[Archived] Warning

[tony gale's mic]

I'm sorry sir but that pictogram is rubbish. It is famous (and proved by Top Gear years ago) that the "official" stopping distances in the High Way Code are based on cars from the 80s. Modern cars react much much quicker than that diagram shows. The "thinking" time is purely subjective too.

If a kid runs out of nowhere, then stopping distance is irrelevant anyway and sorry but I view that as a form natural selection/bad parent training.

This is the problem nowadays, no one wants to take responsibilty for teaching their children anything and if any harm comes to them because of it then it must be the adult's fault.

"Proved by Top Gear" - what, on a motorists show?

The actual distances may or may not be not accurate anymore. However the relative difference of the speeds will be exactly the same if you transplant a modern car in there instead of a 1980s car. And the thinking time is not subjective, it's all relative between speeds. If you're travelling at 60mph instead of 30mph and take, for example, half a second to realise someone's in front of you, you will have travelled twice as far travelling at 60mph instead of 30mph.

So no, the thinking distance is not subjective, the actual distance itself may be but the principle that a few mph can make a big difference due to the disproportionate effect of speed on the braking distance is not.

If a kid runs out of nowhere the stopping distance IS relevant. If they're 30m in front of you it's very relevant. Even you hit them the speed that you're travelling at will make a massive difference on their prognosis, and if you're close to stopping then it's going to be a lot less worse than if you're halfway through braking.

And "natural selection/bad parent training"? Are you actually f--king serious?!

Kids are excitable, just because they often run out into the road when they're not supposed to, it doesn't mean they deserve to be mown down by a speeding car. There's plenty of good parents up and down the country whose kids will have done that with luckily no harm done.

Just keep your speed down. How hard can it be? I'll admit I occasionally infringe myself so but as I said, if and when I get a rap I'll say fair cop really.

[Ewood and I Would]

"Proved by Top Gear" - what, on a motorists show?

Yes a motoring show investigating mortoring topics like the stopping distances in the Highway Code, shocking isn't it?

And the thinking time is not subjective, it's all relative between speeds. If you're travelling at 60mph instead of 30mph and take, for example, half a second to realise someone's in front of you, you will have travelled twice as far travelling at 60mph instead of 30mph.

So no, the thinking distance is not subjective

So you're reaction time is exactly the same as mine is it? A 60 year old and a 20 year old have the same reaction times do they? Of course it's subjective, it depends on the person driving!

If a kid runs out of nowhere the stopping distance IS relevant. If they're 30m in front of you it's very relevant. Even you hit them the speed that you're travelling at will make a massive difference on their prognosis, and if you're close to stopping then it's going to be a lot less worse than if you're halfway through braking.

The expression "ran out of nowhere" implies, to me anyway that they ran out giving you zero reaction time. If they're 30m in front of you you can't describe that as running out of "nowhere".

And "natural selection/bad parent training"? Are you actually f--king serious?!

To a point yeah, when I was a kid my parent put the fear of God into me about roads from an early age and taught me to look both ways as soon as I could walk and talk.

Kids are excitable, just because they often run out into the road when they're not supposed to, it doesn't mean they deserve to be mown down by a speeding car.

Drunk people are exciteable, it doesn't mean they "deserve" to be mown down either but it does increase their chances unless someone is looking after them. Just like children..

Just keep your speed down. How hard can it be? I'll admit I occasionally infringe myself so but as I said, if and when I get a rap I'll say fair cop really.

That's what I said before a copper did me for doing 35 on an empty road. When you face a £60 fine and 5 years of increased insurance premiums you will start to question the punishment I can assure you.

[tony gale's mic]

Yes a motoring show investigating mortoring topics like the stopping distances in the Highway Code, shocking isn't it?

Yes, hardly an unbiased source though is it?

So you're reaction time is exactly the same as mine is it? A 60 year old and a 20 year old have the same reaction times do they? Of course it's subjective, it depends on the person driving!

Utterly irrelevant.

That 60 year old's thinking time would be double at 60mph compared to 30mph and the 20 year old's thinking time would be double at 60mph compared to 30mph.

Age isn't a factor we can control, though obviously past a certain age there's restrictions, however speed is which is the whole point.

The expression "ran out of nowhere" implies, to me anyway that they ran out giving you zero reaction time. If they're 30m in front of you you can't describe that as running out of "nowhere".

Semantics aren't relevant either. Kids can run out into the road, usually there's a distance but you won't see them one second and the next second you'll see them a few dozen metres in front of your car, hence the word "nowhere".

It's hardly just kids running out in front of cars either. Cars can misjudge overtaking other cars and, whilst that's a fault on their part, the judgement will be based on the speed the cars in the other directions are going. There's a million and one different reasons why we need speed limits and in most cases the stopping distances are relevant.

To a point yeah, when I was a kid my parent put the fear of God into me about roads from an early age and taught me to look both ways as soon as I could walk and talk.

Good you can use your own personal experiences of your childhood to make such a crass and sweeping statement about which children should be mown down.

Drunk people are exciteable, it doesn't mean they "deserve" to be mown down either but it does increase their chances unless someone is looking after them. Just like children..

Being drunk is a state someone can choose to be in. Being a child isn't. Even if someone is looking after them short of keeping them on a leash sometimes you can't stop them.

Neither deserve to be mown down; there's all sorts of potential hazards on the roads and keeping your speed down means that they can be much better avoided.

That's what I said before a copper did me for doing 35 on an empty road. When you face a £60 fine and 5 years of increased insurance premiums you will start to question the punishment I can assure you.

Speed limits are important.

Speed limits are pointless unless they're properly enforced.

Which of those do you disagree with?

You were a little unlucky since you were on the cusp of the 10% + 2 rule, however if someones over on the breathalyser by the equivalent they'll be punished so it's only fair you were too. I can't say a relatively mild financial penalty is something that makes my heart bleed. What has happened in the past as a result of drivers speeding is of much greater concern to me.

When something happens to you, you're bound to bemoan it more.

[deryck guyler's spoon]

Yes a motoring show investigating mortoring topics like the stopping distances in the Highway Code, shocking isn't it?

Jeremy Clarkson is an imbecile.

[ABBEY]

Col have you never been above the speed limit? Or drank after hours? Drugs?

[thenodrog]

Strangely no one has ever said why they need to exceed the speed limit. Perhaps it's just poor driving skills. I don't know.

Any takers?

Probably the exact opposite.

I think a confidence factor rather than skill, age, sex etc decides the speed at which a vehicle is driven. Problem is that sometimes it is valid and sometimes it is misplaced, unfortunately the driving test is desperately lacking in it's purpose.

[thenodrog]

If a kid runs out of nowhere, then stopping distance is irrelevant anyway and sorry but I view that as a form natural selection/bad parent training.

This is the problem nowadays, no one wants to take responsibilty for teaching their children anything and if any harm comes to them because of it then it must be the adult's fault.

Quite right. Apportioning blame is a secondary issue once a fatality has occurred.

Also I've no stats but imo as traffic has slowed through camera's / humps and other calming measures it appears bad road safety practices by pedestrians has increased.

I've been to France and Switzerland recently and I noted that at Pelican type crossings no one crossed the road even if it was clear until the pedestrians light turned green. I can only presume it is a punishable offence to do so. Maybe if the authorities would cleary define and prosecute unsafe behaviour by pedestrians both old and young then the numbers of kills killed at 40mph instead of paralysed at 30mph might be reduced more than by transparently treating motorists as a cash cow. Generally speaking (and I know cars driven recklessly rather than quickly do leave the road) if there is no one in the road no one will die.

[thenodrog]

Just keep your speed down. How hard can it be? I'll admit I occasionally infringe myself so but as I said, if and when I get a rap I'll say fair cop really.

And if you kill someone who is jaywalking and not paying attention through complacency / ignorance / stupidity? How about a cyclist that comes through a red light? Would it all be your fault do you think?

btw How about killing a car driver / passenger that has run a red light? Before you criticise this, this is an offence which perplexingly has become an increasingly common occurence in Blackburn currently I find.

btw

You said....

Good you can use your own personal experiences of your childhood to make such a crass and sweeping statement about which children should be mown down.

Do you not feel that road safety instructions should be increased amongst the entire population? Surely there should be massive responsibility placed on parents and children to follow safe practice? When I was a child we had the Highway Code and the Green Cross Code road safety instructions drummed into us at school, we also were expected to take and pass the cycling proficiency test.

Nowadays it's unusual to even find a child on a bike at night with lights on.... odd really cos many adults riding to and from work have dazzling lights.

[tony gale's mic]

And if you kill someone who is jaywalking and not paying attention through complacency / ignorance / stupidity? How about a cyclist that comes through a red light? Would it all be your fault do you think?

btw How about killing a car driver / passenger that has run a red light? Before you criticise this, this is an offence which perplexingly has become an increasingly common occurence in Blackburn currently I find.

btw

You said....

Good you can use your own personal experiences of your childhood to make such a crass and sweeping statement about which children should be mown down.

Do you not feel that road safety instructions should be increased amongst the entire population? Surely there should be massive responsibility placed on parents and children to follow safe practice? When I was a child we had the Highway Code and the Green Cross Code road safety instructions drummed into us at school, we also were expected to take and pass the cycling proficiency test.

Nowadays it's unusual to even find a child on a bike at night with lights on.... odd really cos many adults riding to and from work have dazzling lights.

If you're driving within the proscribed speed limits or within reasonable margins (hence the 10% + 2 rule), then it isn't your fault. Those speed limits are there for a reason and take into account built up areas, proximity to schools, traffic volumes etc. "Jaywalking" is not a crime in this country, although it should only be done if the road is clear. There's absolutely no reason to ban it; if someone gets hit by their own poor judgement the driver shouldn't get penalised if driving within the law. However if someone is hit by a car travelling at 50 in a 30mph zone, then of course the driver could and should be prosecuted.

Your reply to my quote makes no sense, at no point did I say that road safety shouldn't be an issue. Road safety is a crucial thing to teach from a young age, however it applied to both driver and pedestrian. Just as kids should be taught to follow stop, look and listen, motorists have to do their bit by keeping to the speed limit. However Ewood and I Would said it was an issue of "natural selection", which is the sort of imbecilic chat you often come out with.

People like yourself make me laugh. You're very pro law and order, however when it comes to laws you have problems keeping to (ie the speed laws), then you take a completely opposite stance.

Like all laws, the speed laws are there for a reason.

Without them we'd have a much higher number of accidents and fatalities - that fact is absolutely indisputable. If they're not properly policed then there's no point having them.

And if you don't want to be used as a "cash cow", you know how to avoid it.

[jim mk2]

. If they're not properly policed then there's no point having them.

And therein lies the problem. You only have to drive on any motorway or A road in Britain to know the speed laws are not policed properly and the recent decision by Oxford council (the first of many) to turn off their speed cameras after a cut in government funding is only going to encourage drivers to drive faster.

There are only 2 ways to make selfish and ignorant drivers slow down and stick to the law - speed bumps in urban areas and average speed cameras on all major trunk roads.

[Ewood and I Would]

And therein lies the problem. You only have to drive on any motorway or A road in Britain to know the speed laws are not policed properly and the recent decision by Oxford council (the first of many) to turn off their speed cameras after a cut in government funding is only going to encourage drivers to drive faster.

There are only 2 ways to make selfish and ignorant drivers slow down and stick to the law - speed bumps in urban areas and average speed cameras on all major trunk roads.

Swindon were the first actually and a year on there has been NO rise in crashes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8636654.stm

I live in Oxford, the cameras have been off for nearly a month now and I've not noticed a sudden drop in the local population.

[jim mk2]

I live in Oxford, the cameras have been off for nearly a month now and I've not noticed a sudden drop in the local population.

Missing the point but I would not have expected anything else. No doubt you agree with the first comment after this story.

http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/08/12/oxfords-last-remaining-speed-cameras-catch-110-drivers-in-five/

[ABBEY]

JHC I posted a bit of heads up and the do gooders, the saints and do as I say not do as I do brigade start with their holier than thou bull ######! Bloody hell I will say nowt next time....GET. A LIFE FFS!

[thenodrog]

JHC I posted a bit of heads up and the do gooders, the saints and do as I say not do as I do brigade start with their holier than thou bull ######! Bloody hell I will say nowt next time....GET. A LIFE FFS!

Don't do that Abbey... Lets just make a long PM list of the people we all want to warn and f*&^ the rest.

[roversmum]

Was talking to the local plod yesterday (very nice lad) and he was saying that where there used to be a warning, prosecution now takes place (mobile speed units, they found too many who had been warned were boasting that they had 'got away with it'). I have noticed an increase in speeding this summer - there seem to be more idiots attaching themselves to my bumper or dangerous overtaking - and just because I am sticking to the speed limit!

[bazza]

I got done once by a police radar trap for doing 35 in a 30 limit. It didn't feel like I was doing 35 at the time. I saw the cops, didn't look at my speedometer and got fined with three points. I was angry.

But, I must say that the police crack down on speeding over recent years has forced drivers like me to observe the limits.

I now own a car with cruise control which I find very handy for long straight stretches such as Blackpool Road, Preston or Livesey Branch Road, Blackburn. Using cruise control gives one a strange feeling of speeding up going uphill and slowing down going along a long straight wide stretch yet the speed never changes.

But thanks for tip-offs like this, Abbey.........always useful and appreciated.

[colin]

Col have you never been above the speed limit? Or drank after hours? Drugs?

Abbey,

I'm grown up now.

I doubt if I have deliberately been over the speed limit for perhaps 30 years. What's the point? None of us are in a race. It's not a time trial. We can all get from A to B without shaving 5 seconds or 5 minutes off the journey.

Yes I have driven when drunk - half a mile on a country road in Cumbria, at 10mph. 3 years ago.

I have never driven while under the influnce of any other drugs.

Which rather brings me round to my original question of why you feel the need to exceed the speed limit.

I appreciate your question but you have omitted to explain why you feel the need to exceed the speed limit.I'd appriaciate an answer. Sorry to sound like some self -rightious pillock.

I was overtaken by someone on Sunday in a 20mph zone. Fitted with speed humps. They must have taken off 2 seconds to their journey.

W@nker

[thenodrog]

....... I was overtaken by someone on Sunday in a 20mph zone. Fitted with speed humps. They must have taken off 2 seconds to their journey.

W@nker

Thats Road Rage Colin! Aggression is the worst trait in any driver imo.

You've never exceeded the speed limit in 30 years? Personally I think you are telling porkies there. But if you are holding somebody up then don't hog the centre line, simply indicate and move over to the left. You don't even need to reduce your speed. It's far safer than forcing them onto the other side of the road.

[tony gale's mic]

Doesn't that just encourage them to do it again? If I'm driving at 30mph in a 30 zone and someone is tailing me why would I pull over? I'm "holding them up"? This is the problem attitude of a lot of drivers. People who want to break the limit view legally-obliging drivers as "slow" and holding them up when they're in a rush or want their speed kick. Nobody should ever pressure anyone else to break the rules.

Just say "no"!

Like I said earlier El Tombro, the same people who rally against speed cameras are often the same people who support capital punishment and are generally more pro law and order than your average person. Whilst there's nothing wrong with being pro law and order obviously, it smacks of utter hypocrisy when they plead for leniency on the laws they wish to break.

[thenodrog]

Doesn't that just encourage them to do it again? If I'm driving at 30mph in a 30 zone and someone is tailing me why would I pull over? I'm "holding them up"? This is the problem attitude of a lot of drivers. People who want to break the limit view legally-obliging drivers as "slow" and holding them up when they're in a rush or want their speed kick. Nobody should ever pressure anyone else to break the rules.

Just say "no"!

Now why do I get the feeling that you are one of those drivers who ignore the rules and hog the middle / outside lane on a MWay?

[colin]

Thats Road Rage Colin! Aggression is the worst trait in any driver imo.

You've never exceeded the speed limit in 30 years? Personally I think you are telling porkies there. But if you are holding somebody up then don't hog the centre line, simply indicate and move over to the left. You don't even need to reduce your speed. It's far safer than forcing them onto the other side of the road.

Now you are just being silly & argueing against me rather than the comment I made.

If I drive at 20mph in a 20mph zone; or 30 mph in a 30 mph zone why on earth should I move over for someone who wants to exceed the speed limit? I'm not driving a tractor towing a trailer loaded with bales of hay.

And, yes, I don't think I've ever broke the speed limit in 30 years of driving.

My 60 mile round trip to Ewood is done under the speed limit and guess what? I get there in time. I get back in time for whatever I need to do at home. it's not exactly rocket science.

Would you care to tell us why you want to exceed the speed limit? What was the urgency when you got clocked by the safety cameras?

Cheers

Colin

[jim mk2]

Now why do I get the feeling that you are one of those drivers who ignore the rules and hog the middle / outside lane on a MWay?

Now why do I get the feeling that you are one of those drivers who ignore the rules and hog the outside lane on a MWay at 90mph?

[thenodrog]

Now why do I get the feeling that you are one of those drivers who ignore the rules and hog the outside lane on a MWay at 90mph?

I don't. I spend as much time as possible on the inside and middle lanes. Surely even you must know that the outside lane is for overtaking only? No need for anyone to go there very often if all drivers would simply observe the recommendations of the highway code. I lose count of the number of times when the MWay is quiet that I have to veer from inside lane to outside lane and back again overtake some retard ambling along steadfastly in the middle lane. I once drove through Spain and I can tell you that that sort of behaviour seems to be dealt with very strictly by the police over there. It should be here too.

[jim mk2]

. I once drove through Spain and I can tell you that that sort of behaviour seems to be dealt with very strictly by the police over there. It should be here too.

Unlikely because it is unusual to see a police car on Britain's motorways. Middle lane "hoggers" are the least of the problems on the motorways anyway. The worst culprits are the bandits who flagrantly ignore the national 70mph speed limit to drive at 80mph plus in the outside lane and the "undertakers" (usually the same 80mph plus bandits) who zip up the inside when they are unable to overtake on the outside. The motorways don't need police, they need average speed cameras. Problem solved.

[thenodrog]

Unlikely because it is unusual to see a police car on Britain's motorways. Middle lane "hoggers" are the least of the problems on the motorways anyway. The worst culprits are the bandits who flagrantly ignore the national 70mph speed limit to drive at 80mph plus in the outside lane and the "undertakers" (usually the same 80mph plus bandits) who zip up the inside when they are unable to overtake on the outside. The motorways don't need police, they need average speed cameras. Problem solved.

Are you kidding? Shows how much you know. Apart from the newish Traffic Officer jobbies there are loads of police .... mostly in unmarked cars. You need a detector like mine and you'd spot em all a mile off.

'zip up the inside'? They couldn't do that you dolt if you drove on the inside lane as you should. Why can't you see that and do as the law instructs?

Here Magoo put your glasses on ......

Motorway Lane discipline

264

You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking. You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency or if directed to do so by the police, HA traffic officers in uniform or by signs.

[Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9 & 16(1)(a), MT(S)R regs 4, 8 & 14(1)(a), and RTA 1988, sects 35 & 186, as amended by TMA 2004 sect 6]