Safe Speed Forums

If I was an insurance company and I could get people's driving data, would I penalise people who:

a) used heavy acceleration and braking, exceeded limits, used high cornering G's and had higher thermal loads and lower mpg on the car, or...

b) drove reasonably gently, generally stuck to limits, did not exceed comfort-level G loads and got better mpg?

I know which will be the better risk. You do not have to be an expert to figure this. If I ran a business with a fleet of vans, I would want less (a)'s and more (b)'s driving my vans.

Bring on black box recorders. They are already used to analyse some truck driving and assist retraining by truck firms.

---


These decisions are simple, stupid. They do not involve your highly detailed arguments. In the real world things are never that complex. a) you are fired... b) you are hired. Now: Next problem, move on...

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

There's a sign just near Frankfurt that says "Muenchen, 450 km". You pass it after driving 700 miles through Europe
and having crossed the channel. It used to particularly piss me off when I was riding my BMW, as I was pretty saddle sore by then.
So yes, fatigue is an issue, for sure. But would it be wiser to speed up, or poodle along, when I'm tired (assuming that stopping is
"not going to happen").

This is just making a mockery of being safe. You need to stop and rest when it's safe to do this. It's obvious to every sane person.

It's not a macho competition to see who can go fastest/longest/hardest. The fact that people here don't roundly condemn you putting others at risk while driving tired just says it all, in a minute someone will quote some detailed research showing if you exceed your comfort level by 3 hours, you get better at driving. You could kill someone. Yet people get so worked up about speed cameras, but they don't kill people - other people do that.

As you get fatigued you should SLOW, as your reactions will be slower. Speeding up to increase adrenaline is very foolhardy. I am sure even the pilot would not put his craft and passengers at greater risk, just to wake himself up. I doubt he would allow himself to get into that situation. I imagine he would plan his flight or journey better.

This post above is an example of crap driving.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Would you rather lend your car to an a-type or a b-type? There's no question, really, is there?

Neither. If I were an insurance company I would penalise people who had a bad claims record and reward people who didn't make claims. I would call that reward a "No Claims Discount".

_________________
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

There are lots of sane people who continue driving deep into the night to get to thier destination.



It was a race against last orders! You are right about the danger.



You have to keep going, even if it takes all night. For example,
I used to play gigs down in London. We'd drive down after work, from L'pool. We'd set up,
play the gig, and get out of there around mid-night. Then I'd drive up north, in time to go work
at the factory. I had to keep going, because the rest of the band needed to get to work as well.
They depended on me.



I see what you mean. The idea wasn't to drive well, but to get the blokes home in time for thier
shifts. There were all manner of motives, and we were young and foolish. Now I'm old and foolish
(before RobinXe pipes up!)

Ah, but this will be changing. Already car manufacturers decide service intervals based on driving technique. Insurance companies are desperate for better risk-assessment techniques and will be attempting to introduce new technologies. I would guess a good inclusion would be a gatso/camera radar monitor, so the insurance company can measure how many camera "flashes" have occurred. Using all this info to form a picture is as useful as no-claims discount. The insurance companies need to measure the likelihood of you claiming, not just claim history.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Perhaps there should be no "No Claims Discount" protection, as it removes the moral hazard of bad driving?

No..... when you have an accident and your wife is in tears, your kids distraught, your mates injured and other paries injured/dead with all the resultant grief in their families, plus the social costs, measure this against the requirement to keep going.

Really, I understand the intention, but if someone tired like this had a bad accident with (say) your wife you would go m-e-n-t-a-l. That guy with the Land Rover at Selby crashed the London Newcastle train, killed people. All because he "had to keep going". There will be many examples.

You are so wrong. People do not engage their brain. People engage in the craziest risk/benefit games when driving. None of it is worth it. The massive problem is the innocent victims and the family grief. If someone dies themselves, then ho-hum. Police sweep him up I guess. But... what is left behind is massive grief. Imagine the look on the face of your wife.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Utter tripe as ever Ling, I'm wondering if it genuinely is a comprehension problem you have, or whether you are intentionally misunderstanding to be obtuse and belligerent. Lets look at some more of your mistakes this time:



I have never said that I am a better driver because I am a pilot. You're either being disingenuous by attempting to misrepresent my statements, or you really can't understand what I write. Either way you just look stupid posting tripe like this. Also, you make assumptions to my age and ethnicity. You know what they say about "to assume", though really it's mainly "U". Hahahaha!



I've said nothing about training drivers in aircraft skills. What I have said is that somehow, through training and supervision, the aviation industry has produced professionals that put the need for safety above any thrill seeking urges they may or may not have. I think we should expect this level of "professionalism" as a very minimum for road users!



Again you display your blistering ignorance. Not all pilots are flying under an RCS in Class A airspace. When you are flying at treetop heights, below the coverage of primary radar, under your own navigation, it is a high hazard-density environment that requires continual split-second decision making to keep the aircraft and occupants safe.



Hahaha! There we may agree! You want to drive along, safely and comfortably, without the necessity of continual strict adherence to the minutiae of the rules, so long as you are not endangering anybody.



How dare those assholes drive correctly!! If Ling wants to cut a non-standard line across a roundabout then she should be allowed, damn those prudes with their lane discipline!



Yet the number of driving tickets go up, so we can surmise that the cameras are not slowing people down. At best they can make people avoid cameras, not avoid excessive speed.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I'm sure you're a very nice person, but this preaching has to stop, Ling. We're guys here, and we've got to
have our fun. Nobody lives forever, for goodness sake. So chill out, have some fun and try not to be too
serious. And as for the speeders - just keep a lid on it, guys. Ling's right - it's stupid to go too fast in the car, OK?

I don't think this has ever been disputed, has it?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I dunno, but I hope it puts a stop to this nonsense. Ling's trying to climb google ratings,
by getting free hits from your crowd. Least said the better, from now on.

Dear heavens, I agree with abercrombie! After all, Ling can argue with herself quite happily without much help from us...

Contradicting my claim that the pre-early nineties system of setting speed limits produced safe and reasonable limits:



Then claiming the system has never changed:



Confused? Well she certainly is!

More than confused old bean, positively imbecilic in the lack of reasoned thought, and the desire to direct us away from the same on the ground that the status quo must be accepted unquestioningly! Hahaha!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Oh it there .. if you listen to the quality news of R2/R5


By the way .. safespeed has never been about "flooring the Veyron".. but about choosing the safest speed for the road condition you are faced with, This mean being in 85th percentile free flow. being able to stop safely on own side of road within distance you see to be clear ahead...


We often say a safe speed may be below limit .. but that sometimes we have to exceed for a second or so to get out of dangers.



Me? I like the doo dah in the Jag. Und the pogo origin thingy ..wink:

I have not read this thread through,. But no matter. I can guess.

You can have as many speed cams as you like. Switzerland has plenty enough hidden in wheely bins,.



But these only measure speed. They do not und cannot detect the real cause of an accident .. which ist driver error as result of low or poorly acquired sklll.

If you concentrate on skill development und pride in car control instead of speedy handbrake turns in front of the current girlfriend - educate to courteous manners too .. then we sow seeds for safety.

If we put sole faith in a camera which only measure one thing .. which can be hit/miss too.. .. then we undermine progress .. und that desire to improve skills to toppest ability as constant.

IG ist best to reply. I am stil in "recovery mode" here.

I suggest Ling look at my post in our new baby thread. (I know .. I prhased it all wrong.. but my excuse ist that I not "quite quite quite" recovered yet. Und chills.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Hey Ling, Google Street View came online today, now I can show you that stretch of M3 with the needless limit reduction - unless you can find a good reason for it?

Street View link of M3
Note: the start of the coned section was later pushed back to the bridge (where the 30 limit started), but the start of the 50 limit remained in the same place; even then the contraflow started 0.5 miles after that.

What reason can you give for 1.7 miles of that reduced 50 limit?

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

This is one of Safe Speed's problems, you have obsession with micro-areas of the UK road system which you think need changing. Of course, no, no sane person can make decisions based on some photographs, even if I (or you) were experts.

Safe Speed members are just as guilty as they suggest road speed-limit setters are, because based on a few unofficial photos you think you can determine the suitability of raising a speed limit.

There are many arguments, apart from the fact that we don't know what dangers there are in roadwork areas. There are numerous pieces of stationary machinery, workers will come and go, deliveries of materials may happen, there may be many dangers like exposed drains and incomplete safety features ar strengthening of features that needs to happen, there may be incomplete markings or signage, not to mention the cones and temporary stuff.

If it happens that a view from the engineers is that a temporary limit needs to be in place as de facto when roadworks are happening, to ensure consistency for road users (ie. if there are roadworks there WILL be a speed limit reduction), then consistency may be a good thing.

To obsess over a precisely measured stretch of motorway (you were quoting two decimal places of a mile) is just crazy, like you are the M3 watchman. In any case, the speed limit can be doing no harm, as nearby on the M25 there are widely accepted variable limits on stretches of no roadworks.

Again, just slow down a bit, stop trying to maximise every mph and think of the greater good rather than you finely honed driving skills in your immaculately maintained car being the norm. If everyone slows down a bit when they are in a roadwork section, to me, and to the vast majority of the population, this is a good thing. There is no mass uprising against this. Safe Speed are a very narrow minority which most people ignore (even if they know you exist) because you are compulsive obsessives over this stuff. I guess the police forces are not banging on about raising the limit on this stretch and you would think that traffic policemen would know what they are doing.

Google maps is not a definitive way to judge a stretch of road. You have no exact idea about what has happened on that road. We have local authorities and traffic and road engineers who do this for a living. If they think there should be a limit, then great.

Suggest you point your energies to something more constructive.

No one outside this (shrinking) forum is listening to your dispute that this limit can safely be raised. In fact, no one cares. You just drive within the limits, and it cannot be the case that every limit is always under question, because you will always find a range of views from sensible people to loonies about the little stretch of road that they have interest in. At some stage on roads a decision must be made about speed. That decision has been made. Not every decision need be absolutely perfect, someone needs to take a view and the view is taken. That's it. Why spend your life campaigning for micro-changes? Weird.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Not at all. I do not represent Safe Speed, I never have. Even if I did, not everyone here pays such attention to detail, so why focus on the presentation of only my arguments. Why should one person who does not have any control of, or a say in, the campaign have such an impact on the campaign? I’ve also posted on SCP forums in the same manner, so do I represent their policy too?
And how is this really such a small detail? This is quite a critical argument regarding the policy of speed.

Also, I used to commute that stretch everyday and I still use it regularly, so I'm not basing my opinion on mere photographs (using Google Street View, not Google Maps – there is a big difference, did you even look at the given link?)

PS, I'm not talking about raising limits, I was actually talking about not needlessly reducing them – there is a difference!


So you can’t find a reason, even with the clarity of Street View!
Where were the roadworks in those 2.3 miles of reduced limit? Only the contraflow started at the 2.3 mile point, only there do we need to start worrying about things like safety features and worker access.


The M25 is just a little bit different, the weight of traffic results with domino effects; there is no such problem on the M3 (J1 to J2), that’s why there are no variable limits.
No harm? What about driver fatigue? (which as I already said, accounts for more crashes than all forms of speed based factors combined)
(PS, I typed 1.75 because it was at that time easier than typing ¾, my mind did a literal translation; I would have thought have thought that was obvious)


Again, for a third time, what is 'a bit'? Where should the line be drawn? Is 20mph ‘a bit’?
Note, the sections shown aren't roadworks sections.

There is a difference between maximising every mph and debating the loss of 20 of them.


That’s your opinion, I don’t hold it. If did shrink for a while, but I can see some people are returning, such as yourself; you seem to care enough about the campaign. I still don’t get why you continue to make efforts to post here if you have nothing constructive to add.


This isn’t a micro issue, I merely gave you examples (do you understand the concept of ‘samples’ ?). There are many other nonsensical examples around the country, I gave you two that I happen to know very well within the context of this debate. I can quote other poor examples of bad road policy that doesn’t involve speed.

Simply put, you are out of real arguments before you've even begun, so all you have done is resort to arguing the presentation of the given technical arguments - poor show!

Have you populated your list of corrections and clarifications yet?

Are you going to correct your web page with the necessary corrections? If not then why not?

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

Steve mate, give it up, this Ling thing has all the reasoning skills of a bamboo shoot; you can put across all the compelling points you want, and it will just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. It cannot understand esoteric thought, so don't waste your time.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.