GrahamCresswell & jogreen68
GrahamCresswell wrote:
It seems self-evident that arbitrary numerical speed limits are based on a preposterous notion that the maximum safe speed for any stretch of road is a constant. Plainly, the maximum safe speed varies constantly with many factors such as surface condition, separation, visibility, the type of vehicle etc.
I totally agree, as you are likely aware that a specific speed limit is not the safety limit. All roads are proceeded along at appropriate speeds for the constantly changing conditions.
Placing this interesting post in the 'Brainstorming' area lets explore your proposal.
GrahamCresswell wrote:
I propose that, for motorways in particular, the arbitrary limit is replaced by a separation limit and clearance advice. I call it the 'speed over twenty rule' , but it includes the well known '2 second rule'. I have used it for most of my life while studiously ignoring all arbitrary speed limits and I have driven about 500,000 miles since I was last involved in an accident (1973).
I can see your point about having less concentration on speed and more on preparation and better space. (The 'keeps your eyes on the road' implored motorists the always 'think' about all aspects of driving / riding.)
If you apply the 'gap distance' for motorways this will help to ensure that the 'lesson is well learned, so will be automatically continued (to a reasonable degree) on other roads, which would be good.
GrahamCresswell wrote:
It's very simple.
I can appreciate that most learn in our own ways, that suite our own abilities and attributes. For most the 2 sec rule is sufficient & simple enough to impart the safety 'rule' well.
I can see that your concept allows for varying safety distances. Is that better by 'seconds numbers' than the 'drive to observations' concepts?
However is one better or worse than another ? Does one rule give better responsibility overall and the other that relies on a speed to choose the distance, concentrate too much on the basic speed? Can & do they both teach the 'same' distance concept ? If one learns the right observation and 'drive to conditions' does it 'matter' which 'rule' got you there ?
People are all different, so does one rule limit some and benefit others or is it 'enough'.
GrahamCresswell wrote:
rule 1.You NEVER come closer than 2 seconds behind the car in front. (I would replace speed cameras with separation cameras and make this an offence within the dangerous driving category).
As Toltec has indicated the 'real world' has exceptions, so when we start saying 'never' it starts to focus over-riding importance to that 'enforcement'. After all it is human to err, with the best will in the world, 'no-one is perfect', and motoring is not that clear and precise.
We must be cautious with 'never', best practice is better and more realistic. After all police patrols that might enforce a rule can observe the 'whole picture' and we need that to ensure fairness and conditions are properly considered.
GrahamCresswell wrote:
rule 2.You divide your speed in (mph) by 20. You make sure that you can see that the road is clear (visible and unobstructed) for that many seconds in front of the car in front of you. eg. You are driving at 100mph. Check that you can see enough clear road ahead of the car in front of you for it to take at least 5 seconds for the car in front of you to get to the limit of the clear road. If not, slow down.
The faster we travel the proportionately greater the gaps, and when conditions worsen the 'even greater the gaps' to allow for the ability to stop in the distance that we know to be
cleare.
What if there is no car in front of you ?
GrahamCresswell wrote:
rule 3. If the road is wet, use the kph scale.
I think for many that would confuse the issue too much,is although I appreciate that the distances would increase but is it necessary ?
As we gain experience as we drive / ride we,learn' the gaps, speeds and braking distances, in reality we understand our 'road-space'. We try really hard and mostly succeed very well not to crash into each other so we learn to be good at these learned aspects.
GrahamCresswell wrote:
This might sound complicated but it isn't and, after a while, you don't even have to do the calculations because it's instinctive.
So is it 'better' than the 2 sec rule - which for most is more simple and east to remember? If we are only on a path to teach until learned does it give an improved education?
If so what percentage of people benefit ?
Do we create more or less responsible motorists ?