 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / August 2005Laugh or Cry: You Decide
As seen in Lincolnshire (Snarford to be precise) today: Single-track road with lots of bends; little verge before high grass/hedge; NSL applies. Difficult to see what's coming, hence more than 40mph is approaching recklessness. So as I approach a right hand bend what distracts my attention on the left hand verge, taking my eyes off the road? That's right as fluorescent poster from the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership telling me not to drive over 60mph because that is dangerous! If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny... PS. So I drove the rest of the way at 59mph because that was safe - though I doubt the horse-riders, the cyclists, the pedestrians and other car drivers who had to leap out of the way would have said so... > As seen in Lincolnshire (Snarford to be precise) today: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I doubt the horse-riders, the cyclists, the pedestrians and other car > drivers who had to leap out of the way would have said so... Does anyone seriously think that people who are pro-speed limits or cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice and fog'? Or do people instead drive at a speed suitable for the road conditions up to the speed limit and not over it? John. >Does anyone seriously think that people who are pro-speed limits or >cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice >and fog'? It's the natural corollary of believing that anything *over* the speed limit is dangerous.  SignatureIan >>Does anyone seriously think that people who are pro-speed limits or >>cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice >>and fog'? > > It's the natural corollary of believing that anything *over* the speed > limit is dangerous. In the OP's case, it probably would have been ;-) I do see your point. Many speed limits could be raised without any problems. However, a hell of a lot of people tend to assume that pro limit/camera people drive blindly around bang on the speed limit without any thought for the conditions. > >>Does anyone seriously think that people who are pro-speed limits or > >>cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > limit/camera people drive blindly around bang on the speed limit without > any thought for the conditions. That last sentence was three words too long. Otherwise I think you're right. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] JM <john@demon.invalid> wrote on Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:24:35 +0100: > I do see your point. Many speed limits could be raised without any > problems. However, a hell of a lot of people tend to assume that pro > limit/camera people drive blindly around bang on the speed limit without > any thought for the conditions. Well they must do, surely. Otherwise what's the point of 20mph limits outside schools? SignatureDavid Taylor > In the OP's case, it probably would have been ;-) > JM <john@demon.invalid> wrote on Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:24:35 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Otherwise what's the point of 20mph limits outside schools? ...or any other limit. If people can (and they do) judge a suitable speed for the conditions which is not equal to the limit what point is there in having limits? Apart from oppressive taxation? Speed limits kill. A : If people can (and they do) judge a suitable speed for the conditions : which is not equal to the limit what point is there in having limits? Because it's only /some/ people who can and do? Ian JM <john@demon.invalid> wrote on Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:59:53 +0100: > Does anyone seriously think that people who are pro-speed limits or > cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice > and fog'? > > Or do people instead drive at a speed suitable for the road conditions > up to the speed limit and not over it? Why would they do that? Why not just drive at a speed suitable for the road conditions. If it's bigger than the number on a stick, then so be it. If it's smaller than the number on a stick, then so be it. SignatureDavid Taylor > > As seen in Lincolnshire (Snarford to be precise) today: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice > and fog'? The trouble is that the people who sit on their arses in offices and are scared of the world around them think the rest of us are stupid so dream up these bloody ridiculous rules and "initiatives". Plus of course, if they didn't dream them up they wouldn't have a job. > > As seen in Lincolnshire (Snarford to be precise) today: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice > and fog'? That implies far more cognitive process that I would give them credit for but yes, in general, they just drive to the number on the pole. Perhaps not to extent in your example but in general, yes. > Or do people instead drive at a speed suitable for the road conditions > up to the speed limit and not over it? No, absolutely not. Again that credits people with far more involvement in a thought process. I'd say that the majority of drivers just get in, turn the key and then stare at the piece of tarmac directly in front of the car until they get to wherever it is they are pre-programmed to go. On the way they may waggle the indicator stalk randomly a few times. I don't think most people take any interest in actually driving the car whatsoever and they certainly don't think about what is or is not a 'safe' speed for the conditions. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] > > > As seen in Lincolnshire (Snarford to be precise) today: > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > whatsoever and they certainly don't think about what is or is not a > 'safe' speed for the conditions. A friend of mine drives half asleep to the extent that we were approaching a junction where we need to leave the motorway. Three time I said that this was the junction we needed. On another occasion he complained about the lack of (what he considered to be) appropriate signage approaching a junction in a village/small town. I could continue but you would only get bored. However, because I keep my eyes and ears open (most of the time) and drive to make progress he accuses me of being "lethal". > > > > As seen in Lincolnshire (Snarford to be precise) today: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > However, because I keep my eyes and ears open (most of the time) and drive > to make progress he accuses me of being "lethal". Q.E.D. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] > A friend of mine drives half asleep to the extent that we were > approaching a junction where we need to leave the motorway. Three time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, because I keep my eyes and ears open (most of the time) and > drive to make progress he accuses me of being "lethal". Yep, they assume that your observation and cognition is on a par with theirs - after all, it *can't* be better than theirs, because there's *nothing* wrong with their observation. They passed their driving test, didn't they? How dare you! > > > As seen in Lincolnshire (Snarford to be precise) today: > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > for but yes, in general, they just drive to the number on the pole. > Perhaps not to extent in your example but in general, yes. Often the number on the pole is a safe speed to drive at in most conditions - so people may be driving at that speed because a) it is safe and b) it is legal. Anyone who thinks that speed limits should be abolished altogether needs their head examined. > Often the number on the pole is a safe speed to drive at in most > conditions - so people may be driving at that speed because a) it is > safe and b) it is legal. Often a legal speed isn't safe. Often a higher speed would be perfectly safe. > Anyone who thinks that speed limits should be abolished altogether > needs their head examined. Anyone who thinks that the number-onna-stick has *any* part in setting the speed that is *safe* for the conditions should be a higher priority in the queue. > > Often the number on the pole is a safe speed to drive at in most > > conditions - so people may be driving at that speed because a) it is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > speed that is *safe* for the conditions should be a higher priority in the > queue. <http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8326556235&rd=1&ssp agename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1> Well, it made _me_ laugh. SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] >> Anyone who thinks that the number-onna-stick has *any* part in >> setting the speed that is *safe* for the conditions should be a >> higher priority in the queue. > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8326556235 > > Well, it made _me_ laugh. <bids> >>> Anyone who thinks that the number-onna-stick has *any* part in >>> setting the speed that is *safe* for the conditions should be a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <bids> Is the stunned mullet included? :) > > Often the number on the pole is a safe speed to drive at in most > > conditions - so people may be driving at that speed because a) it is > > safe and b) it is legal. > > Often a legal speed isn't safe. > Often a higher speed would be perfectly safe. Absolutely. > > Anyone who thinks that speed limits should be abolished altogether > > needs their head examined. > > Anyone who thinks that the number-onna-stick has *any* part in setting the > speed that is *safe* for the conditions should be a higher priority in the > queue. Indeed. But the line *has* to be drawn somewhere, because unfortunately there are a number of drivers - I would guess quite a significant percentage - who could not be trusted to drive at a safe speed. Some would no doubt drive too fast pretty much everywhere. Speed limits are one of the many laws we have simply because some people are idiots. > But the line *has* to be drawn somewhere, because unfortunately there > are a number of drivers - I would guess quite a significant percentage > - who could not be trusted to drive at a safe speed. Some would no > doubt drive too fast pretty much everywhere. Speed limits are one of > the many laws we have simply because some people are idiots. So perhaps instead of restricting the competent we should focus on upgrading the skills of the incompetent. If they can't gain competence, then they should not be on the road. Simple as that. Are you happy with sharing road space with people who can't observe, don't think, and can't decide what speed is appropriate? >> But the line *has* to be drawn somewhere, because unfortunately there >> are a number of drivers - I would guess quite a significant percentage [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Are you happy with sharing road space with people who can't observe, don't > think, and can't decide what speed is appropriate? Brilliant idea, Adrian. BUT THINK OF THE COST, MAN! Much easier to stick a camera up that works 24/7, un-stinting and un-failingly obeying it's lords and masters. This country has been run by accounts for centuries and unfortunately it looks like that is not going to change. > > > Often the number on the pole is a safe speed to drive at in most > > > conditions - so people may be driving at that speed because a) it is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > pretty much everywhere. Speed limits are one of the many laws we have simply > because some people are idiots. Why don't we just face it... people and cars don't mix. When they do, people generally get killed. It's been going on from the very beginning of motoring and nothing has changed since. The "speed" has got absolutely bugger all to do with it. <http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2t2jr8ad6dnq8?method=4&ds id=2222&dekey=Bridget+Driscoll&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc05a&linktext=Br idget%20Driscoll> SignatureMark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:42:52 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named Mark Foster <m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk> randomly hit the keyboard and produced: ><http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2t2jr8ad6dnq8?method=4&dsid=2222& dekey=Bridget+Driscoll&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc05a&linktext=Bridget%20Driscol l> 'An automobile ... struck her at "tremendous speed" - according to witnesses some 4 MPH (6,4 km/h)'. So it's true; speed is the killer. We should be demanding a 3 mph limit on all roads NOW! SignatureHugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?" >> > Often the number on the pole is a safe speed to drive at in most >> > conditions - so people may be driving at that speed because a) it is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >pretty much everywhere. Speed limits are one of the many laws we have simply >because some people are idiots. Why does the line *have* to be drawn when we've just agreed that the line is irrelevant? We ARE trusting every driver to drive at a safe speed, given that a safe speed is often *much* lower than the posted limit. SignatureIan > >> > Often the number on the pole is a safe speed to drive at in most > >> > conditions - so people may be driving at that speed because a) it is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Why does the line *have* to be drawn Because we live in the real world > when we've just agreed that the > line is irrelevant? I have agreed no such thing. In my view a speed limit is always a compromise, however it is not irrelevant. > We ARE trusting every driver to drive at a safe > speed, given that a safe speed is often *much* lower than the posted > limit. If trust was all we needed I would not need to lock my door at night. >> Why does the line *have* to be drawn > >Because we live in the real world I live in a real world. In my world I'd like to see drivers prosecuted for driving dangerously - not for having an arbitrary number on their speedometer. >> when we've just agreed that the >> line is irrelevant? > >I have agreed no such thing. In my view a speed limit is always a >compromise, however it is not irrelevant. "Often a legal speed isn't safe. Often a higher speed would be perfectly safe. Absolutely." Sounds like agreeing, to me. >> We ARE trusting every driver to drive at a safe >> speed, given that a safe speed is often *much* lower than the posted >> limit. > >If trust was all we needed I would not need to lock my door at night. What has that got to do with the price of fish? Drivers HAVE to be able to decide what is a safe speed for the conditions. If they can't do that, no number on a pole is going to help. SignatureIan >>> Why does the line *have* to be drawn >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > conditions. If they can't do that, no number on a pole is going to > help. Yes it does, by imposing a limit for good conditions. The standing instructions ae to reduce your speed if conditions are less than good. >>>> Why does the line *have* to be drawn >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Yes it does, by imposing a limit for good conditions. The standing >instructions ae to reduce your speed if conditions are less than good. If you need a plate on a pole to tell you what's a safe speed how are you going to tell whether conditions are "good" or not? SignatureIan >>>>> Why does the line *have* to be drawn >>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > If you need a plate on a pole to tell you what's a safe speed how are > you going to tell whether conditions are "good" or not? Are you suggesting that you're incapable of indentifying whether or not the sun is shining, whether or not it's raining, snowing etc? >>>> Drivers HAVE to be able to decide what is a safe speed for the >>>> conditions. If they can't do that, no number on a pole is going to >>>> help. >>> Yes it does, by imposing a limit for good conditions. The standing >>> instructions ae to reduce your speed if conditions are less than >>> good. >> If you need a plate on a pole to tell you what's a safe speed how are >> you going to tell whether conditions are "good" or not? > Are you suggesting that you're incapable of indentifying whether or > not the sun is shining, whether or not it's raining, snowing etc? Are you suggesting that whether there is currently any active precipitation falling is the only thing that affects road conditions? >>>>> Drivers HAVE to be able to decide what is a safe speed for the >>>>> conditions. If they can't do that, no number on a pole is going to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Are you suggesting that whether there is currently any active > precipitation falling is the only thing that affects road conditions? Nope. >>>> If you need a plate on a pole to tell you what's a safe speed how >>>> are you going to tell whether conditions are "good" or not? >>> Are you suggesting that you're incapable of indentifying whether or >>> not the sun is shining, whether or not it's raining, snowing etc? >> Are you suggesting that whether there is currently any active >> precipitation falling is the only thing that affects road conditions? > > Nope. Right. So you're happy that there's a bit more to it than "indentifying whether or not the sun is shining, whether or not it's raining, snowing etc"? In other words, that was a bit of a silly comment, wasn't it? >>>>> If you need a plate on a pole to tell you what's a safe speed how >>>>> are you going to tell whether conditions are "good" or not? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > In other words, that was a bit of a silly comment, wasn't it? Nope. >>>>>> If you need a plate on a pole to tell you what's a safe speed how >>>>>> are you going to tell whether conditions are "good" or not? >>>>> Are you suggesting that you're incapable of indentifying whether or >>>>> not the sun is shining, whether or not it's raining, snowing etc? >>>> Are you suggesting that whether there is currently any active >>>> precipitation falling is the only thing that affects road >>>> conditions? >>> Nope. >> Right. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> In other words, that was a bit of a silly comment, wasn't it? > Nope. Nope, you *don't* think there's more to it? >>>>>> Why does the line *have* to be drawn >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Are you suggesting that you're incapable of indentifying whether or not the >sun is shining, whether or not it's raining, snowing etc? I'm not - but then I'm fairly relaxed about judging whether I can stop within the distance I can see to be clear, too. I suspect most drivers on the road are capable of that, numbers on sticks or no numbers on sticks. SignatureIan > >> Why does the line *have* to be drawn > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for driving dangerously - not for having an arbitrary number on their > speedometer. Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I am vehemently against the use of speed cameras. I am also in strong favour of speed limits. Note that I do not necessarily agree that current speed limits are in any way adequate. > >> when we've just agreed that the > >> line is irrelevant? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sounds like agreeing, to me. I agree that "Often a legal speed isn't safe. Often a higher speed would be perfectly safe.". I do not agree that speed limits are irrelevant. > >> We ARE trusting every driver to drive at a safe > >> speed, given that a safe speed is often *much* lower than the posted [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > conditions. If they can't do that, no number on a pole is going to > help. Many can't decide what is a safe speed for the conditions. However, the number on the pole may make them drive at 60mph where in their view 120mph would be safe. [...] > Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I am vehemently against the use of speed > cameras. I am also in strong favour of speed limits. Note that I do not > necessarily agree that current speed limits are in any way adequate. You've already agreed that drivers successfully manage to chose safe speeds below the limit where conditions require, so why do you support speed limits? Surely the number on a stick is as likely to set a dangerous to strive for target as it is to constrain excessive speed. The absence of speed limits tends not to greatly increase speeds. A > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You've already agreed that drivers successfully manage to chose safe > speeds below the limit where conditions require Have I? > Surely the number on a stick is as likely to set a dangerous to strive > for target as it is to constrain excessive speed. > > The absence of speed limits tends not to greatly increase speeds. That's a sweeping statement with no proof at all that it would work in this country. [...] >> You've already agreed that drivers successfully manage to chose >> safe speeds below the limit where conditions require > > Have I? Yup, just as Ian D pointed out earlier. >> Surely the number on a stick is as likely to set a dangerous to >> strive for target as it is to constrain excessive speed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's a sweeping statement with no proof at all that it would work > in this country. There is no reason to believe that we would uniquely fail to benefit from the advantages offered by the absence of blanket arbitrary limits enjoyed by Germany, IoM and, briefly, Montana. A : The absence of speed limits tends not to greatly increase speeds. How about those autobahns you were praising earlier? Same sort of speeds as UK motorways? Ian >> The absence of speed limits tends not to greatly increase speeds. > > How about those autobahns you were praising earlier? Same sort of > speeds as UK motorways? Mostly a little faster - 85-95mph - which is not surprising since the fastest restrictions are 120km/h (~75mph). Quite a lot of ~120mph traffic but nothing seriously fast unless the road is very quiet. A [...] > But the line *has* to be drawn somewhere, No it doesn't. Try driving on an unlimited 2-lane A-bahn, it's more pleasant and freer flowing than a 3-lane M-way with a 70mph limit. Not allowing trucks overtake between 0600 and 2000 helps too. :) A [...] > Often the number on the pole is a safe speed to drive at in most > conditions - so people may be driving at that speed because a) it is > safe and b) it is legal. Often the number on the pole bares no relation to the safe speed for prevailing conditions. > Anyone who thinks that speed limits should be abolished altogether > needs their head examined. Anyone who thinks blanket arbitrary speed limits should be retained need to examine the evidence. A : Anyone who thinks blanket arbitrary speed limits should be retained need : to examine the evidence. As a matter of interest, then, how does the accident rate on the Isle of Man compare with the accident rate in the UK? Ian > Does anyone seriously think that people who are pro-speed limits or > cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice > and fog'? I think half of them are the 35-mph-everywhere brigade, who are then *utterly* outraged if they get nicked in a 30. > Or do people instead drive at a speed suitable for the road conditions > up to the speed limit and not over it? And yet they blindly cut off the notion of an "appropriate speed" being even 1mph over the number-onna-stick. It's *illegal* and *lethal*, obviously. Always. No, just can't see the logical disconnect that would allow that. >Does anyone seriously think that people who are pro-speed limits or >cameras go 'The speed limit is 60, so it must be safe despite the ice >and fog'? > >Or do people instead drive at a speed suitable for the road conditions >up to the speed limit and not over it? It's not the people who are in favour of enforced limits or against them that are the problem. At least they've given the subject some thought and are capable of making rational decisions. It's the vast majority who go along with the "speed kills" messages without thinking through the arguments for and against that cause me concern. Some people use the speed limit as a guide irrespective of whether driving at that speed is too much for the conditions. Some people use the posted speed limit as a _minimum_, and others just drive at 40 mph no matter where they are. SignatureHugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.