Alistair J Murray wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

[...]

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Three options:
3) Don't elect nasty control freak ******* to anything.

If it was the case that it was only our elected representatives (I use the
term loosely) who were responsible for such things you might have a point.

In article , alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!
@drzoidberg.co.uk says...
I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone
blocking a box junction.


All the landmines that charities have dug up.
Just re-engineer them to use RFID tags.
And if the same tag is stationary over the field for more than 2
minutes.
Boom, Kablamie
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Alistair J Murray wrote:
David Taylor wrote:

[...]

Is there no road in Britain good for 71mph?

Not sure, know of several good for 72mph though.

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

There is generally some correlation, except that 3-lane dual
carriageways with grade-separated junctions are usually safer than
country lanes to drive fast, yet often carry a lower speed limit (50
compared to 60).

From a mathematical point of view, let us say that we know that 150mph
is too fast and that 30mph (on a motorway in good conditions) is too
slow and that the safe range is somewhere in between. There is probably
a curve somewhere that marks how "safe" a speed is. At some point there
is a threshold below which we don't want to go, so we could say that
one particular speed where that threshold is crossed should be the
"speed limit" although the actual safest speed (the "target") is likely
to be somewhere lower (it is highly unlikely that 70mph is the safest
speed and then 71mph is unsafe).

Of course, what the actual safest speed and threshold are will be
variable, based on the conditions of the road at the time.

One day we may have the technology to have signs that can post variable
speeds based on the road conditions.

As Paul Smith wuuld say, a good driver shouldn't need them. A good
driver will be able to judge from the conditions of the road what the
safe speed is. Unfortunately, the roads are not full of good drivers
and people need guidance.

A sign displaying two speeds might be the most ideal. One would be a
posted "target" speed that is considered the optimal safe speed for the
conditions. The other would be an absolute limit, beyond which you know
you will get fined if caught.

It might be that in a certain road condition, the target speed is set
at say 65mph and the absolute limit at 80mph. Anyone doing 81mph should
not claim to be "unlucky" because they are 16mph over what has been
given as the target "safe" speed.

Of course at the moment this is all speculative as we don't have such
technology.

Brimstone wrote:
Alistair J Murray wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

[...]

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Three options:
3) Don't elect nasty control freak ******* to anything.

If it was the case that it was only our elected representatives (I use the
term loosely) who were responsible for such things you might have a point.

If there were an option to vote in one government to run the roads and
one to run the rest of the economy then bring the Tories back just for
their roads policy, at least for how it was in the 1990s when they were
actually in the process of making the A406 into a decent
grade-separated dual-carriageway and didn't quite get the chance to
finish the job.

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Alistair J Murray wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

[...]

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Three options:
3) Don't elect nasty control freak ******* to anything.

If it was the case that it was only our elected representatives (I
use the term loosely) who were responsible for such things you might
have a point.

If there were an option to vote in one government to run the roads and
one to run the rest of the economy then bring the Tories back just for
their roads policy, at least for how it was in the 1990s when they
were actually in the process of making the A406 into a decent
grade-separated dual-carriageway and didn't quite get the chance to
finish the job.

The M25 was built to relieve traffic from the A406 (the North Circular). Why
does it need to be a grade seperated urban motorway (in all but name)?

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Brimstone wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-


There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.


Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Same as any other way, they hit an object in front of them.

Brimstone ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Do 10mph on a free-flowing motorway and just watch.

Earl Purple wrote:
Alistair J Murray wrote:
David Taylor wrote:

[...]

Is there no road in Britain good for 71mph?
Not sure, know of several good for 72mph though.

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

There is generally some correlation, except that 3-lane dual
carriageways with grade-separated junctions are usually safer than
country lanes to drive fast, yet often carry a lower speed limit (50
compared to 60).

From a mathematical point of view, let us say that we know that 150mph
is too fast and that 30mph (on a motorway in good conditions) is too
slow and that the safe range is somewhere in between. There is probably
a curve somewhere that marks how "safe" a speed is. At some point there
is a threshold below which we don't want to go, so we could say that
one particular speed where that threshold is crossed should be the
"speed limit" although the actual safest speed (the "target") is likely
to be somewhere lower (it is highly unlikely that 70mph is the safest
speed and then 71mph is unsafe).

Of course, what the actual safest speed and threshold are will be
variable, based on the conditions of the road at the time.

One day we may have the technology to have signs that can post variable
speeds based on the road conditions.

As Paul Smith wuuld say, a good driver shouldn't need them. A good
driver will be able to judge from the conditions of the road what the
safe speed is. Unfortunately, the roads are not full of good drivers
and people need guidance.

A sign displaying two speeds might be the most ideal. One would be a
posted "target" speed that is considered the optimal safe speed for the
conditions. The other would be an absolute limit, beyond which you know
you will get fined if caught.

It might be that in a certain road condition, the target speed is set
at say 65mph and the absolute limit at 80mph. Anyone doing 81mph should
not claim to be "unlucky" because they are 16mph over what has been
given as the target "safe" speed.

Of course at the moment this is all speculative as we don't have such
technology.


That's good news then. Even with the aid of suitable technology I feel
that what you are trying to do is too complicated and many of the
resultant speed limits will still end up being wrong. I appreciate that
you're gearing this to variable road conditions, but there are also wide
variations in the quality of various vehicle/driver combinations.

In built up areas we need not have much of a problem; 30 or 40 mph
limits are reasonably appropriate for the majority of situations, and I
think they should be respected.

Outside of towns and villages, open road situations, NSL areas - get rid
of limits and let us have it clearly understood that drivers are
responsible for adopting safe speeds. If that responsibility were to be
given to them we might find that it works quite well. At any rate I
would like to see this tried out as an experiment on selected parts of
our road network. No doubt some will fear that such areas would be a
magnet for the speed freaks, or whatever you like to call them, but I
think this could be overcome.

What we really need are thinking drivers, capable drivers, safe reliable
drivers - not speed limited drivers who are switched off from the
driving task.

Best wishes all,
Dave.