Hi Alex,

I agree, there is also the speed element, and the tail gating factor to be considered, and like the boys scouts 'one should be prepared'.

But I would like to see a bigger crack down on these idiots by the police.

Thank god for that, there is life on the planet after all. Thanks for coming back.

Soviet

Hi Alex, just a quickee,

Has by chance you, or a family member had a nasty incident due to speed.

You don't have to come back, over this if you feel that you are unable, but I was just wondering?

Soviet

Hi Alex, just a quickee,

Has by chance you, or a family member had a nasty incident due to speed.

You don't have to come back, over this if you feel that you are unable, but I was just wondering?

Soviet

Nope.

I've been rear ended by someone going too fast who couldn't stop when I did but that was damage-only.

I've also helped deal with the results of a very nasty accident caused entirely by inappropriate speed on more than one occasion.

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/roadside-hotel/nasty-accident-afternoon-not-me-though-long/80459/?highlight=nasty+afternoon

To be clear , I don't believe that it's never safe to exceed the speed limits - I do it a fair amount but do pay attention to whethere it's safe or not - but I am certain that there are a lot of people who do speed when it's clearly dangerous and many of them think that it's in some way unfair that the police try and enforce speed limits.

Good question Chris...I would say [probably predictably] certainly not speed cameras. I would like to think that a traffic bobby would be able to make some kind of sensible determination...just as an example, you're doing 85mph down the motorway in the outside lane, you're leaving a good gap between the yourself and the car in front, and you're showing good lane discipline etc etc - I would like to think matey boy copper in his Volvo would think "yep, he seems in control of his vehicle" and move on, focussing on catching those who undertake, tailgate, use phones etc etc...as for speeding in towns, to me that is inexcusable.

That's a good reply, but where do you draw the line? If I'm doing 150mph down the motorway, leaving a healthy gap, am I in control of the vehicle? The trouble is the speed you can safely travel is governed by what you can see and your environment. I was a passenger in a car the other day with a driver who fits the "safe" driver stereotype (sticks to speed limits in town) and was doing 85mph down a relatively clear motorway in lane 2, with a couple of cars in the near distance in lane 1 (we were going to overtake). The 2nd car in lane 1 was closing on the 1st car so I could see he was highly likely to overtake (and I would have taken lane 3 at this point or eased off the accelerator) whereas the "safe" driver didn't clock this and was forced to take evasive action when the car pulled out on him. Admittedly the car moving from lane 1 is at fault, but with a bit of looking and planning ahead it needn't have been a problem.

As a result of this journey, I'm not sure I'd want to be driven around town where there is much more risk of "unexpected" things happening where even 30mph may be too high a speed to travel.....

Chris

I agree to some extent that fixed speed limits do not determine a safe speed, and in an ideal world they wouldn't exist and everyone could rely on a driver's judgement to use a safe speed. However, this is not a perfect world, and we all know that the road is populated by complete ***** who appear to use sound judgement rarely at best.

Pretty much everyone knows car's energy increases by the square of speed, so whilst going 10 miles an hour over the 50 limit for example doesn't feel much faster at all, it actually takes a significant distance to scrub off that extra 10mph. Here's a table I got given the other day which I found quite interesting:

"Imagine two vehicles driving along the same piece of road, the drivers drivers apply their brakes at the same moment and skid to a halt. Vehicle 1 starts at 30 mph, vehicle 2 starts at the speeds shown below. Vehicle 2's final speed (impact speed) is shown on the right.

Initial speed (mph) - Final speed (mph)

30 - 0

32 - 11

40 - 26

50 - 40

Assuming vehicle 1 starts at 40 mph:

40 - 0

50 - 30

60 - 45

Assuming vehicle 1 starts at 50 mph:

50 - 0

60 - 33

70 - 49

Assuming vehicle 1 starts at 60 mph:

60 - 0

70 - 36

80 - 53

Assuming vehicle 1 starts at 70 mph:

70 - 0

80 - 38

90 - 57

100 - 71"

Sorry if this is a repost, but it shows quite well how a little extra speed can turn into added impact energy. People are always going to make mistakes, and whilst I agree further driver training is the way to go, if the 'perfect driver' makes a mistake in front of you then the less speed you have, the safer it is for everyone.

And to answer the original question : yeah, he should have got a summons in my book.

And sorry to hijack the original thread, wanted to get that table posted here for a while, I'll use any excuse;)

That's an interesting table, and as you say adding 10mph doesn't feel that different. Is this a hypothetical table, or a measured experiment (and if so which cars were used?)

Chris

Yep, I agree that the table should certainly not be taken as proven fact. It was issued by the Thames valley police accident investigation unit, and as I understand it (this was given and explained to me by someone else) this is theoretical, based on the calculations that they used in their job. However, the fact that it was made public suggests it might be a tad on the sensationalist side!

I am not sure that the type of car would matter, as long as vehicle 1 and 2 are the same type (i.e. not ford anglia vs vayron!). Really, this table just provides a slightly more relevant picture of the energy = speed squared idea.

Hi good old Soviet here,

NO ONE WITH ANY THOUGHTS ON OVERTAKING TO THE RIGHT ON MOTORWAYS WITH NO PRIOR INDICATION OF INTENTION??????

Soviet - no one has really replied to you on this becuase it is a completely different subject matter to what the thread title is all about.

going into that debate here would be classed as "De-railing" or Hi-jacking a perfectly good discussing about excess speed in inappropriate places - and would be frowned upon by the mods

I'm sure if you started a thread about "people who forget that indicator stalks exist and have a purpose" then it would spark some debate.

I am not sure that the type of car would matter, as long as vehicle 1 and 2 are the same type (i.e. not ford anglia vs vayron!). Really, this table just provides a slightly more relevant picture of the energy = speed squared idea.

My thinking was that there are two extremes for cars involved. You've got your old Ford Anglia (with drum brakes and, let's say, knackered tyres) and then you have your F1 car with superb brakes and super sticky tyres which can go from 200mph to 0mph in a tiny distance. So, for any given car, it's braking performance (governed by design and how it's maintained) will have a bearing on how much speed can be scrubbed off before the collision?

It'd be interesting to try and measure this with real cars (without actually colliding them) and see how it compared to the data....

Chris

At the risk of really going a long way off the thread now (sorry!)...

Yes, car 2 could be an F1 car, and car 1 a ford anglia, in which case, no problemo! Alternatively, car 1 could be an F1 car, and bingo, we now have a nice lump of ex-ford scrap metal with carbon fibre shards in what used to be the bonnet and a very pi$$ed off looking F1 team manager!

My guess is (and I got a bottom of the line B at GCSE maths and then gave it up, so my guess is probably as wrong now as it was back then ) that if you had F1 car vs F1 car and separately ford anglia vs anglia, the impact speeds would be the same.

All that this table is relevant for for road use is to suggest in a graphical way that as you increase your speed over the limit, the time taken to scrub off that speed increases disproportionately, and therefore, unless absolutely certain that no-one is going to do something stupid in front of you, to keep the speed down. How many people would drive at inappropriate speeds if we got rid of speed limits? Too many, therefore keep 'em. Agreed there are lots of places where speed limits have been cut, but hopefully over time, common sense will prevail - I've seen a few 50 limits revert back to NSL recently.

I agree that it would be interesting to try out in real life; if anyone can think of a good place to do it, I volunteer my car!

EDIT: I only volunteer my car if we're not doing the collision thing

Back on thread topic , I reckon that points were a certainty getting done at almost 50mph in a 30 zone , he was lucky not getting a summons. Maybe if he was caught at 50 plus MPH then the consequences could have been more severe.

On the thread topic, it's not said at what time of day or night the incident occurred. Nevertheless it's a lot "fairer" than having a death on his(her) conscience for the rest of his life. Typically, one hopes people will learn a lesson.

Maybe the penalty should include assisting with the outfall from preventable accidents in built up areas as some on here have witnessed and helped with. Failing that, tell him to walk backwards and forwards across a zebra crossing for a day. It'll probs put more wind up him than points and a fine will

Mo

Sorry for getting on my high horse here (neigh), but I think speeding in a built up area should warrant a higher fine and more points than when one speeds on an NSL road. After all, how many kiddies play on motorways or dual carriageways?!?

True, but going at over 100 down the m/way if you lose it you're f*cked and could cause a mass pile up. Also braking distances and your own reactions would be far too slow at that speed so more likely to cause an accident.

Loz, I'm wondering if you have the wrong end of the stick re gilaandy's post? Some cars going at speed on our high street I'd happily send to the crusher, let alone points or fines. Motorways are different and a whole different set of thinking applies. Though perhaps they should have roadside crushers rather than speed cams. Just thinking out loud

Mo

Some cars going at speed on our high street I'd happily send to the crusher, let alone points or fines.

I've said it before (and I'll say it again!), the trouble with speed limits is they are not variable and not take environment, time of day, etc into account. There are some 30mph stretches where, at certain times, I could safely travel at the NSL. There are other times where 30mph is way too high a limit and I'd only feel comfortable crawling through.

Still, you can't cater for all of the people all of the time, so I guess a happy medium has to be reached which becomes the law.... I just wish they would focus on people driving safely rather than ensuring people rigidly stick to an arbitrary limit.

Chris

I agree to some extent that fixed speed limits do not determine a safe speed, and in an ideal world they wouldn't exist and everyone could rely on a driver's judgement to use a safe speed. However, this is not a perfect world, and we all know that the road is populated by complete ***** who appear to use sound judgement rarely at best.

And to answer the original question : yeah, he should have got a summons in my book.

And sorry to hijack the original thread, wanted to get that table posted here for a while, I'll use any excuse;)

And what is the assumed rate of deceleration used in constructing that table?

Seems odd, when I think the guidance to them is 10% + 2mph still. So really, they should not have given a ticket as you could argue the point. :confused:

I thought that too. But it was a van so was automatic (?), no doubt a traffic officer will use his/her judgement and would've let her off.

And what is the assumed rate of deceleration used in constructing that table?

It wouldn't matter , as that's a constant used in both sides of the equation so it would cancel out

True, but going at over 100 down the m/way if you lose it you're f*cked and could cause a mass pile up. Also braking distances and your own reactions would be far too slow at that speed so more likely to cause an accident.

This is why you should do "projecting your vision" and anticipate Loz. In the (rare) event of a catastrophic mechanical failure you're in trouble even at a "safe" (in the legally permitted sense of "safe") out of town speed. With good projection and anticipation you don't get into trouble in the first place, unlike the idiot who's only looking as far as the end of their own bonet!

I wish the consequences of peoples driving actions were more widely broadcast, be it the inappropriate use of speed or cutting people up, road bullying etc.

Lets face it almost everyone will have driven like a prat at some time (I accept some people won't have but judging by driving standards on the road they are in the minority), but for most people when they find out the consequences of their actions it reduces the chances of driving in that style (at least for a while).

Like when I got caught speeding (56 in a 40 with the same fine), yes it probably was safe speed but it was breaking the law. I am now much more concious of remaining within the boundaries that are set us and sometimes it is a real struggle to keep it in check, with a car that does around 150mph and the temptation that brings.

Or when you have an accident (which some may have noticed I have recently, fortunately no injuries to anyone) it makes you want to drive alot more defensively to avoid such things. However, even this feeling normally only lasts for a period of time, then I believe you need some reminding of exactly what CAN happen with innapropriate driving habits, be they yours or someone elses. As someone else mentioned, speed can make it a lot harder to avoid someone elses mistakes!

Perhaps a 'speed' school or 'habit' school should be a requirement for any road based conviction/incident, and maybe when learning to drive. And maybe we should have to take a driving test every 5-10 years to keep us all in check to some degree. Still I guess that's for a nother thread really!

Are the fine and points fair 48 in a 30 fair, maybe depending on the situation. But it may be enough to save someones life later.

One of my pet hates is the car that sits at 45 in a perfectly straight , clear road, with no hidden junstions, in good visibility, but then carries on at 45 through a built up area, with pleanty of potential dangers. To me this shows a lack of awareness or understanding of the surroundings. I am happy(well, tollerant) of people who are below the limit, as I can overtake when safe, but if they dont then adjust their speed for a built up area, then this really anoys me!

Slightly different note, but there are a few areas where speed cameras on motorways are working. The M42 is far better (IMO) now that the variable speed system is in place. Generally, it flows better (there are exceptions though), with far less stop/start (so safer!) than it used to, and delays seem to be reduced, though that may just be because there is less actual "stopped" time, so seems better. Another bonus is that is everyone does a constant 50 or whatever its set at, then cars are more efficient over the run, so fuel/money is saved, and pollution is reduced.

Personally - it p**ses me off seeing drivers going through built up villages at 40+mph - and Im not just talking boy racers, I mean ponsy execs in their Audi's and B'mers and 4x4s and those CAT tractor things - I would hate to see a kid running out and getting squat.

Agreed, apart from one bit. You will struggle to fing a Cat tractor that will do over 25mph. Nothing we make that actually fits on a road will come close to 40:D (sorry, pedantic digger nerd!)

Phil

(The Digger Design Engineer)

Agreed, apart from one bit. You will struggle to fing a Cat tractor that will do over 25mph. Nothing we make that actually fits on a road will come close to 40:D (sorry, pedantic digger nerd!)

Phil

(The Digger Design Engineer)

Bets the "Cat" was actually a JCB Fastrac?

Bets the "Cat" was actually a JCB Fastrac?

I spit in their general direction!

yeah, probably. Easiest way to get a 16 year old hauling a 40 tone trailer on minimum wage, to save on shipping costs! Driving lisence entitlements seem pretty daft these days too! But thats another thread!

Phil

I spit in their general direction!

yeah, probably. Easiest way to get a 16 year old hauling a 40 tone trailer on minimum wage, to save on shipping costs! Driving lisence entitlements seem pretty daft these days too! But thats another thread!

Phil

TBF most of the examples I've seen are being used on on/off road construction or forestry work, where the off-road part would otherwise have demanded a specialist vehicle, and a trans-shipment to an HGV for the on-road work.

I got done for doing 56 in a 50 so you should get done as well J.