Speed Camera Avoidance
 

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:56:48 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:

I reckon that the speed limit should be set at the speed that a
"safe, competant driver" would choose to drive at

I entirely agree - if, at the same time, you ensure that all the people
who do not meet this standard are disallowed from driving on the said
roads.

--
Not a good picture, but certainly an informative one:
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10862746.html
(A "surfer" hanging on to the back of a Manchester tram in 2000)

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

Chris Tolley wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:56:48 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:

I reckon that the speed limit should be set at the speed that a
"safe, competant driver" would choose to drive at

I entirely agree - if, at the same time, you ensure that all the
people who do not meet this standard are disallowed from driving on
the said roads.

I've still not heard a compelling reason why mandatory periodic re-testing
isn't a good idea

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:24:37 -0000, Stimpy wrote:

I've still not heard a compelling reason why mandatory periodic re-testing
isn't a good idea

Logistics? If one presumes that people take a test and then drive for 40
years on average, then it follows that he testing system has to cope
with 2.5% of the drivers per annum. Give people a test, say every 5
years, and it will have to cope with 20%. That's an awful lot of
appointments to fit in.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632911.html
(Skye seen through mist and low cloud from Kyle of Lochalsh in 1999)

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

Chris Tolley wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:24:37 -0000, Stimpy wrote:

I've still not heard a compelling reason why mandatory periodic
re-testing isn't a good idea

Logistics? If one presumes that people take a test and then drive for
40 years on average, then it follows that he testing system has to
cope
with 2.5% of the drivers per annum. Give people a test, say every 5
years, and it will have to cope with 20%. That's an awful lot of
appointments to fit in.

Yes but I'm not sure that's a *compelling* reason. If the standard of
driving is as bad as we're led to believe then presumably the cost of repeat
testing would be offset to some degree by the reduced consequential cost of
accidents.

If we can academically test all 16 and 18 year olds every year then surely
the logistics involved in testing (say) 4 million drivers (?) a year aren't
insurmountable

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

In message , at
19:19:06 on Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Martin Underwood
remarked:
Yeah, or perfectly good roads into Brighton, quite safe at 40 mph,
suddenly turning into 30 mph without even telling you until you get
flashed & penalty points (this one's a very sore point in our family!).

Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but
they may not be very obvious.

What has happened in some places is they've removed a section of "40"
road, between two sections of "30". So you don't have a 30 sign to miss
seeing.

Sometimes they'll put up signs saying the road is no longer 40, but
sometimes they won't.

--
Roland Perry

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:19:06 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Yeah, or perfectly good roads into Brighton, quite safe at 40 mph,
suddenly turning into 30 mph without even telling you until you get
flashed & penalty points (this one's a very sore point in our family!).

Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but
they may not be very obvious.

No the speed limit on roads with streetlights is 30mph unless there
are signs to indicate otherwise, I'd expect advanced drivers to know
that :-}

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103


--
Peter Sumner

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

In article ,
(Peter Sumner) wrote:

No the speed limit on roads with streetlights is 30mph unless there
are signs to indicate otherwise,

Hmmm...

The Midlands Urban Motorway has streetlights every 100 metres, and no road
signs saying it's a 70 limit...

So that rule of thumb doesn't work.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:56:48 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:


Yes, a lot of main roads near where I live (Oxfordshire) have recently been
downgraded to 50 (or are about to be downgraded) "to reduce the number of
traffic accidents". This is solving the right problem in the wrong way: to
avoid collisions, you need to penalise the person who *causes* the accident,
typically a driver who is on a minor road who pulls out into fast-moving
traffic without assessing its speed or the pedestrian who crosses the road
without regard for the traffic, rather than penalising (by imposing a
draconian speed limit) the driver who is in the right and who has priority.


I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that one party (the
pedestrian) is an entire magnitude more vulnerable than the other. One is
carrying round has a set of fragile bones at a maximum of about 4mph, the
other several hundredweight of speeding metal. If you are in charge of such
an object then I think you should accept that the restrictions placed upon
the motorist are going to be greater than those placed on pedestrians.


Children are a special case, and a 40, 30 or even 20 limit is sensible (with
the level set according to the amount of segregation between pavement and
road) but otherwise the onus is on the pedestrians or the drivers on side
roads to make sure that they do not cause accidents. Any fool can reduce
*the effect of* accidents by cutting speed limits, but driver/pedestrian
training is the clever solution.

I'd be in favour of that. As someone else has said later in teh thread,
there's not much post-test training available for drivers.

it's when that driver would choose to drive at 20 mph or more above
the actual limit that you get problems with non-compliance. Penalise the
serious offenders who think it's safe to drive at 100 on a single
carriageway or 60 in a built-up area with parked cars and the likelihood of
children emerging from behind them; don't penalise those who drive at 40 in
a 30 zone where there is good visibility of hazards.

But then, you could argue that you need to set a deliberately cautious
speed limit, to take account of lapses of concentration, mechanical
failure, unpredictable road conditions, and oncoming idiots. The number of
times I've had close shaves on my bike on roads like the ones you've
described, where I'm at a total loss as to why, in perfect conditions, and
wearing my fetching flourescent jacket, a driver has obviously failed to
see me until the last minute.

--
Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster http://www.loobynet.com
* remove any trace of rudeness before you reply *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using words well is a social virtue. Use 'fortuitous' once more to
mean 'fortunate' and you move an English word another step towards
the dustbin. If your mistake took hold, no one who valued clarity
would be able to use the word again.

John Whale

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

In message , at 09:44:03 on
Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Peter Sumner
remarked:
Presumably there must be 30 signs to make the speed limit enforceable, but
they may not be very obvious.

No the speed limit on roads with streetlights is 30mph unless there
are signs to indicate otherwise, I'd expect advanced drivers to know
that :-}

No, that's a common fallacy. The streetlights have to be less than a
particular distance apart, and for a minimum distance.

It's not very easy for the average motorist to benchmark short stretches
of streetlights (eg) at intersections on an otherwise de-restricted
road. But you can be sure that most times the limit doesn't suddenly
drop to 30mph for a couple of hundred yards.
--
Roland Perry

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

loobyloo wrote:

But then, you could argue that you need to set a deliberately cautious
speed limit, to take account of lapses of concentration, mechanical
failure, unpredictable road conditions, and oncoming idiots. The
number of times I've had close shaves on my bike on roads like the
ones you've described, where I'm at a total loss as to why, in
perfect conditions, and wearing my fetching flourescent jacket, a
driver has obviously failed to
see me until the last minute.

A friend's brother-in-law heading home from work one night was similarly
attired with lights etc so as to make himself as visible as possible, wasn't
seen by a lorry driver and is now on the great cycle lane in the sky.