Speed cameras

[RumPunch]

I didn't say lower speed limits for these groups, but that I think accidents caused by these groups lead to lowering of speed limits.

Young drivers can already volunteer for the black boxes to lower premiums.

You could also make the driving licence time limited, possibly databasing it to car reg, so ANPR cameras can check on validity.

I sympathise with the youngsters - the premiums they ( hopefully ) pay are absolutely crazy. If we can reduce the number of accidents by better controlling the risks, and I truly consider poor judgement the No1 risk, then it's only going to benefit us all.

Reducing speed limits will not significantly reduce the number of incidents caused by poor judgement, just the impact speed.

[Poppy]

13 minutes ago, RumPunch said:

13 minutes ago, RumPunch said:

 

I didn't say lower speed limits for these groups, but that I think accidents caused by these groups lead to lowering of speed limits.

Young drivers can already volunteer for the black boxes to lower premiums.

You could also make the driving licence time limited, possibly databasing it to car reg, so ANPR cameras can check on validity.

I sympathise with the youngsters - the premiums they ( hopefully ) pay are absolutely crazy. If we can reduce the number of accidents by better controlling the risks, and I truly consider poor judgement the No1 risk, then it's only going to benefit us all.

Reducing speed limits will not significantly reduce the number of incidents caused by poor judgement, just the impact speed.

QED!  If I am to be a victim of somebody's 'poor judgement', I would rather be hit at 30mph than at 35 or 40! Wouldn't you?

Of course, many who defend excess speed will claim that it won't be their 'poor judgement', it rarely is....

[ian141]

4 hours ago, Poppy said:

QED!  If I am to be a victim of somebody's 'poor judgement', I would rather be hit at 30mph than at 35 or 40! Wouldn't you?

Of course, many who defend excess speed will claim that it won't be their 'poor judgement', it rarely is....

I'm sure I'd prefer to not be hit at all. Or at 5mph perhaps. Let's lower the speed limit to 5mph, and watch that injury and death rate drop like a stone.

So, hands up who thinks that all motorised vehicles should be banned altogether?. Then there would be no road deaths at all. 

Incidentally, in a fair proportion of instances when people are hit by a vehicle, it's the pedestrian that exhibits poor judgement... The number that dodge across roads rather than use crossings etc, that think 'it can't happen to me' seems inexhaustible. ,

 

[BroadScot]

43 minutes ago, ian141 said:

The number that dodge across roads rather than use crossings etc, that think 'it can't happen to me' seems inexhaustible. ,

Its the ones with the headphones on oblivious to what and where they are, when crossing any road! Grrrr!

Iain

[Baitrunner]

Or the ones who are so arrogant they saunter across the road knowing you will brake or stop or it will be the drivers fault. 

I don't remember any accidents outside my schools and from 5 yrs old they were all next to main roads in the town I lived in  

We were taught 2 things - if you got run over it was your fault and it would at the very least hurt like hell. The second was if you caused an accident walking in the road it would be your fault and you would get a clip round the ear as well. 

We never took any chances. 

And I would love do more than 15mph by my local school at drop off pick up time. But i can't see round the blind bend they park on and then open the offside door to put little Johnny on his seat! Now that is not using common sense. 

And just to make a point a friend of my son when they were 12 ran onto a dual carriageway to get his football. And was hit by a car doing less than the 70mph speed limit. He died instantly. 

His family, friends and my son were seriously upset by it. But no one ever mentioned how that poor driver felt! Who was in the wrong?

A bit morbid so sorry if it upsets anyone, I am sure others have graver tales.  The point was made earlier though we all have to take responsibility for our actions and do whatever is reasonable to minimise accidents. So should the dual carriageway be a 30 or better education for kids? I think we all know the answer in this instance. 

[Poppy]

10 hours ago, ian141 said:

I'm sure I'd prefer to not be hit at all. Or at 5mph perhaps. Let's lower the speed limit to 5mph, and watch that injury and death rate drop like a stone.

So, hands up who thinks that all motorised vehicles should be banned altogether?. Then there would be no road deaths at all. 

Incidentally, in a fair proportion of instances when people are hit by a vehicle, it's the pedestrian that exhibits poor judgement... The number that dodge across roads rather than use crossings etc, that think 'it can't happen to me' seems inexhaustible. ,

 

I refer the honourable gentleman to my post from which he was quoting 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Baitrunner said:

So should the dual carriageway be a 30 or better education for kids? I think we all know the answer in this instance. 

It would certainly be out of the question to impose a 30 mph speed limit on a road designed to carry traffic at higher speeds.

As with everything in life, there's a workable balance between safety measures and practicality.

Seat belts and crash helmets were strongly resisted by many drivers and bikers when they became mandatory, but they have saved countless lives and we now wear them quite happily with hardly anyone feeling their "civil rights" have been infringed, because they hugely improve safety with minimal inconvenience.

Most 30mph speed limit areas are so designated because of their close proximity to pedestrians and their interaction with cars parking. It is quite reasonable and practical (as it always has been) for the limit there to be 30 mph.

The overwhelming majority of pedestrians respect the dangers of the carriageway, not so much from education but simple self-preservation, but the ones that do occasionally stray into the road are not always culpable, they could be visually or audibly impaired, too young, too old, or simply momentarily distracted.

If you drive into one of those, yes, it certainly isn't your fault basically, but if you've compounded their fate by driving faster than the signed limit, you are then undeniably assuming part of the blame, emotionally and legally.

[Bound2Please]

11 hours ago, ian141 said:

I'm sure I'd prefer to not be hit at all. Or at 5mph perhaps. Let's lower the speed limit to 5mph, and watch that injury and death rate drop like a stone.

So, hands up who thinks that all motorised vehicles should be banned altogether?. Then there would be no road deaths at all. 

Really well in Sark about 3 years ago there was a road death no motorised Vehicles involved just a horse and cart. A lady from If I remember correctly from Canada died from injuries sustained in said accident. NO SPEED INVOLVED THERE

Edited March 3, 2016 by Bound2Please
typo

[Guest]

Damn horses and carts, nearly as dangerous as chariots and stagecoaches......

[Maxwellian]

Isn't it amazing that in life for many of us, it is always someone else's fault. I drive approx 30,000 to 35,000 miles per year and often use Cruise Control. The main thing is to always drive so that you are in control of the car for any given circumstances. Be alert and considerate. The world always needs more "lerts"

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Maxwellian said:

Be alert and considerate. The world always needs more "lerts"

That's the sobering thought that strikes when reading some drivers thoughts on this thread.

They know they're never going to cause an accident, because their driving is very good.

So if they ever hit anyone, it won't be their fault, so they should be allowed to drive faster.

[Poppy]

Just now, Strowager said:

That's the sobering thought that strikes when reading some drivers thoughts on this thread.

They know they're never going to cause an accident, because their driving is very good.

So if they ever hit someone, it won't be their fault, so they should be allowed to drive faster.

That's my impression too Strowager. Unfortunately, those of that mindset are not confined to this forum 

[MauriceMynah]

One needs to drive within ones own limitations as well as within the limitations of those driving around you. All other drivers are incompetant idiots who need horse-whipping, thus it's a good idea to obey the speed limits because although they were not written for you, they were written for everyone else.

[BuffaloBill]

1 hour ago, Maxwellian said:

The main thing is to always drive so that you are in control of the car for any given circumstances.

Until 5yrs ago, I taught people to ride motorcycles and help them get through their test.

The one thing I always tried to instill in them was:-

Never ride(drive) faster than the distance that you can see to stop in!

If you do that, you'll be aware of all the circumstances that can cause an accident, whether with people or other objects.

Anyone who does, or has, ridden a motorcycle will know the consequences of not using that rule.

[Viking23]

2 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

... Never ride(drive) faster than the distance that you can see to stop in!...

I have to disagree with that, especially on narrow country lanes, you really have to be able to stop in half that distance, especially if something else is doing the same speed as you coming the other way, the distance you can see, is the distance that both of you have to stop.

We live on country lanes, and more often than not, cars are travelling much faster than me... We also have horses, hedge clipping tractors, bin lorries etc blocking the whole road. Add to that a few roaming red deer too.

 

 

[Poppy]

I find this to be so very true 

[JennyMorgan]

Oh dear, the silly billy! Whoops a daisy, did you see that!!

[Viking23]

From the "Highway code"

"When turning into a road, give way to pedestrians already crossing"  or words to that effect.

Also you want to cross a road near a junction, the car coming towards you is not indicating to turn into your road and so you cross, and the driver is convinced it's your fault. 

Mind you a bit of common sense required here, and assume that ALL drivers are idiots, and never indicate correctly, and some can't use the indicator switch as their hand has their mobile phone in,  no point is saying in your hospital bed, or worse, that it wasn't your fault.

[MauriceMynah]

Dare I point out to Viking that he is in fact agreeing with BuffaloBill, only more so...

I think the pair of you will just have to agree to agree on this one

[Viking23]

The only person in this world I agree with.....

Is the wife lol....  

Only joking... she was looking over my shoulder when I wrote that lol....

 

Here is a challenge to any boater...

How quick can you stop from 5 mph, 7mph etc

Every boat is different, mass, power, efficiency of prop(s) in reverse, tidal current, wind etc. You really need to know for your boat.

Don't aim for a post or stone wall and hope to stop, choose a couple of reference points, someone on the bank might help, with our 15 hp outboard on our 23' boat, we are very good at testing this out especially when boats are coming towards us on our side of the river, more especially at Ludham bridge lol. However, we have the advantage that we can steer in reverse.

Sailies under wind power are excluded from this test lol.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Viking23 said:

How quick can you stop from 5 mph, 7mph etc

Every boat is different, mass, power, efficiency of prop(s) in reverse, tidal current, wind etc. You really need to know for your boat.

Yes, vital information to know in advance of needing it in emergency.

The problem with my current boat with the V6 outdrive isn't stopping distance, it's the possibility of shooting backwards after a second or so !

In fact I modified the throttle control with an adjustable stop on reverse, just in case panic sets in for a "guest" helm.

Very tricky for sailing craft with a following wind in narrow rivers where there's no room to turn, thank goodness for reed beds !

[Mowjo]

On a lighter note! Never drive faster than your Angel can fly!

[rightsaidfred]

On ‎03‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 8:30 AM, Bound2Please said:

So, hands up who thinks that all motorised vehicles should be banned altogether?. Then there would be no road deaths at all. 

While I wouldn't question speed limits in built up areas 3 points come to mind

1st we had a cyclist killed in a collision with another cyclist.

2nd A large number of pedestrian accidents involve cyclists

3rd News report on Local TV news  (London) 25% of accidents involve motor cyclists who make up 1% of road users

Fred

[Guest]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

3rd News report on Local TV news  (London) 25% of accidents involve motor cyclists who make up 1% of road users

I'm wondering about that particular statistic though Fred.

Of the "25% of accidents involving motorcyclists", I wonder how many of those were caused by the motorcyclist ?

I know there are plenty that weave in and out of traffic like lunatics, but even the cautious ones are much more vulnerable than car drivers.

The UK "look twice, think bike" road safety campaign highlighted how invisible bikes can be when cars pull out in front of them.

It's a shame the news report didn't qualify the statistic in more detail.

[Liberty]

Fair point.  When I passed my bike test, it was drummed into me: lifesaver, lifesaver, lifesaver.  That quick glance to the side/over the shoulder BEFORE turning or weaving or pulling out/away.  It seems to me that very few riders seem to do this in traffic now and I cringe when I see them just pull out without so much as a glance.