Safe Speed Forums

I used to think there was a SPECS system on the M27. I would hide behind (next to) lorries past each of the cameras if I could.
If I go anywhere where I know there's going to be SPECS I will take my front numberplate off and have it displayed in the front window, which I believe is perfectly legal as long as it is visible. Let's hope it doesn't accidentally get turned over every time I'm near a camera.

_________________
Andrew.

But what about the thousands of truckers who DON'T do that? They must have become desensitised, surely?

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

 
I agree that's a problem and, as you mentioned earlier, the tendency to allow gaps to become smaller than one would do if using full throttle response.
 
The danger of sitting beside another vehicle (particularly a truck) is real.  I saw a prime example just the other day in the now 5 lane section of the M25 approaching the M3.  The variable speed had been reduced to 60 and I was in L4 at 60-65 closing on a LHD artic in L2 with a car in L3 S-L-O-W-L-Y passing. When I first noticed him, I think the car was about level with the front wheels of the artic's trailer.  Anway, I saw the artic signal right but the car driver clearly didn't notice and continued creeping past with just a tiny speed differential.  After probably 5-10 seconds of signalling, the artic started to move over quite slowly (I'd guess the driver was a bit unsure whether there was anything in his blind spot). The car at this point was level with the cab so completely invisible to the artic driver. I was watching this with awful fascination thinking "This is going to be nasty" when the artic jinked back left - the artic driver had clearly just caught sight of the car, which must have started emerging from the front of his cab. I carried on past the car whose driver (a man in, at a guess, his late sixties) was clearly completely oblivious to what had happened.

Who was at fault here? I think the car driver mostly - possibly the artic driver a little.

Another point on cruise control/speed limiters (BTW, I have been using cars with cruise control for 15 years and with speed limiters for 8 years so I have some experience with the devices). For anybody not familar with them, cruise control maintains a constant minimum speed without any throttle depression but provides full throttle response above the set speed whereas a speed limiter imposes a maximum speed regardless of throttle depression but provides full throttle response below the set speed. Cruise control is automatically disengaged by any brake pedal pressure and the speed limiter is (on my car at least) automatically disengaged by depressing the throttle pedal past the 'stop' (the point at which I would force a 'kickdown' gear change in my automatic gearbox car). Both systems can also be manually disengaged on a steering column stalk.

In the monthly newsletter of my local IAM group, there was an article by a member to the effect that:

(i) cruise control is undesirable/hazardous at motorway speeds but speed limiters are useful (to prevent straying over the limit);

(ii) cruise control is useful at urban road speeds (30 limit) to maintain a steady legal speed but speed limiters are undesirable/dangerous because they prevent one from accelerating out of trouble (the writer was either unaware that the speed limiter will disengage on 'kickdown' or the system on his car is not so regulated).

I was gobsmacked to read this because I take the diametrically opposite view.

At motorway speed, I use cruise control quite frequently in free flowing conditions. Sometimes, I may be passing another vehicle and need a bit more speed differential, so I simply inrease throttle depression and when I'm past 'coast' back to the set cruise speed. I never use the speed limiter in these conditions (although I can see it may be useful in a SPECS environment) because I would find it irksome to have to 'kick down' to get more speed and, if I need full throttle response (in heavier traffic) I would not be using cruise control either.

Conversely, at urban road speeds, I would never use cruise control because I think it is vitally important to have full throttle response for that momentary easing or lift off that is necessary when (as will happen frequently) a hazard is observed. I think that cruise control is positively dangerous in a hazard rich environment. On the other hand, a speed limiter can be used to set a maximum speed (and so has some utility) where there is a high risk of speed enforcement.

I was amazed that an 'advanced' driver could have such totally opposite outlook to me. What does the panel think?

I'm amazed that anyone would even consider using cruise control in a 30 zone let a lone manage to do so. It's impossible to ease 'just a little' so you're plowing on at your set speed - presumably 30 - until you hit the brakes. What if the safe speed for a few hundred metres is 20? Those fractions of seconds in a built up area may well be the difference between a non-event and a big event.

Also, why wouldn't you potentially want to accelerate out of trouble on a motorway? Observer's comment on the arctic vs car being a case in point.

What I'd like is a system that sets a certain speed, preferably monitoring the situation and adjsuting it as necessary, and which provides throttle response both above and below that speed.
Oh, hang on a mo... that's my job innit?


Equally gobsmacked that an advanced driver would suggest this, and fingers crossed that they don't live near me . IMO this is nuts and, like you, is pretty much the opposite of the way I use cruise control (on the rare occasions that I do actually use it). Honda clearly think so too. Verbatim from my owner's manual:

Okay, so there's a couple of points about that bit of the manual that I take issue with, mainly the wording that could be misinterpreted as not needing full control in ideal conditions for which cruise control is suitable and that 25mph seems to be an unnecessarily low minimum speed for cruise use. Actually I thought it was 40mph, but I'd probably misread 40km/h and remembered it wrongly as a result. But the main point is that the system is obviously not designed for urban use and the manual states it clearly and unambiguously. "Not recommended for city driving" and "use only on open motorways" isn't really open to interpretation. Okay, so that's only the advice of one car manufacturer for one particular model, but cruise systems all do pretty much the same thing, don't they? I'd have thought that it is just as valid for any other car, and frankly if the book said otherwise I still wouldn't use the cruise control in urban areas. The safe speed for the conditions is far too variable for cruise to be appropriate, and having to do a minimum speed of 25mph in my car for the system to operate at all means it would spend a lot of time being unable to work in urban areas anyway.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

The use of cruise control in a 30 mph limit is precisely the outcome you should expect as a result of the current speed enforcement policy.

The message is:
Exceeding 30 mph is unsafe in a built-up area.
You will be prosecuted if you are caught exceeding the limit.
You should do everything you can to prevent exceeding the speed limit.

Combine this with:
A cruise control feature will maintain your car at a constant speed that you set.

Result:
Switch on the cruise control at 30 mph, and you can forget about speed cameras (except maybe on a downhill stretch etc.), and you can concentrate on the road. You are then a better driver.

As pointed out though, there is no 'easing off the gas'. Constantly switching the cruise control on and off again is a pain, so there would be a temptation to either forget about it, or choose not switch it off with the brakes unless you have to. Result: Hit the pedestrian at exactly 30 mph, which, as we know, is the safe speed to kill somebody.

I often drive through the A616 SPECS and I do use the cruise control there. Not the ideal solution but while the cameras are still there then it is the best compromise and allows me to pay attention to the road. It is also not the most economical, ideally I would allow my speed to drop slightly as I go up the hill.

Motorway SPECS are usually a matter of following the car in front. If traffic levels allowed I would use the CC there as well.

I have toyed with the idea of using the trip computer's average speed display but then we are back to diverting attention from the road.

Are we all forgetting that cruise control has [+] and [-] buttons so you can adjust your speed while driving? Sure you can't change speed as fast as using the accelerator/brake but you can still use them if needed!
If we're talking purely safety, the safest thing to do is remove your front numberplace (like the motorbikes do) and the problem of SPECS goes away.
Not that I'm suggesting anyone should do that.
My current car has cruise control so I'd be using that were I in the situation.

_________________
Andrew.

cruise control and speed limiter devices is a choice for the private car owner but for many van drivers you have to put up with what ever your employer buys. I work for an employer who in the past, had enough financial might to get ford to produce extra cheap cars without air bags! even though the base model of this car/van comes with them as standard

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code