Driver awareness course ......

[noseall]

When I go competitive racing, I prepare the car, and myself for a crash. Sooner or later it WILL happen. It's part of the thrill, pushing past the limit, or a sudden reaction to a bad move by somebody else.
If I didn't expect a crash to happen I would be dangerous to myself and others. Hence why strict safety requirements are set.
I do accept speed itself does not kill. But 30mph outside a school at kicking out time is far more dangerous than 80mph on a clear motorway at 2am. 1 is legal though.
But the general public do not do this, they travel through built up areas in excess of 30mph, and that is, or can be, dangerous.

Do you think speed limits in built up areas are a good or bad idea? Safer to have limits, or not ?

Motorway limits are a different argument, but are generally too busy to allow excess speeding. The average driver (most of us are average, or around average) is not good enough to speed in busy traffic.

Speeding is therefore dangerous and life threatening. Yes? Or no ?

Gosh Yafo, don't you know the difference between free travelling speed and impact speed. Honestly!

 

[motorbiking]

None of the above factors in the stupidity of children stepping out into the road. The fact is that if they are hit by a car doing a slower speed then their chances of survival are a lot higher.

It does. But I’m guessing by your view that you’ve never done any post learner training. Not much point in arguing a point further.

 

[Yafo]

examples of speed kills gone mad

Lots of examples like that around me. ALWAYS as a result of excessive incidents/deaths/injuries in a close area.

Which sort of proves drivers are not good enough, or responsible enough to travel without controls needed.

Personally I would prefer far more traffic police about, enforcing driving standards generally, not just speeding (mostly by cameras). But that comes back to another argument about financial support for such like.

The problem in my opinion is that a whole generation (or more ) has grown up and driven around without any traffic police around, and the only offence they commit (actually get caught for) is speeding and therefore nothing else matters. It generally happens at known speed camera points, rarely elsewhere.

Excess speeding generally is a result of such policies. Doesn't make it right, or safe, though.

 

[Brigadier]

Diddums. Don't you like the way the argument has gone boyo.

You don't have an argument worth the name

 

[EFLImpudence]

800,000 estimated injuries a year, 5,000 fatalities 600,000 casualties NHS figs.

5,000 deaths 200,000 injuries police figures NHS estimates are the higher figure quoted.

Something wrong somewhere -

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...tain-provisional-estimates-april-to-june-2017

 

[noseall]

post learner training

I wonder if the authorities will set up restriction free road systems especially for those with post learner training. My guess is that they will stick with what they have and carry on saving children's lives.

 

[Brigade77]

When I go competitive racing, I prepare the car, and myself for a crash. Sooner or later it WILL happen. It's part of the thrill, pushing past the limit, or a sudden reaction to a bad move by somebody else.
If I didn't expect a crash to happen I would be dangerous to myself and others. Hence why strict safety requirements are set.
I do accept speed itself does not kill. But 30mph outside a school at kicking out time is far more dangerous than 80mph on a clear motorway at 2am. 1 is legal though.
But the general public do not do this, they travel through built up areas in excess of 30mph, and that is, or can be, dangerous.

Do you think speed limits in built up areas are a good or bad idea? Safer to have limits, or not ?

Motorway limits are a different argument, but are generally too busy to allow excess speeding. The average driver (most of us are average, or around average) is not good enough to speed in busy traffic.

Speeding is therefore dangerous and life threatening. Yes? Or no ?

I've never argued against legally set speed limits, especially in built up areas. I think that excessive speed in any situation is deplorable.

What bothers me most is peoples attitude to what's going wrong on our roads & how to fix it. Setting a lower speed limit is to me the cheap n easy option & not even a part of a solution to the problems.

I have stood outside the school gates & watched it. The vehicles travelling far less than 20mph are a much greater risk than those irresponsibly whizzing past even within the legal limits.

 

[Brigade77]

The problem in my opinion is that a whole generation (or more ) has grown up and driven around without any traffic police around, and the only offence they commit (actually get caught for) is speeding and therefore nothing else matters. It generally happens at known speed camera points, rarely elsewhere.

Excess speeding generally is a result of such policies. Doesn't make it right, or safe, though.

& it's getting progressively worse.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The speed limit is just a number.

It bears no relationship to the road to which it applies in more than a few cases.
If they wanted you to drive at a 30mph maximum, then the !imit would be 25; + 10% + a couple for tolerance in the speedo etc.
So they must think that 35mph is acceptable.

A blanket 30mph in a town covers all roads.
In some, 30mph would be downright dangerous; in others, a slightly higher limit may be acceptable.

Consequently, people only get done by cameras where this slightly higher limit could be applied.
They don't put cameras in very narrow roads where 5 or 10 would be the safe speed limit because it is the maximum actually possible.

 

[Yafo]

What bothers me most is peoples attitude to what's going wrong on our roads & how to fix it. Setting a lower speed limit is to me the cheap n easy option & not even a part of a solution to the problems.

The answer, possibly, is better and more traffic police. Address driving standards and speeding issues directly. Other issues could be addressed better with more police too, not less.

But that costs money, and too many people don't want money spent, for the benefit of all.

It becomes another argument, and that unfortunately, is the real problem.

 

[motorbiking]

Speed limits used to be set according the 85th%ile of speed. I.e. the speed that the majority of drivers drove under. Only the fastest 15% were deemed to be driving too fast. It was a good model that assumes the majority (as backed up by casualty stats, the vast majority) chose a good speed.

It changed in early 2000 at the start of the speed camera growth, to be the 50th percentile. This is why a road, can have its speed cut from NSL to 50 to 40, to 30 in only a few years. Under this model it is assumed that half of drivers are 'speeding'. Most recent models favour social engineering (which is OK to a point) and environmental concerns (again ok to a point).

https://assets.publishing.service.g...tachment_data/file/63975/circular-01-2013.pdf

If you follow the method - the 20mph speed limit will usually tick all the boxes.

 

[SirGalahad]

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1042028590307717125

Police using buses to catch drives using their phone.

 

[motorbiking]

As traffic jams increase - so will phone use. Also, I'm not entirely convinced the police can tell the difference between a text sent by the driver texting and a text asking Siri to send a text.

 

[SirGalahad]

As traffic jams increase - so will phone use. Also, I'm not entirely convinced the police can tell the difference between a text sent by the driver texting and a text asking Siri to send a text.

If you use your phone via the cars bluetooth system then is that within the law? Or if you use a voice assistant (Amazon just brought out Alexa Auto) would that again be within the law?

 

[Brigadier]

If you use your phone via the cars bluetooth system then is that within the law? Or if you use a voice assistant (Amazon just brought out Alexa Auto) would that again be within the law?

Currently, not specifically outside but, I have the feeling that even hands-free will become illegal (some researchers reckon it impairs drivers as much as alcohol).
Then, I'd expect it to be un-policeable, but considered an aggravating factor in the event of an incident.