cheers, T i m
Acceleration/deceleration = same thing. "Rate of change of velocity"
Tim
My reply to Dennis was meant to be sarcastic. I should have put in a winking smiley to make it clear I wasn't agreeing with him.
Then why are there two different words for it (ITRW)?
How do you see the actual *acceleration* killing people within the context above?
Cheers, T i m
I take it you don't know the difference between safety cameras and speed enforcement cameras.
8<
Bigger whooooosh.
The optimum speed for getting the most traffic along the road is seldom
70 mph. I thought that was obvious. 8<You don't drive hundreds of miles on smart motorways every day. As the cameras you are moaning about are only on the smart motorways why do you care?
Well of course I have exceeded the sped limit, but I know when I am. The last time was when I accelerated to 90 on the M6 to get out of the way of a traffic car that wanted to get somewhere in a hurry. They aren't going to pull you over if you move out of their way but they sure as hell don't like the idiots that see the flashing lights in the mirror and brake to pull in.
Never had a producer, what do they look like?
That's up to the driver, the more skilled need a smaller buffer.
I bet you wouldn't.
What explanation do you need?
I will say again what makes yu think the limits on smart motorways are there purely for safety? They aren't, I suggest you read up on why smart motorways exist.
Are you suggesting that the majority of drivers don't understand smart motorways or only those that actually use them regularly.
Its an inappropriate speed to exceed the speed limit, the law says so even though you will probably get away with it in an emergency. The law also says that it may be inappropriate even if you are driving below the speed limit.
No of course not. Previously the police had to balance catching speeders against the resources they had.
Now it is cheap, so they will turn the thumbscrews down.
Everyday English uses two, but to a physicist they usually talk of dv/dt and be done with it :)
Quite. ;-)
Well, TNP only pretends to be a philosopher (and obviously isn't a physicist ) so I just wondered what he meant.
Cheers, T i m
If only there was a surefire way to avoid being caught speeding.
Must look into that.
One thing I have noticed in the past few years is that more drivers appear to be obeying the variable limits which has tipping-point choking effect on overall speeds. It may be possible to exceed the posted limit for a brief run, but generally it's just impossible to get past.
I've also noticed it on 30mph roads around town. Generally there's a line of cars all doing c. 28-30 (you can tell who is using their speedo, and who is using their satnav) meaning a would-be boy raced has to either overtake 5 cars in one go, or hold their peace.
Thanks, I thought not. Glad it is just dennis that is going mad. ;-)
Of course ... but they would actually (because of the previous rules) catch those that most people *would* consider speeders, not just someone straying 1mph over the limit.
The only way I can see it sticking is if the entire driving population accept a real speed reduction across the board (the vast majority of whom aren't and never were what anyone would call 'speeders').
e.g. If you were driving in a 30 mph limit and assuming the conditions allowed that then you knew that 30+ a bit would be ok. Now, that's not you pushing the 30 to 31, that's you going from say 20-31 as you travel along the road and as things change (hazard perception etc). 31 isn't an intentional breaking of the law, that's a human being managing the speed on something with inertia in a wide range of changing conditions.
Now, you daren't get even close to 30, even when that's marked up as the safe limit [1] for fear of accidentally slipping over 30 and potentially being branded / penalised as a 'speeder' ... and that's fine, but it does require a complete change in the driving style of the whole population or we will see even more road rage / accidents.
Or, they could issue fines (could still be half you weekly wage, just no points) for say speed + 10% and then points after that.
The bit that I don't think is fair / reasonable is how you have to carry the extra 'cost' of insurance, potentially over several vehicles / policies for some years for what wouldn't be considered 'speeding' (31 in a 30) by any right minded person (and I don't even mean just me). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
[1] When our daughter took her driving test the first time she was failed for 'not keeping up with the indicated speed limit', even though she felt (as the driver at the time) that slightly less was more suitable for the conditions. The *reason* for this was because of the likelihood of others wanting to go *at* the limit and therefore potentially overtaking and increasing the risk to all parties.When 50% of the driving population are carrying 3 (or more) penalty points for making a tiny and non safety related mistake (31 in a 30, when either speed was perfectly / equally 'safe' (in those conditions)), maybe there will be an uprising?
No, but the value - or otherwise - of points on licences becomes diminished. Sort of offender inflation, really.
Not so. They were originally placed where they were most likely to catch someone breaking the limit. Nothing at all to do with how relatively unsafe this might be.
If I'm in an unfamiliar area, I tell the car tto stick to the speed limit. And it does!
Well, I've never seen one, unless you mean the 'Radar Controle' signs that seem to be on the approach to every town and village.
The sneakiest thing I've ever seen was on the E40 in slow moving traffic. As I was crawling past one of those large green upside down dustbins with the left and right pointing arrows at an off-slip, by virtue of being on the 'wrong' side of the car I had a beautiful view in my rear view mirror of the backside of one which had a hole cut out of it with the speed camera mounted inside!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.