Radar detectors

I was once very nearly a magistrate and I am often asked to reconsider my decision to become one.

If someone came up before the bench spouting the sort of drivel that you have, they could expect a very severe sentence indeed.

You are demonstrating a foolhardy attitude and its only a matter of time before you are involved in an accident. I hope you feel that your driving prowness is sufficient excuse if someone is injured or killed when you are involved in an accident....naturally it was not your fault, it's theirs because they cannot drive as good as you.

If ever you came up before me ........expect a disqualification.

Regards

Mick ....I might reconsider and become a magistrate now just to keep idiots like you off the road.

Mick

Err, not quite with you there, Mick. I'm on your side. Read my post again and then I'll accept your apology for calling me an idiot.

BTW I'm not 'BD' anymore. I'm PYTHON for now.

Brian

[This message was edited by Python on SUNDAY 02 September 2001 at 22:56.]

Yes I think I have made a mistake........too many names.

I fully apologise for my misinterpretation of your post.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve B:
You seem to be implying that if your going over 40mph you're going to be killed or maimed anyway so why not do 80mph?

---

Nope. I was talking in the context of quiet stretches of motorway (they do exist), good visability and weather conditions. Certainly not in any other situation.

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these crash tests done at 40mph into a solid block of concrete?

---

Yup, you are correct. In real life however, crashes can involve more than one car/object and you may crunch each corner. Even worse than hitting a block at 40 due to being flung in multiple directions.

quote:

---

Also, at say 60mph you're far more likely to avoid a collision (or at least reduce your speed to something less deadly at the time of impact) than if you're doing 80mph or more.

---

Crap example I'm afraid. Near field situation maybe but not if your two miles behind someone - plenty of time to slow down from 80 me-thinks. If you re-read my comments you'll see I'm not encouraging (or practicing) speeding where safety to yourself or others will be a concern.

If anyones afraid to travel the roads due to the fear of speeding motorists, they should quit driving and take the bus. Mind you, that's harldy safe either - no seat belts for starters, never mind Ethals unsecured trolley breaking your face on impact.

Oh, and why not ask 60 million West Germans who have used unrestricted Autobahns for the past 50-60 years. They seem to be able to handle it quite well. You get fined for going too slow there!

Regards,

Steve

(Who happily drove at 70mph round the M25 tonight in his irresponsible 140mph car)

quote:

---

Originally posted by William: A truly skilfull driver will be assessing continuously the hazards both seen AND UNSEEN and be thinking about the possible UNFORSEEN outcome of every decision made before commiting him(her)self to a course of action.

---

Steve

quote:

---

If everyone did this (or even tried), this would make the roads a safer place.

---

Agreed, but how do you get everyone to do it?

Steve B

Regards,

Steve

I think it would put the fear of God into the majority of voting drivers!

Steve B

Mick,
stopped by plod 7 times for speeding? sorry if this sounds rude but your earlier posts appear anti speeding so why didnt you do the honest thing and admit to the speeding you abhore? take the fine/points and learn your lesson. didnt being stopped 7 times teach you anything appart from how to bs the police to get off the crime? this sounds more offensive than i mean towards you personally, but do you get my point?
ashley.

quote:

---

Retesting every 3-5 years

---

I take it you mean everyone. If so, this is not realistic. Too expensive.

How about just re-testing those people caught breaking the law? I'm sure Mick would give up his present job to be a full time examiner.

Brian

Compulsury re-testing, definitely for anybody caught speeding, jumping lights etc, probably for everyone. Harder testing, please, please. The Germans have to have 25 or 30 hours experience before they can get a licence and are also taught how to drive on Autobahns.

Variable speed limits, think they are a great idea but giving the degree of congestion on the roads it would mean that most of the time the speed limit would be 50 or 60mph rather then 80 or 90mph.

SUVs are the biggest risk on the road with out a doubt. If am driving on the motorway and I have some dumb arse SUV driver sitting on my tail I get out the way as quickly as possible because if have to break hard I will end up nicely sandwiched between whatever is in front of me and the 2 tonnes of ego behind me. SUVs stopping distance are typically twice that of a moderate performance saloon.

Rant over

Matthew

quote:

---

Oh, and why not ask 60 million West Germans who have used unrestricted Autobahns for the past 50-60 years. They seem to be able to handle it quite well.

---

I think the Germans have better lane discipline than we have. They are better drivers than people in the UK. It's an educational thing.

I don’t think speed is the only problem. If people were able to drive more competently on motorways, speeds could probably be increased to similar levels as in Germany. However, you're up against a couple of generations of people who have little consideration for others, don't know how to drive properly, and in particular can’t drive on a motorway safely. Higher speed undoubtedly increases the possibility of accidents. In the short term, speed is the easiest to deal with because the other issues can only be tackled over the long term. Other issues are, for example, driver education (bad driving *) and transportation of freight (too much traffic on the motorway).

Here are some of what I consider to be very common and dangerous practices on motorways. I’ll leave driving in built up areas for another time:

1. Motorists joining from the left hand slip road, zooming across the inside and centre lanes to the overtaking lane immediately they join the motorway. They do this because they think they belong in the overtaking lane. Their action causes everyone approaching to hit the breaks, in turn this can cause a pile up.
The potential for accident in this situation is increased by people already on the motorway driving too fast.

2. Motorists busily cackling away on their mobile phones, almost missing their exit, so zooming across from the overtaking lane directly to the exit slip road. They leave it so late they have to cross the ‘solid white lines’ separating the slip road from the inside lane. Everyone behind slams the breaks on, anyone driving too close or driving too fast can’t react in time. The result is a major pile up. The person who caused the accident is totally oblivious to the damage they’ve caused and just carry on cackling into their mobile phone.
The potential for accident in this situation is increased by people speeding.

3. HGV’s doing 45mph in the middle lane overtaking about 6 other HGV’s doing 44mph in the inside lane. This causes a pile up in the overtaking lane. All those ‘ace’ drivers chomping at the bit to do 100mph are being held up by those wishing to obey the law and drive at just 70mph. The ‘ace’ drivers lose their patience, drive about 2 inches behind the car in front, and flash their lights a lot. The person with a car, or van, weaving about right behind them becomes a bit nervous, they start looking in their rear mirror too much, and what happens. They go a bit faster than they want to. A bit of old debris appears in front of them but they’re so worried about ‘ace’ behind they’re still checking their rear mirror, they don’t see the problem in time and.. Bang. Major accident.
There are a number of factors to look at here, not least too many HGV’s on the road. However, I’ve seen this situation ‘live’ and I can tell you that the main cause is the people ‘wanting’ to speed. They simply can’t wait to get past the vehicle in front, which isn’t travelling slowly. After all, they are still doing 70mph, the maximum permitted speed.

4. ‘Ace’ drivers overtaking using the inside lane.
No excuse for this I’m afraid. More cameras’ are needed to catch this, the culprits fined and banned

5. Treating the 3 lanes on a motorway as 'slow', '70' and 'fast' lanes. You may have noticed I refer to them as 'inside', 'middle' and 'overtaking' lanes. How often do you see someone ‘hogging’ the middle lane at just below 70mph because they think they MUST be in that lane? How often do you see people ‘hogging’ the so-called 'fast' lane, thinking that because they’re doing more than 70mph this is the lane they MUST drive in?
This is an educational issue that needs to be dealt with.

I view motorways as simply 3 lanes. For position, my starting point is in the inside lane. I move into the middle lane when I need to overtake. Should I need to overtake someone in the middle lane I move into the overtaking lane, returning to the inside lane as soon as possible.

Possible solutions:

Reduce traffic
We have too many HGV’s on the road so we should be looking to rail for freight. Using smaller lorries for shorter, local journeys. In addition, HGV’s could be subject to restricted times for access to motorways. I see nothing wrong with all HGV’s moving through the night reaching their destination in the early hours ready for unloading. Say, between 10pm and 6am.

Penalties
I would put speeding motorists into 2 categories when it comes to penalties.
The first category would be those out on a private journey. You get caught speeding, you lose your license for 30 days and get a fine related to a % of your salary. You do it again, you get banned for 60 days, a second fine at a higher % of your salary. You do it again, you go straight to jail for 90 days.

The second category would be those on a journey directly in relation to their job. Business journeys. Reps’ in their company cars, vans etc. You get caught speeding, your employer gets a £1000 fine. How long will it be before ALL employers actively encourage their employees to stop speeding?

*Speeding is also bad driving.

I agree with more cameras. I have no sympathy with anyone caught speeding or committing any other traffic violation. I also have no time for any equipment produced to alert people to the presence of cameras. However, it's no good just catching and fining people. Other measures need to be implemented at the same time, especially education.

Brian

[This message was edited by Python on MONDAY 03 September 2001 at 16:08.]

1) Speed is rarely the CAUSE of an accident – it is however a major contributing factor to the degree of mess that is left after the accident. The CAUSE is usually some crap driving. I am quite happy to speed in quite heavy traffic if other conditions (weather, other traffic lane discipline, my safety box ‘round the car etc.) Conversely, many people who I know religiously stick to 69.9 mph on the motorway don’t understand when I drive quite slowly –often due to a problem with one of the above conditions. Usually I have spotted someone else trying their best to have an accident and I’m making sure I’m not near them at the time. Other times I will deliberately drive very fast to avoid them.

2) How to become a good driver. Some teaching and awareness helps. I have now seen a number of bits of research that strongly suggest that it is mostly a function of practice. If you have driven about 100 K miles you do “suddenly” get better (ok , for some folk it is 90K – others 110K etc.) I mean super-cap / two levels of Mana kind of difference.  It seems to be all about ability to judge possible risks before they happen. Although you can substitute other forms of practice and awareness – there really does seem to be a big break point based on raw experience. Interestingly the actual figure varies depending on how ‘intense’ the driving is – 100K miles is for the UK. If you drive long distances in countries with less busy / congested / hazards the number goes up. I guess this makes some kind of logical sense.

3) Speeding is not bad driving. Bad driving is bad driving. Speeding COULD be bad driving if the conditions are incorrect for that speed – weather, traffic etc. Speeding is illegal – which is different.

4) Road-freight. Due to problems with scalability, the dillions who run the system(s) and various international problems (you try getting food from Italy to the UK in 24 hours. You can do it on a HGV - try it in a train and you are looking at three days minimum – go figure) rail is not a current solution and would require a major shift in transport policy, taxation, affordability etc to begin getting all that freight back onto the trains. I agree it should be done – but we are looking at major investment that is unlikely to win the next election. Don’t hold your breath.

5) Night deliveries. Already exist. But if you look at the major drivers of when freight is moved (UK supermarkets) the move to just-in-time minimum stockholding and closest forecast accuracy / last minute production means that it is not possible to only use HGVs at night. OK – you might want the end produce at 08:00 in the store – but imagine the whole supply chain back to manufacturing. To hit that without incurring higher cost would mean daytime movements. If you want all night freight – prepare to pay a small but noticeable amount extra for food and a few other essentials. Say about 10-15%. I think the best (immediate) way to approach the problem overall would be to find a way to tax empty running – both total empty trailer and %age of empty space on a vehicle. If you had any idea how empty some of these things are…

6) Back to driving and enforcing standards. The best analysis of reasons for accidents and bad driving suggested that the best filter method was test retaking at regular intervals – with a HIGHER standard as you get older and more experienced. Not really sure about the practicality – but if you REALLY wanted to improve things…

7) Not going to list my pet hates – but I be b*ggered if I’m going to be made to feel guilty when undertaking on the M25 a car in lane 3 (out of 4) with me in lane 1(inside) – with no other traffic for at least a kilometer. You can just suggest all undertaking is bad – in the above case (4 days ago at about midnight) I’d have to go nearer to the (slightly weaving) dip-shit to get round.

8) If you want to hit a major cause of accidents – we need to find a way to hit people who drive when totally knackerd, rather than good drivers who make good velocity choices for the conditions. However – if you drive over the speed limit and get caught - tough. In most cases if you were really alert enough to drive at that speed you wouldn’t have got caught. As one charming constable said to me after pulling me over on a dual carriageway at about 07:00, summer morning across the Pennines, “You were driving well sir, the conditions are excellent, your road positioning was good changes of speed for varying road conditions was, if I may say so sir, excellent. Your car is in good condition, clean control surfaces and well maintained. As you can see – from behind this bush we can clearly discern the last 3 miles of this road – and you were above 85 the whole way. Unfortunately sir, that is against the law.”

Not a lot I could say to that. 3 points and 40 notes. Fair cop.

Jonathan

You're making me rethink some of my earlier, and long held, assertions. I wasn't going to post my thoughts since I had an idea I'd get some flak. I'm glad I did now 'cos I've got something to think about.

My comment about speeding being bad driving needs some clarification though. I tend to associate speeding either as someone driving at 50mph in a 30mph zone. I see this every day where I live. I think this is bad driving. I also associate speeding on motorways with the kinds of examples I gave. The type of person driving bumper to bumper is the person speeding. This is bad driving.

quote:

---

but I be b*ggered if I’m going to be made to feel guilty when undertaking on the M25 a car in lane 3 (out of 4) with me in lane 1(inside) – with no other traffic for at least a kilometer.

---

Do you take my point about HGV's crawling past other HGV's though? I think they do it just to wind people up.

Your point about night deliveries causing prices to rise a little is also good. This is a price I'd be more than willing to pay.

Brian

Assuming someone had a very good reason for sticking in a 30 zone (most are) then it is unlikely that if you are doing 50 through it you could be driving safely.

Conversley you can be driving on an empty stretch of M6 north of Lancaster at 130 mph and still be driving well.

HGV overtaking:

Say you can go 5 mph faster than the guy in front. Maximum shift time before break would be 4.5 hours - so you'd loose c25 miles or about 30 minutes by not overtaking. When you may be bonused on effeciency, or this could be your own company that have made a promise, this may encourage you to do what will appear to faster cars as slow overtaking. Take the parcel companies delivery promises, how upset are we when the AM delivery turns up at 12:30?

On the other hand - some HGV overtaking could be done at better times - all linked into the risk and conditions stuff. HGV drivers are at least specifically trained to do that stuff, and if you've seen what an experienced driver can do with a rig (bit like ballet) compared with some car drivers who can't reverse in a straight line... I find the worse HGV driving comes from car transporters (just my sample size of 1) - but I bet that is because company car drivers like me are bad at keeping car changeover appointments.

On the training front - lets look at our HGV licensed driver, good articulated vehicle control, vs the untrained artulated vehicle ... the caravan driver. Claerly they ensure they know how to drive with one of these big white things by doing it every day - or maybe just twice a year.

Also - "the company car driver", always the worst? Well - many comapnaies now are making them better because they don't want to write off the assest (car) or the asset (person.) Later this most I have my bi-annual car assessment and if I fluff it I get the car taken away until I pass some residual training.

What I find amusing - if you look at the genuine risks of driving Vs. any of the big scares recently - say GM food - if you intriduced driving tomorrow with the speeds, technology and skills we have now - it would be instantly banned! People are contemptuous of risks they run every day but are familiar with - and just go screaming over the top with anything that is new or different.

People are scary. Not guns.

Jonathan

quote:

---

SUVs are the biggest risk on the road with out a doubt. If am driving on the motorway and I have some dumb arse SUV driver sitting on my tail I get out the way as quickly as possible because if have to break hard I will end up nicely sandwiched between whatever is in front of me and the 2 tonnes of ego behind me. SUVs stopping distance are typically twice that of a moderate performance saloon.

---

Yeah, oh you're so-oooo right! Not. Drivers are the biggest risk on the roads, not the equipment they are using. Oh what next - guns kill people?

And your "I quickly get out of the way" action is excellent! - although you'll find this is also known as "The Beckham Defense" - that is, the balded one took off at 70+ on the shoulder of a traffic-snarled A road (stopped traffic), in order to "get out of the way of a photographer driving dangerously, trying to get a pic". Needless to say, the judge penalised the misguided Ferrari driver.

The only thing dangerous about an SUV is when they are driven as a car. keep on blaming the equipment - it's cheaper than raising the standards of use.

How about compulsory skid-pan training before one is granted a license, along with how to change a tyre (practical), and breakdown safety (how to negotiate your way to a safe spot on a congested road or highway with a flat tyre or breakdown)... and the list goes on....

Rico - all your base are belong to us

Is there some chance of eliminating SUVs - No

Is there some chance of getting all SUV drivers realise how unsuited these vechicles are to high speed motorway drive - definitely not!

Will I have an irrational rant to make myself feel better - Yes.... I nearly got knocked off my bicycle on Saturday by an SUV with, yes you guessed it, no passengers in the vechicle!

I normally drive a 10 year old diesel which isn't my car so none of the Beckham stylistic driving!

I am heavily in favour of voluntary taxation, which I see as car and fuel tax for anyone who lives in London.

Matthew

Steve B

quote:

---

Will I have an irrational rant to make myself feel better - Yes.... I nearly got knocked off my bicycle on Saturday by an SUV with, yes you guessed it, no passengers in the vechicle!

---

Bummer dude. Perhaps they thought they might encounter mud at the garden centre, or need to climb the kerb en-route to selfridges - "I say, hadn't we better be prepared and take the Wange Wover?"

Not much call for SUV's in London. Or in the UK, for that matter - except where it's muddy.

Rico - all your base are belong to us

quote:

---

Originally posted by Top Cat:
My question relates specifically to 40mph zones - I may have been caught doing around 46mph in one today*

---