Fast driving on public roads

[hyper]

Slow drivers arnt slow drivers because they are more capable, they are slow drivers because they are often LESS capable.

Yeh, I'm thinking that way too. My opinions -They don't pull out of a junction whilever there's a car within view on the horizon cos they have little concept of judging the speed

 

I remember years ago driving with an ex. I had the company rep mobile and was in the outer lane, prob averaging 80+mph. It was like a train of cars - no stop/starts etc, smooth as anything. I found it easy with no stress, everyone seemed capable. She wasn't happy with this, so on the way home I let her drive. She kept it at 65-70, but was forever pulling into the slow lane, then having to move out to overtake a truck, and often she couldn't pull out cos of the steady stream, so were down to 45mph, then sh'e have to thrash it out of a gap and so it went. Very stressful and far more conducive to danger IMO.

BTW if anyone thinks this is a he is a better driver than she post, you are mistaken - she was a million times better than me at parking.

[srt2016]

I can't understand why it's not part of the standard car information the manufacturers give out, I mean they test for every other thing??

 

Perhaps if the braking test was stricter it'd stop people running around with knackered brakes, brake fluid full of water and cheap nasty Chinese tyres ???

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 11:17 ----------

 

 

Really all drivers should have to sit a re-test every 10-15 years or so, you can be certain the pass rate would be well below 50% and all those doddering old drivers that annoy you so much wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting their licence back.

 

I wouldn't retest on the basis of a pass or fail id do it on grading.There are a few advantages to that.

The first an important one would be the driver themselves would have to stop kidding themselves.

The second would be the low grades or no shows could and should be hammered on insurance.That way there would be incentive for them to improve.There is absolutely nothing to stop a driver not opening a highway code book in 50 years as it stands and it shows.

Many drivers hide behind safety stuff like airbags and seat belts.They will pay good money for better tyres yet NEVER give the slightest thought to going for more training.

As far as im concerned,prevention is key.Having a one trick pony road safety policy,that just happenes to earn millions for private companys,is helping no one but them.

[Cyclone]

If a slow driver pulls out of a junction and hits a vehicle,that isn't down to slow drivng,its down to the slow DRIVER. Slow drivers arnt slow drivers because they are more capable, they are slow drivers because they are often LESS capable.

 

Perhaps you're confusing "within the speed limit" with slow?

 

There are annoyingly slow drivers I agree, but you have no evidence that they cause accidents. (That you've been willing to share anyway).

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 14:04 ----------

 

I was under the impression that the vast majority of accidents where not speed related, slow or fast.

 

This is basically correct.

 

Very few have slow speed as a major contributory factor, and only 5% have high speed as a major contributory factor.

[Berberis]

Have you seen the result of a 100mph impact?

 

Do you know the difference between a 95mph impact and one at 100mph?

 

The laws are not dependant on what happens in the event of an impact, its down to the safety of travelling at such a speed. Otherwise we wouldn't see trains or any other form of transport going faster than 70mph.

 

What about B roads and head on collisions? Two cars can easily be going at the speed limit (60mph) and have an actual impact speed of 120mph if they had a head on collision. Compare that to the motorways or A roads where at best, the impact speed is 70mph.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Berberis

[Eric Arthur]

The moderators have now added a maximum speed poll. Thank you esme.

[Obelix]

Do you know the difference between a 95mph impact and one at 100mph?

 

The laws are not dependant on what happens in the event of an impact, its down to the safety of travelling at such a speed. Otherwise we wouldn't see trains or any other form of transport going faster than 70mph.

 

What about B roads and head on collisions? Two cars can easily be going at the speed limit (60mph) and have an actual impact speed of 120mph if they had a head on collision. Compare that to the motorways or A roads where at best, the impact speed is 70mph.

 

A point to note - a head on impact with something immovable like a tree is the same as a head on impact with a car going the other way. Hitting a stationary car is far more preferable due to momentum transfer...

 

Motorways are safe primarily because its difficult to have a head on collision with anything, and immovable objects like bridge stanchions are protected from impact by barriers. It's these reasons motorways are safe, not because they have fewer accidents.

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 15:16 ----------

 

Perhaps you're confusing "within the speed limit" with slow?

 

There are annoyingly slow drivers I agree, but you have no evidence that they cause accidents. (That you've been willing to share anyway).

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 14:04 ----------

 

 

This is basically correct.

 

Very few have slow speed as a major contributory factor, and only 5% have high speed as a major contributory factor.

 

Speed kills after all. But it doesn't cause accidents necessarily. It just has an effect on the magnitude of the accident.

[Cyclone]

Do you know the difference between a 95mph impact and one at 100mph?

 

The laws are not dependant on what happens in the event of an impact, its down to the safety of travelling at such a speed. Otherwise we wouldn't see trains or any other form of transport going faster than 70mph.

 

What about B roads and head on collisions? Two cars can easily be going at the speed limit (60mph) and have an actual impact speed of 120mph if they had a head on collision. Compare that to the motorways or A roads where at best, the impact speed is 70mph.

 

Someone posted a mythbusters clip recently, I'd rather run into another vehicle at a closing speed of 120mph than a big solid tree (or bridge support) at 70...

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 15:18 ----------

 

A point to note - a head on impact with something immovable like a tree is the same as a head on impact with a car going the other way. Hitting a stationary car is far more preferable due to momentum transfer...

 

Not quite true, unless your tree comes with a crumple zone...

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 15:20 ----------

 

Motorways are safe primarily because its difficult to have a head on collision with anything, and immovable objects like bridge stanchions are protected from impact by barriers. It's these reasons motorways are safe, not because they have fewer accidents.

 

They DO have fewer accidents (per mile travelled) though, because of superior design.

 

You don't have blind corners or bridges, you don't have side roads or driveways, you don't have traffic lights and pedestrians.

One direction of travel, hopefully all at a similar speed, with traffic joining and leaving provided with slip roads to filter in and out.

A design that is far safer than the alternatives that trunk roads employ, where the main flow is broken up by roundabouts and side roads joining with no slip.

[alchemist]

Who by your mates?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html

 

Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says today.

 

 

Nearly a third of motorists have had a 'near miss' caused by someone travelling slowly.

 

 

These drivers create such frustration that six out of ten motorists feel stress rise and about half are tempted to 'undertake'.

 

Stressful: Slow drivers cause six out of ten motorists into temptation to undertake

 

It has led to calls for a crackdown on slow drivers including the setting of minimum limits or even ‘slow speed’ cameras.

 

 

Transport Department figures show 143 accidents a year are caused directly by slow drivers.

 

 

The report from insurer Confused.com coincides with the Government’s deadline today for police and councils to publish prosecution and casualty data on speed cameras to see if they do save lives or just raise cash.

 

 

The report notes: ’In reaction to these slow drivers, almost half (45%) of motorists risk overtaking, thus increasing the chances of an accident.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz41B1fMpQD

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

So what you are saying is that impatient drivers cause accidents? I would have thought that that was obvious

[Vaati]

The bickering and finger pointing can now cease. For future reference if you think someone is a returnee, then please report rather than derail a thread.

Any further continuation is likely to result in people being suspended.

[DT Ralge]

How do the safety statistics of the unlimited motorway compare to other roads and to our motorways?

 

That's a big question given the detailed nature of the stats available in both countries.

Comparing Uk and Germany is fraught with "apples and pears" differences.

Germany has four times the length of motorway we have (12000 km).

Their motorway network generates 12-14% of their death toll, our network generates only 5-6%. Can we say, from that, that theirs is relatively safer than ours? Dunno, 'cos they are still killing 3000+ in total on all their roads where our death toll is down to 1775 (in 2014). Germany has a bigger population but not that much bigger.

 

What should be noted is the Uk's figures when analysed per 100,000 population and/or by billion miles travelled puts us at the top of the league table with Holland and Sweden with the Germans and French a good way down the table - which explains, perhaps, why our DfT has been frustratingly ("not invented here") reluctant to adopt "good ideas" from that part of Europe (e.g higher limit in good conditions, lower in poor conditions, speed/space technology enforcing space rather than speed ...). After all, it's running out of space at any speed that hurts, not the speed itself.

Edited February 25, 2016 by DT Ralge