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.

And those which just read a number on a stick instead then crashed.

--

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:54:08 +0100, 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.

So... Drivers are not capable of assessing an appropriate speed - and
speed limits may well be higher than the appropriate speed?

We're all doomed, or what?

--

Ian D

On 2006-10-24, 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.

Precisely. The appropriate speed bears no relation to the speed limit.
It may be higher, or lower, than the posted limit.

You seemed to spectacularly miss the point there...

--
David Taylor

TripleS wrote:

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.

Well yes, there may still be lower limits for some classes of drivers
but one might assume that lorry drivers are better trained anyway.

The aim was to (1) assess a speed based on conditions and (2) have a
clear gap between a target speed and an absolute maximum speed.
Automatic controls on the cars to put some kind of limiting device
(with an override if available) would enable drivers to watch the road
rather than the speedometers as well.

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.

I don't think they are though. I think that sometimes 20mph, 25mph and
35mph are appropriate speeds, and sometimes it may vary according to
conditions, for example on a high street it may be that 25mph is the
limit during busy times but 35mph is safe late at night when pretty
much everything is closed and there are far fewer vehicles on the road.

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.

I guess for the little windy country roads that is pretty much what
happens as nobody in reality can surely think 60mph is a safe speed on
them. I find it laughable that these roads carry a higher speed limit
than, say, the North Circular (which has a maximum speed of 50mph)
which is near motorway standard in sections (albeit that it has far
more frequent junctions than a motorway).

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.

On some sections of motorway maybe. I do think it will encourage those
who want to speed to go there. I have had this temptation to go to
Germany so I can legally go fast on the autobahns, and I'm sure there
are quite a few who have made a special effort to enjoy that experience
too. Not sure exactly how safely they were driving.

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

With the automatic controls I have suggested the drivers can
concentrate on doing just that.

Brimstone wrote:

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

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

Two ways:

1. If you drive slowly you will be causing more drivers to want to
overtake you. Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. Even if it's on a
motorway which has 3 lanes and you are on the inside lane, you will be
causing other drivers approaching behind you to change lanes to
overtake you. Once again a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. Safer if
you were going faster thus causing fewer overtakes.

2. If you are driving slowly your journey will take longer. The longer
your journey, the more time you have to lose concentration.
Concentrating intensely can be enduring. And it's no use saying to just
take breaks, because as your journey will take longer, it's likely
there won't be enough time for breaks.

So two reasons why driving slower can be more dangerous.

I would like to see the speed limit on some (if not many) NSL
single-carriageways reduced to 50mph but increased to the same limit
for HGVs too. You'll no longer get "stuck" behind an HGV because
they'll be going at the same speed that you would be anyway. Yes, your
journey would take longer at the times there would be no HGV anyway,
but it would actually be shorter on the times when there is. Fewer
overtakes, fewer accidents.

(Of course, having a 50mph limit doesn't mean you have to drive at
exactly that speed. On a bend, for example, you would slow down).

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

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

Two ways:

1. If you drive slowly you will be causing more drivers to want to
overtake you. Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. Even if it's on a
motorway which has 3 lanes and you are on the inside lane, you will be
causing other drivers approaching behind you to change lanes to
overtake you. Once again a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. Safer if
you were going faster thus causing fewer overtakes.

2. If you are driving slowly your journey will take longer. The longer
your journey, the more time you have to lose concentration.
Concentrating intensely can be enduring. And it's no use saying to
just take breaks, because as your journey will take longer, it's
likely there won't be enough time for breaks.

So two reasons why driving slower can be more dangerous.

Good answer to a different question. Nothing was said about "dangerous".

Care to try again?

Brimstone wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

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

Two ways:

1. If you drive slowly you will be causing more drivers to want to
overtake you. Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. Even if it's on a
motorway which has 3 lanes and you are on the inside lane, you will be
causing other drivers approaching behind you to change lanes to
overtake you. Once again a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. Safer if
you were going faster thus causing fewer overtakes.

2. If you are driving slowly your journey will take longer. The longer
your journey, the more time you have to lose concentration.
Concentrating intensely can be enduring. And it's no use saying to
just take breaks, because as your journey will take longer, it's
likely there won't be enough time for breaks.

So two reasons why driving slower can be more dangerous.

Good answer to a different question. Nothing was said about "dangerous".

Care to try again?

The more dangerous the driving, either yours or other reacting to you,
the more chances of a crash happening. Obvious, isn't it?

You drive at 25mph on NSL single carriageway, drivers behind get
frustrated, they overtake you, one of them misjudges, crash. Wouldn't
have happened if you'd driven at a sensible speed.

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

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

Two ways:

1. If you drive slowly you will be causing more drivers to want to
overtake you. Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. Even if it's on a
motorway which has 3 lanes and you are on the inside lane, you will
be causing other drivers approaching behind you to change lanes to
overtake you. Once again a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. Safer if
you were going faster thus causing fewer overtakes.

2. If you are driving slowly your journey will take longer. The
longer your journey, the more time you have to lose concentration.
Concentrating intensely can be enduring. And it's no use saying to
just take breaks, because as your journey will take longer, it's
likely there won't be enough time for breaks.

So two reasons why driving slower can be more dangerous.

Good answer to a different question. Nothing was said about
"dangerous".

Care to try again?

The more dangerous the driving, either yours or other reacting to you,
the more chances of a crash happening. Obvious, isn't it?

You drive at 25mph on NSL single carriageway, drivers behind get
frustrated, they overtake you, one of them misjudges, crash. Wouldn't
have happened if you'd driven at a sensible speed.

Nor was anything said about other vehicles crashing. Care to try once more?

Brimstone wrote:

Nor was anything said about other vehicles crashing. Care to try once more?

anyone more of this nonsense and you'll be marked as a troll if you're
not already

Your point was this:

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

and I've answered that. Does the "someone" have to be the same person
that was travelling at the slow speed? I've answered that too in point
2 (saying they will be on the road longer and are therefore likely to
lose concentration).

So you drive slowly, your journey takes 3 hours instead of 2, after 3
hours your concentration has lapsed, you don't pay full attention,
crash.

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Nor was anything said about other vehicles crashing. Care to try
once more?

anyone more of this nonsense and you'll be marked as a troll if you're
not already

Your point was this:

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

and I've answered that. Does the "someone" have to be the same person
that was travelling at the slow speed? I've answered that too in point
2 (saying they will be on the road longer and are therefore likely to
lose concentration).

So you drive slowly, your journey takes 3 hours instead of 2, after 3
hours your concentration has lapsed, you don't pay full attention,
crash.

That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

We know that attempting to take a bend at too high a speed will cause the
vehicle to want to continue in a straight line and collide with the
countryside. What similar forces or action will cause a car travelling
slowly to crash?