Safe Speed Forums

Sadly, I suspect that you are correct. at the very least, One should always drive in a manner that means one would be able to stop safely assuming that there is a broken down tractor *just* round the corner. (My "rule" is more extream and assumes there is a wide vehicle actually coming towards me)

Its the same with motorways, even people who *think* they are leaving a sensible gap are actually reling on braking into the space currently occupied by the car in front. Most of the time this is OK (just like hooning it down country lanes) but in an emergancy it is not! Which is why multiple pileups occur!

In practace you need to allow about 1 second gap/20MPH to be "safe" (more in poor conditions)

The reason why it is dangerous to drive at 60 through a town centre isnt because if you hit somebody you will probabally kill them. it is because, in the enviroment of a town centre, you cannot "see" 3 seconds ahead and therefore cannot have the time to react to emergancies making accedents almost inevitable. (by contrast, on a clear motorway you can, on occasion, *see* 10 seconds ahead or even more)

In a busy town centre, 20MPH is more sensible not because if you hit somebody they have a better chance of surviving. rather it is because you will then have the time to react to a pedestrian stepping into the road or whatever and not hit them at all!.

The current message is appallingly wrong.

Safety is NOT about running people over slowly so they survive IT IS ABOUT NOT RUNNING THEM OVER AT ALL!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Yes, I live 100 yards from a blind single track chicaine with high hedges. That's when I first started to twig that the advice to always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is (in my view) a dangerous load of old cobblers! You need to be able to stop in at least HALF that distance in these circumstances (and even that works on the assumption that the bloke coming the other way will do the same)! Mostly, (I find) they do!

Weepj can't have it both ways. He can't in one post say that putting in trees etc is a good idea because people SHOULD drive at an appropriate speed and it will brings speeds down and then, in the next post moan about how 80% of people drive too fast for the conditions! If that 80% figure is correct, the only logical conclusion is that putting in the extra obstructions will NOT make things safer!

Personally, having lived here for 7 years now and driven through the chicaine on average twice a day every day, I have a lot more respect for drivers in general and I'd put the 80% "nutter" figure MUCH lower - maybe 2% - otherwise I'd have been hit by now! As it is, I've only had about half a dozen near-misses in 7 years and no hits! In fact, I can only remember one (moderate) accident in the chicaine in all the time we've lived here.

The number of times I meet someone (usually in an aged 4x4) going way too fast down a narrow country lane, do an emergency stop as they belt past and wonder "what happens when two nutters meet each other?"




Actually, got caught in the traffic around a farm auction in the middle of nowhere a couple of Saturdays ago, and most of the punters seemed to be aged-Discovery-drivers. It was absolute chaos, as every time two met each other head on, they'd both assume the other one was going to reverse. I just sat behind and laughed in my little Clio.

Almost exactly what my wife said when the article about the people campaigning for 20mph limits was on the news last night.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Hey, perhaps a helicopter over the top during rush hour would speed up those slow horses

I can't believe that you experience this too! The people who seem to charge on regardless are almost always in old 4x4s or pick up trucks. I have always just assumed they were farmers who actually do believe they own the road as their grandfather drove his horse and cart down there 70 years ago.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Hrm... does this mean installing 20mph limits everywhere around cities could in fact cause drivers to break the law because we'd suddenly all be driving unnecessarily slow through roads which comfortably (and safely) permit speeds of as much as 40? That would be an amusing situation!

Its not cobblers if you quote it correctly

Always be able to stop safely on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear.

most texts explain that that means doubling the stopping distance for single carriage way, because you don't have an own side of the road and therefore need to share stopping distance with oncoming traffic. Its also the very reason why you can use the entire width of the road (subject to safety stability view).

But single track not single carriageway.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

There are a lot of cases of this (well not concrete blocks, obviously) on the quiet roads of North Scotland where I live. I reckon I encounter about three such cases of obstruction each year. I have never failed to stop, and perhaps more importantly, I have never found another vehicle embedded in the obstruction.

About 10 years ago an 18 year old lad who worked for one of my clients managed to do it with a broken down truck, but that's literally the only case I know of.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I must say it is odd how so many of you are suddenly concerned about the law being broken, not least Mr Smith… zzz… who I would like to remind that SPEEDING IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

Smith may sneer at our proposals, but I do not see anyone that matters, taking the slightest notice of his rather school-boyish opinions and half baked theories. He clearly drives how he sees fit on the road - we are simply taking a leaf from his book and calming the passing traffic as we see fit. What's good for the Goose...

The view of our local Police - who sympathise with us - is that there are no laws in existence that forbid the use of tractors, herding of livestock or riding of horses on the public highway at certain times of day. We have been told that it would be extremely difficult - probably impossible - for a court to prove that any individual taking part in such activities were doing so deliberately to hold up traffic (or "traffic calm" as we prefer to call it).

Nothing "sinister" is going on, except of course, those who drive dangerously / speed through our village. It is our view that speeding = dangerous driving.

Like it or not, it is a fact that villages all over the country are sick of both speeding drivers and the pathetic limp-wristed excuses of "no funds" spouted by Government, local authorities and the police.

_________________
GROOVE ARM

That's ad hominem and libel. I'm afraid that's against forum rules and quite simply offensive, unacceptable behaviour.
As it is, your posts have already led us to believe you’re insincere.

And that's why I don't believe you, because I just can't see any rural policeman endorsing you using livestock to "calm" traffic, however much they sympathise with you.

Posting of intent on public forums can certainly help the prosecutions case, 10 pence short anyone?

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

A shame GrooveArm is suspended. He/she was just going to tell us the name and location of the village in question.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Ah! Ok, fair enough, I've learned something then. I hadn't appreciated the distinction! TA!

Yes, I was looking forward to a couple of answers too! (not that I think I'd have got anything sensible, mind. I moved up here from manchester 7 years ago now and there aren't many days that go by when I'm not thankful for how fortunate I am having been able to live here. I really get annoyed by people who have been similarly lucky and then expect to seal off their little bit of this green and pleasant land so nobody else can encroach on it. I know exactly what he's (she's?) on about (and I'm pretty sure anyone who has tried the single track road over Cold Fell at Sellafield chucking-out time against the flow of traffic will also sympathise), but if they've got tax discs in their windows, they've as much right to be there as I have!

Of course, it's not clear whether Groove was primarily moaning abut traffic volumes or illegal driving. I was hoping for clarification there. I suspect it was both. I wouldn't want to see anyone driving dangerously through his or anyone's village (legally OR illegally) but as for the congestion, well, sorry Groove, but that's just what 21st Century Britain is like I'm afraid!

I think the best contribution he (she) could make to the wellbeing of the village would be to go out and buy a tarmac coloured sleeping bag and volunteer for a night shift on sleeping policeman duty!

Shame thats not supported by any set of figures eh?



You are Walter Mitty and I claim my prize! Shame you're not able to post to confirm my suspicions, you were one of the more basic trolls!

Correct, but you kindly furnished us with a statement that clearly identified the intention of your actions. In doing so admitted the offense. its a shame you got your self banned by making unfounded allegations about another member.

I was looking forward to how you might explain why...

- 29 in a 30 is safe and 31 = dangerous
- 51 in an NSL is safe, But dangerous if the limit is reduced to 50
- Or why roads with the highest occurrence of speeding have the lowest number of accidents per bvkm (i.e. motorways)

Engineered RTTM?

1) plant hedge on bend to obscure view and make road more dangerous.
2) accidents go up by 50%
3) Install speed camera
4) cut hedge down
5) accidents go down by 40%
6) claim 40% accident reduction due to camera

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken