I find it interesting that you think a F1 racing driver is an example of a good driver.
While I accept that he is probably quite skilled at controlling his F1 car on a track it has no bearing on whether he is a good driver.
Oh and BTW he has crashed twice recently.
Not really, it depends on how your define urban/built up area. If buildings have less than 1/4 of a mile of clear open space between them it's urban/built up to me. B-)
On motorways the average traffic levels appear to dictate if it's lit or not. The M6 is lit all round Manchester and probably all the way down to the M1 but going north the illumination stops after the M55 to Blackpool (or maybe after Lancaster). It suddenly gets rather dark, they don't run the illumination down in level it just stops.
If God didn't mean us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
Or not fast enough. Cars with downforce have a middle range of speeds at which the tyre and gravity alone wont hold them to the road, and there isn't enough downforce either.
However that aside, it was you that raised the straw man. You said anyone can drive fast, not anyone can crash fast.
It's odd on this side of the country. North of the Tees util the two meet, the A19(dual carriageway) and the A1(M) run in parallel. the A19 is almost completely lit, whereas teh A1(M) is rather dark in places. Given the choice I chose the A19.
The A1 is (certainly in rush hour) the busier (and is illuminated only around Tyneside).
A few years ago, I asked this question of a chap from TRL who I meet very occasionally. Traffic levels do figure, but it's not that simple. It depends on the expected accident levels when the motorway was built or at last major refit. But it also depends how much money is available and if it runs out before the job is completed (as happened on some dark sections of the M25 which were supposed to be lit). Streetlamps do make a significant contribution to accident reduction particularly at intersections, but going in and out of lit areas itself does seem to raise accident rates, so you can't just put them at the odd accident blackspot.
I suspect the economics may be changing too. 20 years ago, they were in effect almost free to run in terms of power, as they used the spare overnight capacity of our nuclear plant which was otherwise wasted. This isn't true anymore and they do cost a lot to run nowadays. As I often do motorway runs at 2am and find the roads empty with thousands of lamps lighting my way into the distance, I do wonder how long that may continue.
Until some climate scientist works out the death rate from GW and convinces the government that it will be higher than the death rate from dark roads? Not that any climate scientist will want to state how many deaths are going to happen when its all just *if* ATM.
I feel the lighting level is often excessive, and a reduction to 25% of current levels would hardly be noticed. I feel the transition between lit and unlit sections should be extended by am area of in between levels, to enable eyes (and speeds) to get adjusted to the new levels.
I notice they've reduced the lighting levels in some underpasses round here with the result that, on a sunny day, you can't see a damned thing until your eyes adjust
I find any preaching to me by government that I shoudl use low-E lightbulbs and unplug my TV at night to be complete hogwash while the country spends millions on lighting up the sky and creating light pollution. A ban on all street and architectural lighting might just convince me that they were serious rather than simply looking for excuses to raise taxation.
Just for interest how many times have you been caught for speeding, and how many times for other motoring offences?
Countless times for speeding, and once when they couldn't prove it, they followed me for miles and decided I had a 'below minimum tread tyre'
The next time they tried that one I drove into the next county.
Oh and once for crossing a white line. For the same reason. It was a convenient excuse that was a question of their word against mine.
Oh, and one speeding offence at least was on evidence that they concocted. It simply wasn't true, and demonstrably so.
You are. it seems, guilty of whatever two police officers decide to charge you with if you are alone in a car.
Maybe if you didn't flag up as a persistent offender when they do a check you wouldn't get any hassle?
You need to tell any one of the organisations who use the term differently from you as they obviously don't know as much about such things as yourself (NB not a mention of "speed limits")
ROSPA : Driving too fast for the conditions is a major cause of crashes.
Roadsafe: Driving Too Fast Kills More People Than Any Other Traffic Law Violation
RAC: When asked what their biggest fears were on motorways respondents cited: 15 per cent - motorists driving too fast
AA Foundation for Road Safety Research: A failure that increased the likelihood of the accident happening : Driving too fast for the situation
UK Transport Research Laboratory: humps cause discomfort to vehicle occupants if their vehicle is traveling too fast.
"and I live quite close to TRL."
I wondered what it was that made you feel that you were an authority on driving speeds.
The question was aimed at Andy Hall
which was ???????? - travelling too fast - unless you can identify something else - feel free to do so.
Not being a woman driver helps as well.....
I don't need to do anything.
The only definitions that have any significance, are those in the Road Traffic Acts. The rest are irrelevant because the organisations that you mention have little to no influence on driver behaviour.
Once. 34mph in a 30 zone and zero for everything else. Disapointed?
Where do you hang your handbag now that cars no longer seem to have manual chokes?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required