Variable speed limits have also been introduced on the heavily congested part of the M42 together with use of the emergency lane at times of high congestion. They seem to be working.
There is also a plan to consider their use on parts of the M1 which were scheduled for inclusion of a fourth lane.
I get free photographs every 3-6 months...next on is on Friday!
Except Dennis of course
That's really very restrained for you. I was expecting at least one road rage and possibly even a "Gillian Taylforth" incident :-)
How's the apprentice doing? ;-)
Owain
The words "which were scheduled" worries me. Have the plans been scrapped for a 4th lane?
The M42 design works very well IMHO. There is dodgy bit as you travel east where it meets the M6 toll (J9?) where the overhead signs could be better and the last turn off to stay on the M42 or join the M6 toll confuses many drivers.
Adam
I did not get a motoring ticket for any of my road rage incidents and it was you that made rude comments about Gillian's cheek swaps DNA giving false/multiple results. I'll bet the arresting officers DNA is now on file without him knowing.
Waiting for 3 months to pass. No one has died yet:-)
You get your own key at Lindholme.
Adam
snip
As I understood it, about two/ three months ago, the section from south of Leicester to Nottingham that is intended to be widened, has been put on hold due to the success of the M42 section. If the existing hard shoulder and variable speed limits were adopted rather than an additional fourth lane, the costs would be reduced.The information is probably on the Highways Agency's website.
The whole design of the M6 bypass (toll road) was an abortion as I see it. I don't think that the designers had sufficient time playing with their Dinky toys before the earthmovers got cracking. Going north to the toll road can be confusing. Those with a geographic mind know that the Toll road is going north west and that the M42 goes north east contrary to the way it has been built. For folk coming south on the M42, the introduction of the Toll road has been a nightmare completely ceasing up traffic at peak times.
My next visit is in June. I shall be interested to see whether a photograph gets taken.
A tenner IIRC. I'd take a large pinch of salt with what Dennis says, I don't have drops that dilate the pupils for the photograph. The room is instead rather dark.
The only references to fundus photography and fees are not from the government but say the cost is *not* covered by the standardised NHS fee. There are references from Scotland where it appears that cover for the cost will be phased in over three years depending on your age and circumstances.
Hum. I assume you have a condition that requires monitoring on such a frequent basis, thus the free photo is part of that monitoring and treatment.
AFAICT the recommend routine 2 yearly NHS eye examination does not include a fundus photo.
The message from "Dave Liquorice" contains these words:
It hasn't for me so far (not that I have a problem that would require one AFAIK) but at least the examination is free for the over 60s.
Yop. Malignant melanoma...
thanks for that.
I wonder why all the drivers that can't claim an accident free life claim that those that can have caused accidents? I suggest you just learn to drive properly if you can't drive without having an accident.
A big roundabout or a small roundabout?
Pulled out in front of you while you were speeding?
Are you sure? There are a lot of people here that claim they are perfect enough to be able to ignore speed limits.
If where you go has the kit I'd expect them to offer it as an extra. Personally I'd take it but then there is glaucoma in the family but even without that there are other slow onset degradations that it can help spot early.
When you find them will you let us know?
I've had half a dozen accidents of one sort or another in the last 30 years and god knows how many miles.
None when exceeding a speed limit, though Or anywhere NEAR it..
Of the three *I hold my hand up to*, as being definitely my fault, all were at times of extreme stress in my personal life, and all occurred at slow speeds well under the limits.
Only two involved another car. One was parked and empty.
I've been driven INTO three times, in towns at sub 5mph speeds.
My conclusion is from my own experience, that speeding per se makes little odds. The most dangerous thing for me is distraction, mostly brought on by fatigue or stress.
That's when you miscalculate and misjudge: Otherwise the driver is usually the best judge of the safe speed, not a nameless bureaucrat miles away in time and space..
If drivers have to be constantly policed to be safe, (rather than legal) the implication is they shouldn't be on the road anyway.
I've seen maybe a dozen accidents of a bad nature. One fatality on a road (three on a race track) . Only one was by someone exceeding a speed limit. Lets say that 125mph down a single carriageway when other motorists are about is really pushing your luck..his ran out..a swerve to avoid a car pulling out put him and his 4 passengers upside down in a ditch. Rear seat passengers were unbelted. They broke a few bones and got scarred. He and FS passenger were 'walking wounded'
Accidents are down to miscalculations, or plain bad luck. Like the person who got a piece of lorry brake drum thrown through her windscreen, and woke up in hospital three days later. Or was it being dangled from a bridge? We never found out.
No, she wasn't doing the limit, either.
Or te case of the multiple sets of lights, where a car went through a red and smashed into the side of someone else, because the first set was green. Smashed pelvis cracked spine and permanent disability. Sub the speed limit again.The only fatality I have seen on the roads? sub speed limit. Old dear walked straight in front of a car ..no crossing, no reason to cross. She 'just did it'. With todays cars, she might have got away with it. Not with a 1960 Rover 3500.
So, what do I conclude?
1/. There is an irreducible residue of real 'accidents' which nothing can be done about without spending enormous sums of money on fencing, underpasses etc etc. The deer, rabbit or pheasant, or fox or cat or dog that runs out is unavoidable. As is some mechanical debris, ..you CAN avoid driving in high winds where trees fall down tho..2/. The rest, are avoidable. Potentially. They happen because people are basically inattentive, and lack enough sense of danger to pay attention to what they are doing.
This leads to a further point. What increases peoples awareness of danger? The current 'safety lobby' seems to take it that what works is not reducing the accident rate, but reducing the severity of the accident, and cluttering the roadscape up with one sign after another. My own feeling is that this in fact makes things WORSE. An environment populated by Dennises, where 'keeping to the law' is equated with 'safe driving' is a fools paradise.
When you are dividing your time between watching the speedo and trying to read roadsigns, you are not watching your mirror or the road.
IF people who HAVE accidents were investigated, and, where appropriate, prosecuted, as well as those that arguably CAUSED them ( friend who wrote himself, two kids and his Porsche off, when overtaking, because the bloke he overtook forced him off the road deliberately, and into the path of an oncoming truck for example) then that might increase the sense of awareness.
Speed may be a contributing factor in accidents, but its almost never the primary reason. But speed is easy to police and makes money, so it gets the focus. That is plain wrong. The focus should be on sound road design, too much road furniture, and bad drivers. Its far too easy to pass a test.
Or in the case of cyclists, drive on a public road without ever having taken one.
I like the law in Germany, where it is illegal to undertake a car. It is also illegal, with equal penalties I believe, to BE UNDERTAKEN.
Funnily enough., although many autobahns are still essentially unrestricted, no one really drives much more than 30mph faster than the traffic they are overtaking. They LEARN, by near misses, how extremely dangerous that can be.
I suspect that per passenger mile, motorways are a lot safer than suburban streets. How so when the speed limit is more than twice?
No cyclists and pedestrians and parked vehicles for a start. Or pets. Less junctions. No traffic lights. Stuff like that. One way carriageways.
There is a lesson there..Like star separating traffic from slow stuff, and make sure the roads are easy to read..
Cr@p! You should know how fast you are going even without the speedo! You certainly don't have to pay much attention to the speedo. If you can't do so I suggest you stop driving or at least slow down so you have the time to do what is *required* to drive.
More cr@p!
I bet you can't. I said if someone is stupid enough to get too close I slow down. That is not obstruction!
Anyway you are a pathetic individual that likes to say stuff about people while hiding from the replies, not that you will read this and I sure ain't going to change my nym so you can read it. You only post cr@p anyway.
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.