Warning - New Stealth Tax on Motorists! Coming to a motorway near you..........

[KenONeill]

I don't understand what you're trying to point out?

 

I've not assumed, I've stated that the tree will be hit! How else would you remove other factors in the crash?

 

Unless you're wanting to just fire cars at random in a forest and see which hit? We could end up with the result that it's the squirrels that kill.

 

So if the KE(I assume you mean Kinetic Energy) is a risk factor then the death is the consequence?

 

And as Kinetic Energy is directly proportional to speed we're still with the fact that in Speed is the "risk"

 

And yet still the same results come out of it!

 

"the risk of higher speeds increase the likelihood of death which is the consequence"?

 

Oh look it's what I was explaining in the other post!

 

Only 1/10,000,000 of trees being sentient and mobile beings with a past time of trying to catch motorists out?  so we've over 30 million cars in the UK so worrying 3 people are attacked each year by trees!?!?!

 

Wow I must go back and apologist to the people to claimed that happened to them as I for some unbeknown reason didn't trust their account of the crash.

I've just demonstrated that the statistical chance of hitting a tree at any speed is hugely low. Accordingly, you are attempting to legislate for an event which almost never happens. The chance of hitting a tree in the real World rather than in your laboratory is hugely low.

 

The probability of a negative consequence if you do hit a tree is related to speed yes, but that's not the risk itself. I've been in 4 RTAs (used because they were unplanned events) at speeds between 30 and 60 mph, and always walked away so even P(KSI) is clearly less than 1 at those speeds.

[keystonedriving]

Class 1 and Coach drivers are the most trained and prepared for the driving in the conditions they do, yet you have people in cars causing havoc on the motorways, when your taken on your test for either of the above it usually involves a section of motorway or dual carriage way, yet when car drivers past their test they get taken round quiet housing estates? 

 

The class B driving test will always involve driving on a national speed limit road, if a dual carriageway is available it will be used, and suitable progress will be expected.  When I took my test it was a 20 minute trundle around town but that is no longer the case.

[KenONeill]

The class B driving test will always involve driving on a national speed limit road, if a dual carriageway is available it will be used, and suitable progress will be expected.  When I took my test it was a 20 minute trundle around town but that is no longer the case.

True this - Even when I took my test in 1983, we were using a 40mph dual carriageway and required to do between 35 and 40mph along it. When my sis took her's in the late 1990s (from the same Test Centre) they used the NSL section of the same road and you were required to achieve 60 to 70mph along it.

[Laurie61]

I think, getting back to the OP's point, that cameras on motorways could be considered new in respect to using them 24/7. If we cast our minds back to the introduction of cameras in the UK we were told they would be targeted specifically at accident black spots and outside schools if necessary. M-ways, being the safest roads in the country, would be free from these devices.

As we know now this did not happen and cameras were installed all over the road network, quite often after A-B roads had been re rated at reduced speeds. M-ways did escape though for many years until used for reduced limits through road works. We were then told that cameras would be part of the new managed motorway schemes and used to enforce the lower limits at peak times, to guaranty compliance.

Today we find that some police forces are using these managed motorway cameras as general speed cameras. So doing what the Gov said would not happen or needed to happen based on accident statistics. We also perhaps need to remember that this is all going on whilst UK road accident numbers have been falling year on year for decades, without this level of enforcement being necessary.

The 85 percentile rule is used by Gov as a way of keeping the majority of the population on side with acceptance of the laws and police-able.

The Gov is aware of speeds on various roads and averages attained by different classes of vehicle and these figures are published, they do show that for passenger cars the average speed is well above 70 mph on motorways and has been for years. So in the face of falling accident rates and being told initially that cameras would not be needed on motorways why is it that they are being used now ?

You can, I think, see why they are viewed purely as cash raising devices as opposed to being needed to drive down accident rates when statistics show they are not needed. :sun:    

Edited 22 January, 2015 by Laurie61

[iMatchu]

I've just demonstrated that the statistical chance of hitting a tree at any speed is hugely low. Accordingly, you are attempting to legislate for an event which almost never happens. The chance of hitting a tree in the real World rather than in your laboratory is hugely low.

 

The probability of a negative consequence if you do hit a tree is related to speed yes, but that's not the risk itself. I've been in 4 RTAs (used because they were unplanned events) at speeds between 30 and 60 mph, and always walked away so even P(KSI) is clearly less than 1 at those speeds.

... sigh

 

Folks Before Posting Please Please Please do a little research and establish whether or not you're barking up the right tree (pun intended).

 

Ken I implore you too go look at the accident stats break down on gov.uk Someone has already posted a link, go read them and then you'll realise that trees are one of the biggest risks of death on the roads

 

Which roads kill the most? Rural road with national speed limits- what lines rural roads? Our survey says: Trees!

 

So no you haven't proved at all that you're unlikely to hit a tree the opposite is true though!

 

So fifth gear (although I know Jezza isn't there so it's might just be all lies and Cgi Effects) have done a nice little crash test with a tree to look at. I'll even link it for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWegXQ81TKw

 

And using the argument of probability is nonsense! of course it's got to be less than 1! if just one person survives a crash no matter how many are KSI then it's automatically less that 1.

Edited 22 January, 2015 by iMatchu

[M12MKD]

4.00ams

 

I don't think there is a cure for stupid yet :(

Yes there is Death!! Nature's wonder at work!

Anyway speeding it's a bit like marmite really........If it's on toast and you drop it, then it will make a mess.

I got caught once. Paid my dues and I can't honestly say I've not broke the speed ever again.

Remember it's not rape if you shout "surprise first".

[stever750]

I can vouch for the penalty for speeding on Spain. Belgium is a country you really don't want to get caught without having the cash to pay the fine on the spot. German drivers obey speed limits far more strictly than the significant minority in the UK who really don't get "average"

[Miz]

 

also could you find me a accident where you don't hit anything?

 

 

I've had a few of those, but as trees were not involved, I can still tell the stories

[Brimma]

I think Ken's now just trying to bamboozle people and boost his post count

[iMatchu]

I've had a few of those, but as trees were not involved, I can still tell the stories

Please do I can't work out how to have accident without hitting anything! Surely it's just your car breaking down in that case?

 

I think by definition of accident you have to hit something! or it's just a near miss!

Edited 23 January, 2015 by iMatchu

[Evil Miyagi]

also could you find me a accident where you don't hit anything?

 

Accident in your trousers?

[Guest]

I have in the past deliberately broken the speed limit, mostly in hire cars it has to be said.

After travelling up from the South of England to Glasgow and back most weekends for 20 odd years, I realised it was just not worth it financially or getting points on my licence or fined. Either would have affected my job.

Today however I deliberately broke the speed limit for the vast majority of my journey from Bonnybridge to Hamilton, a distance of about 25 miles. The reason? Someone in their wisdom decided to put a blanket 40mph speed limit on the M80, M73 and M74. I realise it was raining, but in my opinion there was no need to reduce the speed to that level, if at all. I made the same journey last Friday during extremely heavy snowfall and low temperatures (-4 on the dash) and there was no speed reductions in place.

Today we had the situation where some drivers obeyed the reduced limit and others didn't. It was beyond dangerous.

I agree there should be a speed limit in place on the motorways, and think 70mph is an acceptable compromise between traveling large distances quickly and safely.

Today's reduced speed limit was neither of these.

Fin

[Evil Miyagi]

Now, where did I put my popcorn

[Brimma]

You can always rely on having a random debate on a Brisky speeding thread

[Miz]

Please do I can't work out how to have accident without hitting anything! Surely it's just your car breaking down in that case?

 

I think by definition of accident you have to hit something! or it's just a near miss!

 

Well, I'm broadening the scope slightly, but if I'm heading to work early in the morning, enjoying the views across the Peak District and next thing I'm laid in the road watching the bike sliding to a halt, I'm sure I've had an accident, no one else involved, and the only collision was with the ground, but I'm also sure the trees were laughing..

 

Don't you love frosty mornings.

Edited 23 January, 2015 by Miz

[Welsh_kai_boy]

Couple of personal insult posts hidden, please treat others with respect. Strong discussions and debate is acceptable stepping over the line breaks the rules, the MODs don't really want to lock threads. Lets keep it that way, unlocked!

[stever750]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/more-300-drivers-caught-speeding-8506504

 

Kind of makes the stealth tax argument invalid? More like a moron tax.

[Ootohere]

Another big crash sadly.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30965592

 

Considering the UK Driving Instruction & tests and standard of driving and then those that now drive without any Instructions 

or Tests or EU Licences, maybe better the NSL Max for Motorways & Dual Carriageways stay as they are,

& more Variable are in Operation and Policed by Cameras.

 

Maybe also Drivers should have ID Plates on the Vehicles Screen so that ANPR Type Readers can pick up on 

Vehicles Drivers.

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

Sounds like a load of idiots not looking where they're going/rubbernecking.

[Brimma]

Living proof......a rubbernecker will cause a lesser impact if he ploughs into you at 70 than he would ploughing into you at 90

No level of driver training will ever breed out the stupid from potential Darwin Award winners

[kentphil1]

Another big crash sadly.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30965592

I hope nobody on here got caught up in that, just unbelievable how low some people's attention spans really are.

[stever750]

I luckily missed that this morning, and on the way home. From the eyewitness reports it seems the minibus driver caused it, it's a local firm, he should know that the traffic backs up along that stretch especially at weekends with all the shoppers, made worse with the roadworks on the dual carriageway off the slip.

[slider]

Rubbish!

.   Over 80% of motorway users exceed the 70 mph limit therefore the law is not enforceable.   

 That statement alone is utter rubbish - certainly not on the motorways I travel.  Maybe we are better policed in Scotland but if I set the cruise control to 70 I am only ever passed by a few cars on a 30- 40 mile journey, and I certainly pass more cars than pass me.  That's assuming of course the roads are unconjested enough to even travel at 70!

 

Not a Motorway but average speed cameras were recently installed on the A9 from Dunblane to Inverness, at teh same time the limit for HGV's was raised to 50 (which most of them did anyway) - the result is that traffics is much calmer with nobody blasting past the odd slow lorry in stupid places, everyone just sits at 50 ish and you get there just as quickly.

[Ootohere]

It is little surprise that less are breaking the Speed Limit now, when you have no idea if caught until the NIP arrives in the post.

 

Between Perth-Dunblane it would be nice when the road is not busy or near empty if people would not sit at 60-65 in the outside 

lane and let others get up the road with cruise control on or the throttle sitting with the car doing 70.

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30972743

[stever750]

That statement alone is utter rubbish - certainly not on the motorways I travel. Maybe we are better policed in Scotland but if I set the cruise control to 70 I am only ever passed by a few cars on a 30- 40 mile journey, and I certainly pass more cars than pass me. That's assuming of course the roads are unconjested enough to even travel at 70!

Not a Motorway but average speed cameras were recently installed on the A9 from Dunblane to Inverness, at teh same time the limit for HGV's was raised to 50 (which most of them did anyway) - the result is that traffics is much calmer with nobody blasting past the odd slow lorry in stupid places, everyone just sits at 50 ish and you get there just as quickly.

I think it's time dependent. During commute rush hour few proportionately exceed speed limits on the M way, outside of this speeds go up, as the roads ate full of van / sales reps etc, ie people who drive as part of their work. Drive along the M4 / M5 / M6 / M1 during off peak at 80 and 50% of the traffic (excluding hgv of course) will pass you!