Safe Speed Forums

I suspect so. I don't see too many people weaving through average 50s on motorways at 90+, in fact, I don't think I've ever seen this, it's pretty much always 100% compliance.



"Our" call? Who's "our"?

Anyway, I would like to see more traf pol, I've always said this. I don't think Safe Speed's line of total shut down of all speed camera activity for ever is workable though.

As for autobhans, (which have a higher fatality rate than UK motorways, make of that what you will):



How strange, the Germans think going faster increases danger.

it says that you CAN be deemed to be PARTIALLY responsible, not you will be held responsible.

80 mph is a better limit for a motorway than creeping along at 70, so you might find that people have more respect for the law.

tomorrow I will be doing a very speed sensitive job. I can't use horse power to limit my forward speed, because I am using a machine that only needs a quarter of the power I will have, so care is needed not to destroy the machine. But it still needs to be kept full. Should I have an open line to the German manufacturer on my mobile for their preferred speed for the conditions as I drive along, or should I uses the old noggin like I am not responsible enough to go on the road (with less power)?

Which approach to limits has always been my personal preferred method, i.e. you can legally exceed a posted limit, but the burden of proof if you crash is that it was your fault.

From Leeming again...

OK, the limit is 80 mph you have crashed at 90 mph; victims dead you are OK.

How do the police prove your speed?
Do you insist you were doing 79 mph?
Where does the burden of proof lie in that scenario?

You may find it surprising, you may not, but drivers seldom get out of their vehicles post collision and provide the police with the speed they were travelling at; they give a speed but not the speed they were travelling at.

Disregarding the assumption of absolute zero tolerance and that error that average speed cameras actually cannot detect point transgressions (cannot account for braking or acceleration):
Weren't we talking about a 80mph limit? So those doing 80mph past the stationary queue aren't loons, or are they? Would average/point cameras stop them?


Well there's the campaign, as well as a great number of regulars...
So does it make sense?


Of course it is. Replace cost recovering cameras with cost recovering trafpol ... and that's it.


The German suffer from the problem of having to put up with the attraction of drivers of other nations to zip along their roads (you know, that displacement effect), and those other drivers likely don't have the same standards of tuition and mandatory autobahn/motorway instruction. All in all, considering the speeds you must believe they get to (they must all drive around as fast as their car allows - according to your logic), it's a wonder they don't all die the moment they set tyre on them. I personally have done speeds on those roads which, according to the 'speed skills' stats, should have killed an entire school of children (and I was still being overtaken ), yet no one was hurt or even at risk.


You cannot claim that. Erhöhte Betriebsgefahr does not represent the German populous (neither does Wiki).
I bet he never accounted for the confounding factors either! Those certainly seem to have confounded some posters within this thread anyway.

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

Do you statistics which show that if you take out foreigners from the German A-bahn accident figures they are safer than British M-ways

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

No, but it makes logical sense; the factor should be accounted for when making such claims.
It also makes sense that a great many people are 'pulled' onto the autobahns from other nearby roads, so they could carry more traffic too. I don't know, but it is right to check, or at least question it.
Also, I’ve never liked their short slip roads.

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

It would make no sense to do so other than to show the unsubstatiated "displacement" theory was fact or fantasy; I imagine that is what your question meant.

At the end of the day whatever is discussed on here makes no difference.
A moving vehicle making contact with an unprotected person is going to result in injury/death.
If the data we are being fed is to be believed, a person making contact with any vehicle moving at over 30mph is history.
Therefore, every vehicle should be [logically] limited to a speed below 30 ?
M/ways however, by totally separating pedestrians from traffic, have demonstrated that vehicles on driveways SEPARATED FROM PEDESTRIANS can be allowed to go at higher speeds.
Make your own connection from that.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

There were deaths when the limit was 4MPH and men had flags, so what is the next (logical) conclusion, less than 4MPH?, no movement at all?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Here's an idea...Introduce some regulations and laws to control the use of vehicles, roads and drivers...That ought to do it.

Here's another idea...If drivers don't observe the laws and regulations...Prevent them driving...Only after a number of warnings though, that way we can encourage them to observe the laws and regulations.

Anyone see any problems?
Yes...there is always a small group who think they know better and will think they can do what they want...that's the ones spoiling it for the rest...familiar anyone?

Ideally no (circular argument aside). Unfortunately the way some of these laws are set aren't conducive to obedience.
Set the limits right in the first place and there wouldn't be a problem anyway.

Unfortunately there are groups of people who try to convince us that these unnecessarily low limits are really good for us, when it is really actually any good for only those same people who just so happen to have a con£lict of intere$t when it comes to enforcing these unecessarily low limits - you know the ones, those who forget about known and quantified factors such as RTTM when making their claims of the effectiveness of their work!

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

Then you get the problem of people with little driving experience, trying to set limits just to satisfy mrs Jones down the road, who hasn't driven all her life but swears blind that peole drive past the house, that she's only just bought, at 100MPH.. "all the time".

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I believe there are an august body of men called "accident investigators" who can work out - fairly precisely - your speed from skidmarks etc.

Should it be one of the 5% or so where speed in excess of the limit actually caused the crash, they could soon pin it on you.

No, which group is this? I know that I obey the law, I simply don't agree that automated enforcement improves safety. Are you perhaps suggesting that I don not have the right to object to laws that I feel are unjust? Well I am sorry, that is part of a democratic society, if you don't like that, perhaps you should consider moving to a country that doesn't have democracy?

Of course you can object I am absolutely in favour of that; objection isn't the same as just going out and breaking them though. Making laws is democratic and so is enforcing them as is the expectation that they will be observed; it is also fully expected that they will be objected too. All democratic...I can't include breaking laws in the rights and freedom of people in democratic countries...can you?

Accident investigators work on fatal collisions and you will find over 50% of those have speed as a causation factor.

Since when?
Did you vote to having all those 3000 new laws?
Anyway, this isn't about the law; it is about how it is set - I believe that's not democratic either.


Really? I've just had a look through RCGB2007 and I can't see how you can justify that comment. Do you want to try?

What about when considering the only speed factor a speed cameras can possibly affect?

What if you instead consider KSI instead of just the fatals, KSI being the standard measure of camera effectiveness?

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

Untrue - unless you believe that moving is a causative factor.

_________________
The only thing that should be prohibited is prohibition.

Once again , Greenshed you pluck a crazy figure out of thin air. Can you back this one up with evidence, unlike the past two?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.