Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 09, 2020 01:34

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 00:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
smeggy wrote:
could you reconcile?


Another classic, "oooo you're saying speed is dangerous therefore you want us all to drive at 5mph" argument there then.

I'm not.

I think the posted maximum speed limit is too high in lots of places, 30mph on high streets with crossings for example, but I don't think we should all be going around at 5mph and no more, unless you're driving through a crowd of people, but of course even then it might be safe to stop altogether.

I reckon 80% of people need to slow down by a good 30%.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 00:33 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
So, you can't reconcile......
weepej wrote:
Another classic, "oooo you're saying speed is dangerous
weepej previously wrote:
...anything more than 0mph is dangerous


Anyway,
weepej wrote:
I think the posted maximum speed limit is too high in lots of places, 30mph on high streets with crossings for example

One would think that, all else being equal, roads with crossing features would be the safest of all....

I reckon 30mph is a good boundary between driver and pedestrian responsibility where tarmac is used for getting from A to B. Tarmac potentially used for playing/socialising could well be more suited with a 20 limit. We can't make all roads (except motorways) a 20 limit because pedestrians want to use them.

weepej wrote:
I reckon 80% of people need to slow down by a good 30%.

Assuming if so, so it is about attitude?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 02:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
weepej wrote:
...anything more than 0mph is dangerous, and it gets hairier the faster you go.


Really? Tell that to the idiot in L3 of a busy motorway travelling at 30mph with traffic swerving around him.

And do you really think that 60mph on a quiet motorway is 'hairier' than 40mph in a narrow village high street?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 02:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
weepej wrote:
I reckon 80% of people need to slow down by a good 30%.


Based on what, exactly?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 09:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
SafeSpeed wrote:
weepej wrote:
I reckon 80% of people need to slow down by a good 30%.


Based on what, exactly?

:yesyes:

Based on weepej's opinion. And, as David Coulthard once said, "Opionions are like arseholes - everyone has one (but some of them stink)".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
SafeSpeed wrote:
weepej wrote:
...anything more than 0mph is dangerous, and it gets hairier the faster you go.


Really? Tell that to the idiot in L3 of a busy motorway travelling at 30mph with traffic swerving around him.


Well, the people that are undertaking him and swerving are idiots too in that situation.

He's hardly going to pull over if people are shooting up the inside of him at 60mph.

SafeSpeed wrote:
And do you really think that 60mph on a quiet motorway is 'hairier' than 40mph in a narrow village high street?


No I don't, I didn't suggest that.

Motorways are different, pedestrains are forbidden and they are designed to allow higher speeds (although I don't think people should ever assume they won't encounter people on them).

Of course, if your wheel falls off, or you drive into the barrier the consequeneces are still going to be most likely worse the faster you go.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
smeggy wrote:
So, you can't reconcile......
weepej wrote:
Another classic, "oooo you're saying speed is dangerous
weepej previously wrote:
...anything more than 0mph is dangerous


Anyway,


I don't quite get what you're asking.

Maneuvering a one tonne vehicle (any vehicle actually) at any speed is never safe, it should be done with great care, consideration and attention, simply because the situation has great potential for calamity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
SafeSpeed wrote:
weepej wrote:
I reckon 80% of people need to slow down by a good 30%.


Based on what, exactly?


Just a gut feeling.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
weepej wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
weepej wrote:
I reckon 80% of people need to slow down by a good 30%.


Based on what, exactly?


Just a gut feeling.


In other words "blind faith". You my friend are not of this world.

Its everyone else fault in your motorway situation because some twerps doing UNDER the the travelling speed everyone else is using.
Its the fault of speed cos some idiot decided to take a manouver without having as full a picture as possible, and its your "gut instinct" that eveyone should slow down.

I wont debate with a blinkered fool.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 13:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
DeltaF wrote:
Its everyone else fault in your motorway situation because some twerps doing UNDER the the travelling speed everyone else is using.


And why's he doing 30 in L3?

He might not be a twerp.

Its such a rare situation that there's bound to be something wrong, so undertaking somebody doing this at speed is about the worst thing to be doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fNyU5ZtGfE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 14:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
weepej wrote:
so undertaking somebody doing this at speed is about the worst thing to be doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fNyU5ZtGfE


Why is it the worst thing to be doing? So you expect everyone in lane 1 & 2 to suddenly brake hard and slow down to 30mph. Also if you pause the short video it looks to me like the car in lane three was actually stationary when the other car hit it.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 14:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
weepej wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
weepej wrote:
...anything more than 0mph is dangerous, and it gets hairier the faster you go.


Really? Tell that to the idiot in L3 of a busy motorway travelling at 30mph with traffic swerving around him.


Well, the people that are undertaking him and swerving are idiots too in that situation.

He's hardly going to pull over if people are shooting up the inside of him at 60mph.


But the fact remains that your point is proven wrong. In the example, going slow was very hairy indeed.

weepej wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
And do you really think that 60mph on a quiet motorway is 'hairier' than 40mph in a narrow village high street?


No I don't, I didn't suggest that.


I'm afraid you did. You said:

weepej wrote:
...anything more than 0mph is dangerous, and it gets hairier the faster you go.


And it's JUST NOT TRUE.

You need to build in proper and necessary qualifications.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 14:51 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
r11co wrote:
Based on weepej's opinion. And, as David Coulthard once said, "Opionions are like arseholes - everyone has one (but some of them stink)".

:rotfl:

weepej wrote:
Well, the people that are undertaking him and swerving are idiots too in that situation.

He's hardly going to pull over if people are shooting up the inside of him at 60mph.

Not necessarily. The key to this issue is use of hazard lights.
A true story, not exaggerated to fit:
I once had my immobiliser activate, without warning, when I was in L3 of the M3. We were all slowing down at the time (well it was rush hour) so I didn't immediately notice, so at the time I didn't quite know what was going on (I tried a push start, then the starter - which gave it away) so I did lose some speed. Use of hazard lights, judicious positioning (a toot wasn’t necessary but I was ready to use it) cleared me a path to the hard shoulder before I rolled to a halt.


weepej wrote:
smeggy wrote:
So, you can't reconcile......
weepej wrote:
Another classic, "oooo you're saying speed is dangerous
weepej previously wrote:
...anything more than 0mph is dangerous


Anyway,


I don't quite get what you're asking.

I was asking for you to reconcile two of your posts as they seemed to me to be contradictory.

weepej wrote:
Maneuvering a one tonne vehicle (any vehicle actually) at any speed is never safe, it should be done with great care, consideration and attention, simply because the situation has great potential for calamity.

So it is about attitude. I say that because I highlighted another IMO apparent contradiction: "You don't need to have an attitude to use inapproriate speed in a car..."

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 14:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
DeltaF wrote:
Its everyone else fault in your motorway situation because some twerps doing UNDER the the travelling speed everyone else is using.


And why's he doing 30 in L3?

He might not be a twerp.

Its such a rare situation that there's bound to be something wrong, so undertaking somebody doing this at speed is about the worst thing to be doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fNyU5ZtGfE

The problem in that situation is that the warning triangle was not deployed. Had it have been the crash likely would not have occured, that's why they exist and the keeping of them in vehicles is mandatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 21:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Dixie wrote:
it looks to me like the car in lane three was actually stationary when the other car hit it.


It is stationary, but serves as an example that maintaining speed and undertaking when approaching a slow moving or stationary vehicle in L3 is probably not a good idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 21:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
smeggy wrote:
A true story, not exaggerated to fit:
I once had my immobiliser activate, without warning, when I was in L3 of the M3. We were all slowing down at the time (well it was rush hour) so I didn't immediately notice, so at the time I didn't quite know what was going on (I tried a push start, then the starter - which gave it away) so I did lose some speed. Use of hazard lights, judicious positioning (a toot wasn’t necessary but I was ready to use it) cleared me a path to the hard shoulder before I rolled to a halt.


You were lucky; you didn't have to deal with some idiot who wanted to maintain their speed whilst trying to undertake you.

I suspect if not everybody had been slowing down anyway that would have been a good deal more scary, certainly if you had neglected to tun on the hazards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 21:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
smeggy wrote:
The problem in that situation is that the warning triangle was not deployed. Had it have been the crash likely would not have occured, that's why they exist and the keeping of them in vehicles is mandatory.


Not sure it is, and I'm certainly sure its not a good idea to attempt to deploy one on a motorway.

Highway code says.

274.

put a warning triangle on the road at least 45 metres (147 feet) behind your broken-down vehicle on the same side of the road, or use other permitted warning devices if you have them. Always take great care when placing or retrieving them, but never use them on motorways


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 22:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
put a warning triangle on the road at least 45 metres (147 feet) behind your broken-down vehicle on the same side of the road, or use other permitted warning devices if you have them. Always take great care when placing or retrieving them, but never use them on motorways[/i]

Well, I never. Thanks for pointing that out.
I'm not sure I would agree with it. IMO if one is capable of crossing 3 lanes of motorway then one should be able to also run down the central reservation and place a warning triangle (obviously that wouldn't apply if broken down in L2 of 3).


weepej wrote:
You were lucky; you didn't have to deal with some idiot who wanted to maintain their speed whilst trying to undertake you.

No, I wasn't. I made it very clear to other drivers that I needed a path and that I was going to take it. I think it fair to say that I would rather take my chance with someone insistent on undertaking than remaining stationary in L3 for any amount of time.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 22:42 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
:trolls: u get used to the multi angled assassination

:welcome: weepej

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
There was some good research into why patrol cars get hit when stopped on motorways despite having lights and high vis (done by TRL internal only). The conclusion was that people cannot identify a vehicle that is parallel to the road as stopped. Subsequently they carried out a pilot of getting cars to stop at an angle. This reduced the collision rate by something like 200%

When I stop on the hard shoulder I park at an angle as best I can. I also stop at an angle when turning right when I can on my bike as this helps to reinforce the view of a stopped vehicle (and means both front and back indicators are likely to be visible).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.387s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]