Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Now this is a protest I like

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Now this is a protest I like

Reply

Old 11th Jan 2019, 22:52
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by weemonkey View Post
Have you ever thought about some training in driving observation then.
How do you "observe" a sign when there are continuous streams of juggernauts in the near side lanes on both sides of the road and you don't have X-ray eyes?
Gertrude the Wombat is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jan 2019, 23:05
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
How do you "observe" a sign when there are continuous streams of juggernauts in the near side lanes on both sides of the road and you don't have X-ray eyes?
As an example, you seem unaware that the primary urban limit is not defined by any signage in the first instance...
weemonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jan 2019, 23:24
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,040
Originally Posted by longer ron View Post
Which of course proves that slow drivers cause/have 70% of all accidents
so drive fast and pissed because in 2016, of the casualties involved in accidents on the road, only 1 in 20 were pissed, therefore the other 19 were sober, you have less chance of injury then if you drive
while totally legless.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-alcohol-limit

An estimated 230 people died in drink-drive crashes during the year, up from 200 in 2015 out of a total of 1,792
https://assets.publishing.service.go...cgb2016-02.pdf
NutLoose is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jan 2019, 23:24
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by weemonkey View Post
As an example, you seem unaware that the primary urban limit is not defined by any signage in the first instance...
This was an urban dual carriageway which changed between 30, 40 and possibly 50 (it was some years ago) several times over a couple of miles. I missed one change through being unable to see through juggernauts.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 00:04
  #45 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,539
A friend is an ex traffic cop. In the 20+ years he was working in traffic he sights only one fatal accident he attended as being a direct result of speeding.
Having been to numerous lectures given by motorcycle policemen and listened to their accounts of what they have and continue to experience that quote is sounds as if it has been taken out of context.

So go on then, all of lemming like proponents of arbitrary velocity limits, you tell us what a safe speed actually is then....
We have to have limits to prevent the average driver from driving excessively fast on certain roads. I would say that we are now subject to many arbitrarily low and inappropriate limits. There is no universal 'safe' speed. Ideally would would all drive at a sensible speed for the conditions but from what most of us witness every day that is not going to happen.

It would also be dangerous. I can't count the times adding speed got me out of tricky situations; if you are at the limit and a car crosses over the only way to escape may be to accelerate away.
Before seat belts were compulsory a good friend of mine was involved in a very serious collision in her mini. She was thrown out of the car during the impact and not in the vehicle when it was subsequently flattened by a lorry also involved in the accident. Not wearing a seat belt saved her life. Using your highly unlikely scenario as an example perhaps it would be safer to stop wearing seat belts.




The IAM carried out a survey about 2 years ago to explore driver's attitudes and ideas. When asked to rate the interviewee's own ability 95% responded as above average.

Clearly speed limits should not apply to many of the contributors to this thread as they obviously understand more than the years of research and statistics has shown us and know that speed limits are just another conspiracy by the government to oppress the masses.
M.Mouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 09:40
  #46 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
To answer your question however, or rather, here's a professional answer to your question. This organisation, who may. strangely, have a vested interest in determining if speed was relevant,, should provide helpful answers. But feel free to be dismissive of their database of course. .

https://www.directlinegroup.com/medi.../16032018.aspx
Mr Chips,

The second paragraph of the article states that exceeding the limit contributes to 11% of accidents along with other factors. It does not say what that proportion of the 11% is attributable to exceeding the limit however I will demonstrate that Direct Line know the answer very well indeed and choose to hide the truth. The article does however provide a link to where the data can be found. I will be completely transparent in how I have analysed it as I'm a decent, honest chap who plays the ball rather than the man.

The data appears to come from "Department for Transport Contributory factors for reported road accidents (RAS50)". The source data is at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras50-contributory-factors#contributory-factors-for-reported-road-accidents-ras50---excel-data-tables

The link takes you to 16 excel spreadsheets. I have opened the largest "RAS50016.xls". This file is quite detailed and gives the underpinning data for 5 years. For the most recent full year of data, 2017, on row 224, it states that there were 199,478 accidents. Column X describes speeding as being the cause of 4,805 accidents. I make that 2.41%. Direct Line were perfectly able to provide the correct figure but along with many others, they hide it amongst other data in order to mislead. Perhaps "Direct Lie" would be more appropriate ?

Interestingly, "sudden braking" causes more accidents than speeding. What would cause a driver to brake suddenly ?????
B Fraser is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 10:54
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by M.Mouse View Post
Clearly speed limits should not apply to many of the contributors to this thread as they obviously understand more than the years of research and statistics has shown us and know that speed limits are just another conspiracy by the government to oppress the masses.
They'll be telling us soon that there shouldn't be arbitrary drink and drug limits either - they know their safe limits, they're fine driving after a bottle of wine and three spliffs, it's only people who can't take it who should be forced to obey limits.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 11:08
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,006
It seems to me that over here (France), the roads pretty much run themselves. I can drive for a month and not see a Gendarme either on the autoroute or local roads. Yes, the speed cameras that I know of on the various routes I take are, erm 'out of service' but I can't say I've noticed any difference in driving habits. The few nutters are still there but the vast majority just drive sensibly - or as close as you can get to that in France.
strake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 11:32
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fieldsworthy
Posts: 56
Here's another protest you might like...

Mac the knife should like it too as probably not much shaved on any of them... shame about the armpits
Eclan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 11:34
  #50 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 75
Posts: 16,275
Originally Posted by fltlt View Post
The technology already resides in most vehicles to have gps limited speed via electronic speed control, in a 70 zone nobody can exceed the limit, etc., etc., etc.
Speed zones can be implemented/changed simply by designating the coordinates.

Wouldnt raise any revenue.
This would impose a restraint on cars similar to that on trucks. Where a car travelling at a true 70 wishes to overtake a car travelling marginally slower the overtaking manoeuvre would take an appreciable time: time in danger.

At the moment, in such circumstances, and even where there is a considerable overtake, the overtaking car could suddenly run out of puff.

Fixed cameras are 'one-shot' but Specs and a police car would not penalize an excursion above the limit.

However my car 'nags' me if I don't fasten my seat belt and my satnav and satnag both warn me if I exceed the limits. A couple of previous software versions even had a voice nag 'slow down you are exceeding ze speed limit' all with a German accent.

I am sure that a constant 'nag' for a persistent speeder would soon wear them down.
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 11:39
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,093
I agree that you can drive from one end of France to the other and never see a traffic Cop -plenty of police checking lorries for illegal immigrant in the Peage areas though,

Instances of complete inconsistency when it comes to speeding .
I live in Surrey heath Borough, not a single camera -in adjoining Bracknell Forest in the small town of Sandhurst there are four speed cams within 400 yds of the boundary with my council area (I am Surrey Police they are Thames Valley
Go out of town the other way and you are immediately in Hampshire and within 400 yards of the boundary is a regularly patrolled mobile speed cam unit so there is no consistence at all and as usual no common agreement between councils and police.
Of the the one in Hampshire is doubly nasty since it is situated on a road where 40 is fine and indeed was the limit for years. However a few years ago the put up a sign saying this road is now a 30MPH limit- 400 yards BEYOND the camera spot !!

Someone mentioned Sweden earlier they are very hot on speeding but in residential areas, they do have motorway cops but where you do get the book thrown at you is for speeding in 20mph zone like a housing estate or next to a school. A much more sensible approach because thats where cars and people interact.

Overall they would be a good thing if used properly but like so many good intentions it doesnt work out that way
pax britanica is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 11:47
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 53
Posts: 299
I'm sorry, but if you can't control a vehicle enough to keep under the speed limit then you should not be trusted with the vehicle in the first place. If we all stuck to the speed limits then the money from speed cameras would be nil and they might get removed as being too costly.
Ogre is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 11:52
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
I'm sorry, but if you can't control a vehicle enough to keep under the speed limit then you should not be trusted with the vehicle in the first place. If we all stuck to the speed limits then the money from speed cameras would be nil and they might get removed as being too costly.
until everyone ends up driving @10mph????
weemonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 12:13
  #54 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 11,849
We have to have limits to prevent the average driver from driving excessively fast on certain roads. I would say that we are now subject to many arbitrarily low and inappropriate limits. There is no universal 'safe' speed. Ideally would would all drive at a sensible speed for the conditions but from what most of us witness every day that is not going to happen.
Agreed. Problem is, as you say, the limits are often arbitrarily set and not necessarily for truly justified safety reasons. There is a one mile long, 30 mph stretch in South Yorkshire where it is well known locally that the limit was set because many of the local council live along there - the limit used to be the national speed limit, 60 mph. That stretch has never had a bad safety record, is probably twice as wide open as most others in a similar situation. It could safely be driven at 40 or 50 mph.

A few miles south (different council) is another stretch of road, far narrower, with restricted vision lines, narrow pavements, central islands, multiple turn offs into side roads and private driveways. It has a poor safety record; I know of at least two multiple fatal accidents in recent years. It has a 40 mph limit where it really ought to be 30, if compared to the former road. I prefer to drive at 30 mph along there.

I worked for the Notts police when the first SPECS cameras (hidden) were installed just off the M1 J26 (70 mph to 40 mph on a dual carrigeway), amongst great local controversy.

A senior Notts police spokesman was interviewed on local TV at the time. He was absolutely adamant that the cameras were there only for road safety reasons rather than revenue raising and would only be in place for a six month trial period. After six months another senior police officer came on TV to give his opinion on how the trial had gone. On being asked how many motorists had been caught speeding by the cameras he said "A disappointingly low number". Why was he disappointed?

Either way, the cameras are still there.
ShyTorque is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 14:37
  #55 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,040
Yes, if I remember rightly Nottingham planned to roll out specs all over the place at one point, the fines from the first funding the second etc... Unfortunately for them they worked so well the funding wasn't available to progress their expansion plans.
NutLoose is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 14:58
  #56 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
I'm sorry, but if you can't control a vehicle enough to keep under the speed limit then you should not be trusted with the vehicle in the first place. If we all stuck to the speed limits then the money from speed cameras would be nil and they might get removed as being too costly.
The link to the official statistics kindly provided by K&C shows that 97.6% of accidents attended by the police were not caused by the driver exceeding the posted limit. If you are genuinely concerned over safety then I think there are a number of more relevant factors than not doing 34 mph in a 30 mph zone or 80 mph on a dry empty motorway.
B Fraser is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 15:05
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by B Fraser View Post
The link to the official statistics kindly provided by K&C shows that 97.6% of accidents attended by the police were not caused by the driver exceeding the posted limit.
So speed limits are 97.6% effective at preventing accidents - that sounds like a win to me. Just imagine how much worse the accident rate would be if the speed limit weren't there.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 15:33
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 71
Posts: 1,241
A few years back, Swindon council said that as they received no income from the speed cameras, they weren't paying anything for their maintenance. Which shows exactly what they were there for.....
radeng is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 16:33
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southport
Posts: 987
Where I live average speed cameras were put up on the local dual carriageway (A565 if you're interested), following a spate of accidents. Previous to that the limit was reduced from 70 to 50, it made Jack all difference to the number of accidents, though it may have made the bang when they happened a bit quieter.
In the first 6 months after SPECS went up about 30k drivers were done for speeding, with the fastest being 105mph, which is downright idiocy and hopefully a ban. Most were done at 55-65.
None of which addressed the fundamental cause of the accidents which is still minor roads crossing the dual carriageway and impatient drivers pulling out when they didn't have room to do so. I drive the dual carriageway at least twice a day and frequently have people pull out in front of me forcing me to brake despite the road behind me being clear, they just will not wait 5-10 seconds.
Finally this week the council has seen sense and is now blocking off the worst crossing, and also removing the narrowing to one lane (which was put in to reduce accidents and also made Jack all difference, it just led to people cutting in at the last minute in an attempt to get in front of you).
For me the biggest cause of accidents is driver inattention (e.g. Mobile phones) and driving too close for the speed and conditions. Problem is cameras can't catch those.
The only reason for cameras is that they are cheaper than properly trained traffic police. It's a purely financial decision, not a safety one.
andytug is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 17:06
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: About to move
Posts: 24
Hmm...
Just checked my tickets from 2002 until today:

20 speeding tickets, none of them serious, cost me a total of 455€.
Slow and curious is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service