Radar detectors
Posted by: Bosh on 09 August 2001
My 3 year old Bel 855 has gone and requires a new main board (£140 fitted against £230 new!! - shame its not made by Naim!!)
which I'm loathe to do
which I'm loathe to do
Any UK experiences of the newer Bels or other models or solutions such as Laser jammers. I've read up on the Geodesy GPS systems which ID the Digital cameras the Radar Detectors dont but they dont ID the hand held Lasers and mobile Gatsos
Of course I intend to use them purely to detect automatic shop doors, Orange transmitters but if they also detect the occasional Gatso painted in army camouflaged colours hidden behind foliage or Police officer hidden in a hedge when I inadvertently creep past the speed limit then all the better
Posted on: 05 May 2004 by Potiriadis
Just a reply to the original suestion:
I have been running a Snooper S6r Neo for around 5 Months now. This relies on GPS and a phone update to track known sites including SPECS and neo fascists. It also comes with a Radar and Laser Detector Module that can either be mouted in front of your rear view mirror on the windscreen, or in the bonnet. I fitted mine in around an hour. It relies on a monthly subscription to keep you up to date. It has been pretty reliable to date and I have found that I am:
a) Driving at lower speeds as I am far more aware of my speed than I used to be.
b) No longer panic braking at the site of a police car because I have already picked up his detector.
c) I am much more alert as a driver durring longer motorway journeys.
The only problem is random heart attacks from airport radars setting of the detector, as well as the sensors above automatic doorrs
Help Bunnys everywhere!!!!!
No Seriously, everywhere!!!!!!!
I have been running a Snooper S6r Neo for around 5 Months now. This relies on GPS and a phone update to track known sites including SPECS and neo fascists. It also comes with a Radar and Laser Detector Module that can either be mouted in front of your rear view mirror on the windscreen, or in the bonnet. I fitted mine in around an hour. It relies on a monthly subscription to keep you up to date. It has been pretty reliable to date and I have found that I am:
a) Driving at lower speeds as I am far more aware of my speed than I used to be.
b) No longer panic braking at the site of a police car because I have already picked up his detector.
c) I am much more alert as a driver durring longer motorway journeys.
The only problem is random heart attacks from airport radars setting of the detector, as well as the sensors above automatic doorrs
Help Bunnys everywhere!!!!!
No Seriously, everywhere!!!!!!!
Posted on: 05 May 2004 by Steve Toy
My point is that individuals in society cannot choose which rules they would like to obey and which they can ignore 'because they know better'.
If the current upper limit is 70 mph then its not acceptable to drive faster. By all means lobby your MP and whoever else and attempt to get the law changed if you feel strongly enough about it.
Individuals in society should act responsibly and not just blindly follow the letter of the law. Of course we need laws because without them there would be no secure basis for our liberty. However, sometimes the only effective way to change the law, or government policy where it may be considered unjust or simply outdated, is actually to break the law.
The only reason why we can now buy groceries from a supermarket on a Sunday is because prior to the Sunday trading laws being changed the major supermarket chains blatantly broke the law by opening their stores on a Sunday.
The fuel blockades in September 2000 were another example of this. The voice of the electorate went unheard when the majority were trying to tell the government that its transport policy sucked, and that we as a nation of free individuals refused to be priced off the roads in keeping with socialist ideology of phase shifting thinly disguised as being for environmental reasons. By blocking the fuel depots people took the law into their own hands and made sure that it would be impossible for the government to raise even more revenue from fuel and force its anti-car dogma down our throats.
If instead we'd lobbied our MPs and taken no direct action by blocking the fuel depots a litre of unleaded would now cost £1.05 assuming the tax escalator had been allowed to continue at inflation plus six per cent per annum. Blair doesn't listen to his MPs as we discovered over Unversity tuition fees. To avoid paying those fees that are simply about establishing equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, students will need to take to the streets and refuse en masse to pay the top-up fees.
Regarding oppressive and inappropriate speed limiting and enforcement on motorways and rural main roads away from known accident blackspots, direct action to disable speed cameras may be more commonplace in the near future.
If the existing limits are routinely ignored by a majority of drivers then that in itself is an indication that something is wrong with the limit, and that it perhaps needs to be raised.
Regards,
Steve.
PS: Curiously radar detectors were legalised by this government for the simple reason that the only evasive action they encourage you to take is to slow down - which is kind of the point.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Thu 06 May 2004 at 3:56.]
If the current upper limit is 70 mph then its not acceptable to drive faster. By all means lobby your MP and whoever else and attempt to get the law changed if you feel strongly enough about it.
Individuals in society should act responsibly and not just blindly follow the letter of the law. Of course we need laws because without them there would be no secure basis for our liberty. However, sometimes the only effective way to change the law, or government policy where it may be considered unjust or simply outdated, is actually to break the law.
The only reason why we can now buy groceries from a supermarket on a Sunday is because prior to the Sunday trading laws being changed the major supermarket chains blatantly broke the law by opening their stores on a Sunday.
The fuel blockades in September 2000 were another example of this. The voice of the electorate went unheard when the majority were trying to tell the government that its transport policy sucked, and that we as a nation of free individuals refused to be priced off the roads in keeping with socialist ideology of phase shifting thinly disguised as being for environmental reasons. By blocking the fuel depots people took the law into their own hands and made sure that it would be impossible for the government to raise even more revenue from fuel and force its anti-car dogma down our throats.
If instead we'd lobbied our MPs and taken no direct action by blocking the fuel depots a litre of unleaded would now cost £1.05 assuming the tax escalator had been allowed to continue at inflation plus six per cent per annum. Blair doesn't listen to his MPs as we discovered over Unversity tuition fees. To avoid paying those fees that are simply about establishing equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, students will need to take to the streets and refuse en masse to pay the top-up fees.
Regarding oppressive and inappropriate speed limiting and enforcement on motorways and rural main roads away from known accident blackspots, direct action to disable speed cameras may be more commonplace in the near future.
If the existing limits are routinely ignored by a majority of drivers then that in itself is an indication that something is wrong with the limit, and that it perhaps needs to be raised.
Regards,
Steve.
PS: Curiously radar detectors were legalised by this government for the simple reason that the only evasive action they encourage you to take is to slow down - which is kind of the point.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Thu 06 May 2004 at 3:56.]
Posted on: 06 May 2004 by BLT
"SUVs stopping distance are typically twice that of a moderate performance saloon. "
Utter bollocks. What Car magazine publishes stopping distances from 70mph, The worst SUV listed is the Land Rover Discovery V8 at 68.5 metres, the worst "normal" car is the VW Polo 1.4 at 77.1m. The best SUV is the Range Rover Td6 at 44.1m - very few performance cars can match that, it is certainly much better than the Jaguar X-type (2.0) which recorded 60.1m (worse than nearly every SUV on the road)
Utter bollocks. What Car magazine publishes stopping distances from 70mph, The worst SUV listed is the Land Rover Discovery V8 at 68.5 metres, the worst "normal" car is the VW Polo 1.4 at 77.1m. The best SUV is the Range Rover Td6 at 44.1m - very few performance cars can match that, it is certainly much better than the Jaguar X-type (2.0) which recorded 60.1m (worse than nearly every SUV on the road)
Posted on: 06 May 2004 by Andrew L. Weekes
quote:
Retesting every 3-5 years.
I'd add to that making the test harder too, maybe a two-stage affair, with a provisional intermediate licence.
If everyone took a test that was similar in theme to either the RoSPA or IAM advanced test, most of the problems discussed here would be dramatically reduced, our roads would be safer,we'd all make better progress etc. etc.
Andy.
Posted on: 06 May 2004 by BLT
I suspect that a great many people would simple not be capable of passing an advanced test. I definitely agree with making drivers re-take the test every few years, it might prove expensive, but if it saves lives it will be well worth it.
Posted on: 06 May 2004 by kevinrt
Stephen
How do we determine which laws can be reasonably challenged in the way you suggest? I for one would not allow any leeway in the law regarding paedophiles. An extreme case, I know but who's to say which laws are amenable to your argument and which are not.
I disagree with this statement. Drivers routinely ingnore 20 mph/30 mph limits as well as the faster ones and its because they are selfish/carelesss individuals who's own self interest comes above the safety of others.
How do we determine which laws can be reasonably challenged in the way you suggest? I for one would not allow any leeway in the law regarding paedophiles. An extreme case, I know but who's to say which laws are amenable to your argument and which are not.
quote:
If the existing limits are routinely ignored by a majority of drivers then that in itself is an indication that something is wrong with the limit, and that it perhaps needs to be raised.
I disagree with this statement. Drivers routinely ingnore 20 mph/30 mph limits as well as the faster ones and its because they are selfish/carelesss individuals who's own self interest comes above the safety of others.
Posted on: 06 May 2004 by Steve Toy
How do we determine which laws can be reasonably challenged in the way you suggest? I for one would not allow any leeway in the law regarding paedophiles. An extreme case, I know but who's to say which laws are amenable to your argument and which are not.
That is where taking responsibility for your actions really counts. With crimes of violence or sexual abuse it is fairly easy to make a judgement of what is right and wrong. In other instances individuals need to play an active role in decision-making on the spot where governments and law enforcement agents cannot.
I disagree with this statement. Drivers routinely ingnore 20 mph/30 mph limits as well as the faster ones and its because they are selfish/carelesss individuals who's own self interest comes above the safety of others.
As a driver I make judgements as to whether or not the lowest limits are strictly necessary at any given time. If I judge the limit to be unnecessary because, for example it happens to be late at night and there are no children playing or walking close by, and all the drunks have gone home to bed, then in the absence of any obvious law enforcement I'll take my chances and drive a little faster. Where there are pedestrians around, especially children or drunks I slow right down, and I don't need a figure in a red disc to tell me to do so.
Many arterial routes into major cities have had their speed limits cut from 40 or 50 down to 30 and enforced by cameras even where the road has no buildings directly on either side. This means that a journey across a major city that used to take, say, about 20 minutes during the night now takes half an hour. Imagine how that feels - HALF AN HOUR driving at speeds of 30mph or below on wide, well-lit and near-empty roads. The concentration tends to wander as the boredom sets in.
Then there are those National Speed Limit roads that get cut to 40mph where there aren't even any streetlamps. If speed were really an issue on such roads then surely visibility ought to be improved first by adding street lighting ahead of cutting the speed limit...
If these measures had resulted in bringing the annual death toll on our roads down from around 3500 in the years that have followed since, then I could say, hand-on-heart, that the loss of liberty was a price worth paying for saving lives. However, this has not been the case, so such loss of liberty, lengthened (in terms of time) and more tedious journeys has been for no benefit whatsoever. It has all just been an ill wind.
It is therefore likely that direct action may be taken to disable suburban speed cameras as well as rural ones, bringing the whole system of speed limiting and enforcement into disrepute as drivers begin to ignore the limits that are clearly necessary as well as those that are more arbitrary. If the government chooses to meet such disregard of limits with even stricter enforcement then it will likely be met with rebellion and more vandalism.
A sense of balance and compromise needs to be restored if the majority are to be expected to respect as well as obey the law. I don't think lobbying your MP is going to achieve a lot, tbh.
The ballot box may of course be the answer if the electorate is not to believe the blatant lies told by those currently in government.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Fri 07 May 2004 at 3:36.]
That is where taking responsibility for your actions really counts. With crimes of violence or sexual abuse it is fairly easy to make a judgement of what is right and wrong. In other instances individuals need to play an active role in decision-making on the spot where governments and law enforcement agents cannot.
I disagree with this statement. Drivers routinely ingnore 20 mph/30 mph limits as well as the faster ones and its because they are selfish/carelesss individuals who's own self interest comes above the safety of others.
As a driver I make judgements as to whether or not the lowest limits are strictly necessary at any given time. If I judge the limit to be unnecessary because, for example it happens to be late at night and there are no children playing or walking close by, and all the drunks have gone home to bed, then in the absence of any obvious law enforcement I'll take my chances and drive a little faster. Where there are pedestrians around, especially children or drunks I slow right down, and I don't need a figure in a red disc to tell me to do so.
Many arterial routes into major cities have had their speed limits cut from 40 or 50 down to 30 and enforced by cameras even where the road has no buildings directly on either side. This means that a journey across a major city that used to take, say, about 20 minutes during the night now takes half an hour. Imagine how that feels - HALF AN HOUR driving at speeds of 30mph or below on wide, well-lit and near-empty roads. The concentration tends to wander as the boredom sets in.
Then there are those National Speed Limit roads that get cut to 40mph where there aren't even any streetlamps. If speed were really an issue on such roads then surely visibility ought to be improved first by adding street lighting ahead of cutting the speed limit...
If these measures had resulted in bringing the annual death toll on our roads down from around 3500 in the years that have followed since, then I could say, hand-on-heart, that the loss of liberty was a price worth paying for saving lives. However, this has not been the case, so such loss of liberty, lengthened (in terms of time) and more tedious journeys has been for no benefit whatsoever. It has all just been an ill wind.
It is therefore likely that direct action may be taken to disable suburban speed cameras as well as rural ones, bringing the whole system of speed limiting and enforcement into disrepute as drivers begin to ignore the limits that are clearly necessary as well as those that are more arbitrary. If the government chooses to meet such disregard of limits with even stricter enforcement then it will likely be met with rebellion and more vandalism.
A sense of balance and compromise needs to be restored if the majority are to be expected to respect as well as obey the law. I don't think lobbying your MP is going to achieve a lot, tbh.
The ballot box may of course be the answer if the electorate is not to believe the blatant lies told by those currently in government.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Fri 07 May 2004 at 3:36.]
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by kevinrt
I think we all know one individual whom we deem capable of making those decisions about when to ignore the law safely, ourselves.
I also know there are a lot of individuals whose morals or judgement I would not trust, so would not allow them that freedom.
I am willing to deny myself that freedom of choice to withold it from those who would use it irresponsibly.
(This argument only applies in an ideal world of course, because in reality the situation where individuals make arbitrary decisions already exists).
I also know there are a lot of individuals whose morals or judgement I would not trust, so would not allow them that freedom.
I am willing to deny myself that freedom of choice to withold it from those who would use it irresponsibly.
(This argument only applies in an ideal world of course, because in reality the situation where individuals make arbitrary decisions already exists).
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by Rockingdoc
As the owner of a nutter car (Evo VIII) fitted with the radar stuff, I was previously a strong advocate of the "Road Angel".
The nutter car led to an increased interest in driving, which in turn led to seeking out some advanced driver training.
Exposure to Police driving instructors has turned me into a born-again evangelical road law abider. If you think you can break the speed laws safely you are as much of an arrogant idiot as I was.
The nutter car led to an increased interest in driving, which in turn led to seeking out some advanced driver training.
Exposure to Police driving instructors has turned me into a born-again evangelical road law abider. If you think you can break the speed laws safely you are as much of an arrogant idiot as I was.
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by BLT
Interesting....I know a few Traffic Police officers and they all speed to excess when they are driving their own cars. One of these officers (who was involved in training police drivers) had the nickname "Earnest Thrasher".
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Exposure to Police driving instructors has turned me into a born-again evangelical road law abider. If you think you can break the speed laws safely you are as much of an arrogant idiot as I was.
Did they ever take you out at night?
You can certainly break speed laws safely on occasions where the limit has been set (or reset) arbitrarily low. If what I'm saying to you right now were complete bollocks than that 3500 deaths/year figure would have come down over the last few years. But it hasn't, and it won't until more onus is given to drivers as to how they decide to proceed.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
Exposure to Police driving instructors has turned me into a born-again evangelical road law abider. If you think you can break the speed laws safely you are as much of an arrogant idiot as I was.
I've just done a course with a police driving instructor. When he first got in the car he solemnly informed me of the perils of exceeding the speed limit and how he wasn't able to condone it. 5 minutes later (in a national zone) he was saying "come on, put your foot down, the road's clear." Chatting to him he said their training is quite strict about not exceeding the limit in 30-50mph zones as they're the ones that have most of the hazards but in the 60/70 zones they're happy to just drive to the conditions.
Posted on: 07 May 2004 by Martin D
Have a look here, safety cant be measured in miles per hour.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/
Posted on: 08 May 2004 by Steve Toy
Quoted from the above:
Make no mistake, speed enforcement is the opposite of safe driving skills. It sends the clear message that drivers are not to be trusted to set appropriate speeds. And it denies those who are skilled enough to set high appropriate speeds in good conditions the right to benefit from their skill. The more we emphasize tight controls the less we encouraged safe skilled behaviours. It is wrongly assumed that "we can afford to do without" drivers setting appropriate speed for the conditions.
Regards,
Steve.
Make no mistake, speed enforcement is the opposite of safe driving skills. It sends the clear message that drivers are not to be trusted to set appropriate speeds. And it denies those who are skilled enough to set high appropriate speeds in good conditions the right to benefit from their skill. The more we emphasize tight controls the less we encouraged safe skilled behaviours. It is wrongly assumed that "we can afford to do without" drivers setting appropriate speed for the conditions.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 08 May 2004 by Martin D
Just saw Autocar with the latest 'contributing factors
in UK accidents' from DfT which put excessive speed at
No. 7 with 12.5%.
Will they drop the one third lie now?
Staffordshire CRP, Graham Jones,
is in Auto Express trying to defend 7 Gatsos in 1 mile at Great Wyrley.
in UK accidents' from DfT which put excessive speed at
No. 7 with 12.5%.
Will they drop the one third lie now?
Staffordshire CRP, Graham Jones,
is in Auto Express trying to defend 7 Gatsos in 1 mile at Great Wyrley.
Posted on: 08 May 2004 by Martin D
Posted on: 08 May 2004 by kevinrt
Safe speed is an interesting site making some good arguments.
There are also many staements on safe driving with no suppoting evidence. It's no good knocking the Police/Government "statistics" by just saying they're wrong and not providing alternative proof.
One section contains this paragraph:
Imagine the driver who bases his speed choice on the speed limit. He won't slow down where there are children playing. He won't slow down when the weather is bad. He won't slow down if it looks as if someone ahead might pull out. He won't slow down in a narrow residential street with parked cars on either side. He won't slow down for a blind bend or a greasy roundabout. He might not even slow down when there's stationary traffic ahead. You would be very lucky indeed to complete a single journey if you didn't slow because of hazards ahead.
The suggestion is that there is a class of drivers who drive at the speed limit and never vary from it regardless of conditions (brick walls, the end of their driveway, the back wall of their garage?).
This sort of statement does their cause no favours at all.
I would agree that if drivers could be educated to make safe decisions about appropriate speed then that would be a good thing, but I doubt there's many out there who could pass a test of that standard and then be relied upon to use those skills routinely.
There are also many staements on safe driving with no suppoting evidence. It's no good knocking the Police/Government "statistics" by just saying they're wrong and not providing alternative proof.
One section contains this paragraph:
Imagine the driver who bases his speed choice on the speed limit. He won't slow down where there are children playing. He won't slow down when the weather is bad. He won't slow down if it looks as if someone ahead might pull out. He won't slow down in a narrow residential street with parked cars on either side. He won't slow down for a blind bend or a greasy roundabout. He might not even slow down when there's stationary traffic ahead. You would be very lucky indeed to complete a single journey if you didn't slow because of hazards ahead.
The suggestion is that there is a class of drivers who drive at the speed limit and never vary from it regardless of conditions (brick walls, the end of their driveway, the back wall of their garage?).
This sort of statement does their cause no favours at all.
I would agree that if drivers could be educated to make safe decisions about appropriate speed then that would be a good thing, but I doubt there's many out there who could pass a test of that standard and then be relied upon to use those skills routinely.
Posted on: 08 May 2004 by Steve Toy
There exists nevertheless a growing culture of believing that driving strictly within the speed limit is sufficient to be immune from collisions.
Imagine a stretch of road that includes long straights, sweeping bends and a couple of sharp corners. Along the straight bits the safe maximum speed would be 70 to 80 mph, through the sweeping bends it would be around 55 mph and the sharp corners would be third gear jobs at around 35mph.
The two approaches to ensuring that drivers proceed safely along this road would be as follows:
The Nanny State approach
Impose a blanket speed limit of 40mph along the entire stretch of road so that if someone did "forget" to slow down for the two sharp bends they wouldn't crash. Enforce this limit with a couple of Gatsos on the straight bits (Gatsos only work on straight stretches of road.) This would still conform to the requirement of placing cameras within 1km of accident blackspots.
The inexperienced/poor driver will slow down for the cameras on the straight bits but still manage to crash on one of the sharp corners.
The individual taking responsibility for his own driving approach
Keep the road at national speed limit but put up warning signs on the approach to the sharp corners with an advisory speed limit of 35mph round the corners.
In order to reduce the road deaths by 40% (government target) I would suggest the following:
1) Put our clocks forward by one hour bringing us in line with Central European Time so in winter we would be at GMT+1 (BST) and in summer GMT+2 (BST+1.)
The RoSPA believe that this could save as many as 1000 lives a year, mainly children. I'm sorry but saving the lives of children walking home fom school in daylight instead of darkness in December shoud be considered more important than a few Scottish Highland farmers who don't want to miss Emmerdale.
2) Make the Highways Agency responsible for road maintainance and setting speed limits on all A and B roads as well as just the motorways and trunk roads. The rules for setting speed limits should be consistently applied nationwide. That way local nanny councils wil no longer be able to act upon the cries of vocal minorities for arbitrary lowered limits in their area. Also drivers will be able to guess for themselves what the limit is by observing environmental cues such as the presence/density of buildings (especially schools/hospitals/shops etc) along either side of the road.
3) Identify and engineer out all accident blackspots especially busy T junctions that perhaps should have mini roundabouts or traffic lights. (The sequencing of all traffic lights should be determined by road traffic experts working for the Highways Agency and not by meddling politicians who seek to exacerbate congestion in order to encourage phase shift of transport mode.)
4) Raise speed limits on motorways to 80mph when the road surface is dry. Penalise poor lane discipline and tailgating ahead of those who simply exceed the speed limit in fine conditions.
5) Make motorway driving part of the driving test.
6) Halve the number of speed cameras and ensure that the remaining ones are within 50m and not 1km of a given accident blackspot.
7) Increase the number of police patrol cars on the roads to look out for erratic driving, bald tyres etc.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Sun 09 May 2004 at 5:47.]
Imagine a stretch of road that includes long straights, sweeping bends and a couple of sharp corners. Along the straight bits the safe maximum speed would be 70 to 80 mph, through the sweeping bends it would be around 55 mph and the sharp corners would be third gear jobs at around 35mph.
The two approaches to ensuring that drivers proceed safely along this road would be as follows:
The Nanny State approach
Impose a blanket speed limit of 40mph along the entire stretch of road so that if someone did "forget" to slow down for the two sharp bends they wouldn't crash. Enforce this limit with a couple of Gatsos on the straight bits (Gatsos only work on straight stretches of road.) This would still conform to the requirement of placing cameras within 1km of accident blackspots.
The inexperienced/poor driver will slow down for the cameras on the straight bits but still manage to crash on one of the sharp corners.
The individual taking responsibility for his own driving approach
Keep the road at national speed limit but put up warning signs on the approach to the sharp corners with an advisory speed limit of 35mph round the corners.
In order to reduce the road deaths by 40% (government target) I would suggest the following:
1) Put our clocks forward by one hour bringing us in line with Central European Time so in winter we would be at GMT+1 (BST) and in summer GMT+2 (BST+1.)
The RoSPA believe that this could save as many as 1000 lives a year, mainly children. I'm sorry but saving the lives of children walking home fom school in daylight instead of darkness in December shoud be considered more important than a few Scottish Highland farmers who don't want to miss Emmerdale.
2) Make the Highways Agency responsible for road maintainance and setting speed limits on all A and B roads as well as just the motorways and trunk roads. The rules for setting speed limits should be consistently applied nationwide. That way local nanny councils wil no longer be able to act upon the cries of vocal minorities for arbitrary lowered limits in their area. Also drivers will be able to guess for themselves what the limit is by observing environmental cues such as the presence/density of buildings (especially schools/hospitals/shops etc) along either side of the road.
3) Identify and engineer out all accident blackspots especially busy T junctions that perhaps should have mini roundabouts or traffic lights. (The sequencing of all traffic lights should be determined by road traffic experts working for the Highways Agency and not by meddling politicians who seek to exacerbate congestion in order to encourage phase shift of transport mode.)
4) Raise speed limits on motorways to 80mph when the road surface is dry. Penalise poor lane discipline and tailgating ahead of those who simply exceed the speed limit in fine conditions.
5) Make motorway driving part of the driving test.
6) Halve the number of speed cameras and ensure that the remaining ones are within 50m and not 1km of a given accident blackspot.
7) Increase the number of police patrol cars on the roads to look out for erratic driving, bald tyres etc.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Sun 09 May 2004 at 5:47.]
Posted on: 09 May 2004 by long-time-dead
I experienced a differing approach to speed control on a trip to the north of Spain.
On a rural country road - very straight, good surface, brilliant visibility, usually dry - the temptation would be to stick the boot down.
Appearing on the road was a set of traffic lights - no junction, just lights
The lights sensed your speed - too fast on approach and they turned to red. Acceptable speed - they remained green.
A camera would flash you if you jumped the red light.
It's a similar principle to the speed cameras we all know and "love" so much but it was an interesting twist.
My friend explained that coursts and insurance companies are less forgiving for red light jumping as you can easily kill someone at low speed by jumping a red light in a busy area.
At least they show consistency......
FWIW - my friend tends to drive at a stable speed in the countryside, not the point and squirt approach that we often see here.
On a rural country road - very straight, good surface, brilliant visibility, usually dry - the temptation would be to stick the boot down.
Appearing on the road was a set of traffic lights - no junction, just lights
The lights sensed your speed - too fast on approach and they turned to red. Acceptable speed - they remained green.
A camera would flash you if you jumped the red light.
It's a similar principle to the speed cameras we all know and "love" so much but it was an interesting twist.
My friend explained that coursts and insurance companies are less forgiving for red light jumping as you can easily kill someone at low speed by jumping a red light in a busy area.
At least they show consistency......
FWIW - my friend tends to drive at a stable speed in the countryside, not the point and squirt approach that we often see here.
Posted on: 09 May 2004 by Steve Toy
That way your friend doesn't have to concentrate and can admire the view! I hate drivers who won't increase their speed along straight bits and pootle along at 45mph with a long queue of traffic behind them.
On a rural country road - very straight, good surface, brilliant visibility, usually dry - the temptation would be to stick the boot down.
And what exactly would be wrong with that?
Regards,
Steve.
On a rural country road - very straight, good surface, brilliant visibility, usually dry - the temptation would be to stick the boot down.
And what exactly would be wrong with that?
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 09 May 2004 by kevinrt
Stephen
how can you champion individual choice/judgement on speed and not allow the same to someone who wants to drive at 45 mph?
You just need to wait for a safe spot to overtake.
how can you champion individual choice/judgement on speed and not allow the same to someone who wants to drive at 45 mph?
You just need to wait for a safe spot to overtake.
Posted on: 09 May 2004 by Steve Toy
Because someone driving 15mph below the speed limit is doing so for one reason: they'd rather not be driving and are day dreaming. They are NOT exercising any judgment (unless they are mindful of being under the influence of alcohol or are extremely tired.)
Safe places to overtake are often few and far between especially if you are at the back of the queue forming behind them. Thus one selfish car occupant has dictated the pace to a dozen others.
Regards,
Steve.
Safe places to overtake are often few and far between especially if you are at the back of the queue forming behind them. Thus one selfish car occupant has dictated the pace to a dozen others.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 09 May 2004 by Top Cat
As an experiment, for the past few days since my possible 'violation' (re: 46 or so on a 40 - I'm just waiting it out now to see what happens) I have been rigidly sticking to the speed limit at all times.
I will say this: with the level of concentration it takes to stick rigidly to the speed limit, especially in areas where that limit is unnecessarily low, I am a worse driver. I am spending too much time checking that I'm not drifting past the limit - this is especially true in the 'pointless 40' zones.
On motorways, however, I've enjoyed poodling along at 70 - my fuel economy is higher and I'm getting where I want to be roughly as quickly.
However, my argument is that rigorously enforcing unnecessarily low speed limits may actually be making people drive in a manner which is less safe.
Try it - just for a couple of journeys - and you'll see what I mean...
John
I will say this: with the level of concentration it takes to stick rigidly to the speed limit, especially in areas where that limit is unnecessarily low, I am a worse driver. I am spending too much time checking that I'm not drifting past the limit - this is especially true in the 'pointless 40' zones.
On motorways, however, I've enjoyed poodling along at 70 - my fuel economy is higher and I'm getting where I want to be roughly as quickly.
However, my argument is that rigorously enforcing unnecessarily low speed limits may actually be making people drive in a manner which is less safe.
Try it - just for a couple of journeys - and you'll see what I mean...
John
Posted on: 09 May 2004 by kevinrt
Top Cat
May just be a period of adjustment. You'll get used to what 30 mph (or whatever) feels like in your car (gear, revs. engine noise etc.) and won't need to check the speedo so often.
Steven (apologies for mis-spelling your name previously)
Why do you assume your judgement is better than those slower drivers you decry. I'm guessing you can't know their individual driving records.
Have you taken some additional driving tuition to raise your own standards?
I can see the point of some of your previous arguments in principle, but truthfully I don't believe that most drivers are competent enough for what you suggest.
May just be a period of adjustment. You'll get used to what 30 mph (or whatever) feels like in your car (gear, revs. engine noise etc.) and won't need to check the speedo so often.
Steven (apologies for mis-spelling your name previously)
Why do you assume your judgement is better than those slower drivers you decry. I'm guessing you can't know their individual driving records.
Have you taken some additional driving tuition to raise your own standards?
I can see the point of some of your previous arguments in principle, but truthfully I don't believe that most drivers are competent enough for what you suggest.
Posted on: 09 May 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by kevinrt:
Top Cat
May just be a period of adjustment. You'll get used to what 30 mph (or whatever) feels like in your car (gear, revs. engine noise etc.) and won't need to check the speedo so often.
True. I've been sticking to 20mph, 30mph and 40mph speed limits for years now and don't find it a problem at all.
60mph speed limits I regard as advisory.