|
I'd be one of those motorists ... sitting behind you with my right indicator on ... it's very frustrating when driving with a long journey to complete being held back by motorists driving slowly - fast dual carriageways need to have a minimum speed limit for level dry conditons of 60mph - yes, 60mph so that HGV's can make good progress without the need to move to lane 2. If there are more lanes then a lower limit of 50mph for lane 1 is acceptable, and 60mph for lane 2 with 70mph the speed for lane 3 (no HGV's allowed).
All this business about slowing down is a cop out to poor driver training and poor vehicle maintenance - more 'random' checks should be made on vehicles to check for safety - tyres for example - this can be done in car parks or service areas with ease. All drivers should be tested for competance and confidence on a regualr basis, I know people who don't like faster roads so keep off them, and that makes it safer for everyone.
However, in very wet conditons (or snow, sheet ice or fog) these speed limits need to be reduced to reflect the longer distance required for stopping, but I suspect the desire to arrive soon is more powerful than the desire to take it easy because of other people's actions.
All speed cameras should be adapted to enforce the minimum limit as well as catch those driving above the 70mph limit.
|
I'd be one of those motorists ... sitting behind you with my right indicator on ... it's very frustrating when driving with a long journey to complete being held back by motorists driving slowly -
But he wasn't 'driving slowly'. He was just leaving a long gap in front, which those behind with their flashers on couldn't jump into.
|
|
Under conditions described I'd be in inside lane, even if it knocked 10-15mph off the cruise speed. Better safe than sorry.
|
|
Smileyman, if I read your post correctly you are advocating a minimum speed limit of 70 mph for lane 3. So drivers must keep exactly to that or else break the legal speed limit. Are you are suggesting not having a speed limit ? If so, perhaps everyone who wishes to drive as fast as they choose could club together and pay for their own roads. Until then perhaps people should accept the law and try to drive to recommended standards.
|
|
The distance to the car in front does not need to be your stopping distance. It needs to be your reaction distance and a margin for error.
If so many people are cursing you then you are obviously the one who is causing a problem and possibly a danger.
|
|
Unless you need to pass another vehicle you should never be in lane 3. If the weather is dry (no snow ice fog standing water puddles or heavy rain) and surface level then why would you be driving slower than 70 in lane 3? Perhaps the minimum speed for lane 3 could be slower than 70, but the concept of slower drivers not acting as a barrier to faster drivers hold true. I do not support overtaking on the left (undertaking) as it is against the HWC and possibly may attract points ..
The domestic trains on HS1 (140mph) are not allowed to leave Ashford if they are likely to hold up a Eurostar train further down the line (180pmh) - the details may differ but idea holds true.
I certainly do not advocate unrestricted speed, however can see occasions where a limit above 70 is reasonsable ... so many motorists drive at 80 these days it's almost worth making this the limit for the right conditions. In France the motorway speed limit is lowered if conditions are wet, this is sensible and worth supporting here in the UK - coupled with an aggressive vehicle safety campaign to ensure unsafe vehicles are kept off the roads
|
|
I will add that it is almost impossible to keep 2 seconds between vehicles on the roads today - but not impossible to keep all the traffic at even speeds (for the lanes) - this is why the average speed cameras do work, they stop the very fast drivers pushing behind slower drivers driving at the legal limit with the hope that they will move over . (also why lane specific minimum speed limits would benefit all road users by making lane speeds more constant). At least the A12 has some 3 lane sections which allows the traffic to spread out by giving more road space. A section of the M2 coastbound has chevrons painted on the road to help motorists judge 2 seconds, the distances indicated are so great I've never seen anyone observe this anywhere.
Increasing the minimum tyre tread depth to 2mm (from 1.6mm) would help with the unlikely but always possible danger of aquaplaning,
|
|
Smileyman, my apologies for reading too much into your post. Your two subsequent posts have been clear and, in my view, excellent. I think the average speed cameras are the most effective way of enforcing speed limits. Although difficult I do think there should be a way of making sure drivers maintain a safe stopping distance. Reaction time is a significant variable and must be taken into account. On a personal level, my own minimum depth for tyres is 3mm. I have previously posted that this type of discussion is generally a waste of time. However, from your responses I have developed my view - Thanks, keep smiling.
|
|
Further thoughts. Appropriate minimum speed limits could be a very good idea. Perhaps, being able to drive should no longer be thought of as a right but a privilege which has to be justified. There are a few ways to go from A to B without personally driving. Also if people were no longer up to a realistic minimum they would be safer off the roads. It would also help to reduce traffic.
As to faster driving I would think it reasonable for the more skilful to decide correct speed. The question then is how to identify the more skilful ( definitely not self selected ) I suggest that with modern technology there can be a driving simulator for testing cnadidates. If htey can prove capable of handling cars at faster speeds and reacting to emergencies, which is why a simulator would be needed ! then let them where appropriate. This would require annual renewal. With sufficient hardware it should be a practical idea. Something in the number plate could show which drivers could go faster than standard speed limit where appropriate.
If the advice is kept up to date then variable speed limits might be worthwhile. Ideally it would be individual choice but that doesn't appear to work.
|
|
So you propose having different speed limits that are depandent upon the skill level of the driver.
I have never heard such a crazy idea.
|
|
You can allpropose what you like.
If it's not simple (so easily understood), obvious (so easily visible if broken)
and enforceable it's a waste of time.
I drive defensively which means getting out of people's way on motorways and certainly giving way if I have a tail behind me wanting to pass.
Period.
If you have a tail behind and don't give way - irrespective of your speed, - you are placing yourslef at risk.
|
Perhaps, being able to drive should no longer be thought of as a right but a privilege which has to be justified.
This is how I have always understood it to be. One earns the privilege by taking a driving test, and paying a yearly tax. Only pedestrians (and cyclists, who seem to count as pedestrians) use the public highway as of 'right'.
|
This is how I have always understood it to be. One earns the privilege by taking a driving test, and paying a yearly tax. Only pedestrians (and cyclists, who seem to count as pedestrians) use the public highway as of 'right'.
Horses and horse drawn vehicles also use the highway as of right. Requirement for licences is limited to motorised traffic.
|
|
< Horses and horse drawn vehicles also use the highway as of right. Requirement for licences is limited to motorised traffic. >
Quite so, Bromp. Horses have feet too. Luckily they don't ride bikes.
|
|
|
Unless you need to pass another vehicle you should never be in lane 3.
... so many motorists drive at 80 these days it's almost worth making this the limit for the right conditions.
I don't know the road the OP describes, but it seems that there is no Lane 3 or all those flashing drivers would use it ?
The argument about raising the limit to 80 has been made before. The 'reality' is that those motorists are driving as far above the limit as they believe they can get away with. So it's clear what would happen if the limit were raised. Nearly all cars are capable of 90 or even more, but only at the cost of more fuel, which helps no-one.
And as the rush-hour reduced limits on the congested M25 show, lowering the speed limit can improve traffic flow by damping out surges and accommodating more cars by reducing the following distance.
|
|
skidpan, it is disappointing that you should use such a derogatory word as ' crazy' for what was expressed only as an idea to think about and nothing else. The current situation is shocking when speed limits are regularly broken because too many drivers believe they are capable of driving at high speeds and breaking the speed limit. This would be an objective test. There are situations where, for some drivers they can safely exceed the speed limit. Is it not worth considering, making it clear to the others that they do not have the ability they think they have ? It may be unworkable but that is another question.
madf, I have the same opinion but am willing to hope. However, I follow the same principles of safeguarding myself as much as possible. Therefore I became a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, bought many books and dvds on the subject. Incidentally, I recommend anything by Chris Gilbert. Also I try to put it into practice - not perfect but always trying to improve. The lack of effective enforcement is something that could be discussed for a long time.
|
The lack of effective enforcement is something that could be discussed for a long time.
The only laws which work in the way they were intended are observed voluntarily, such as stopping at red lights, which 99+% of drivers do - even at pedestrian-controlled crossings when no-one intends to cross. The others are a balance between enforcement, turning blind eyes, and getting away with. The fundamental thing is that every law has (or has had) a purpose behind it, which was usually clear at the time of implementation but may have become less obvious since. Maybe if the purpose was made clearer less enforcement might be needed.
For example, the urban 30-limit is there to give drivers and others a fair chance of avoiding collisions with dogs, children, or other things appearing in the road without warning. And it doesn't necessarily mean that roads inside the limit are drivable at 30.
|
|
|
skidpan, it is disappointing that you should use such a derogatory word as ' crazy' for what was expressed only as an idea to think about and nothing else.
Its a crazy idea so I said its crazy, whats wrong with that.
How would you test the 33,800,000 full licence holders (as of 2010) annually?
How would you deal with marking cars where there are multiple drivers. One may be a driving god, one might be a total muppet, would you expect each to fit the relevant plates?
How would you deal with rental cars, as we all know they are the fastest cars in the world regardless of the driver.
I could go on but the above is sufficient to prove my point.
I have raced in my past, not for 10 years now. I have a cabinet full of trophys for my troubles. Do I consider myself a driving god, well I consider myself to be a damm sight better than than many of the muppets on the road but would I want a licence that allowed me to go faster than them, no way, its asking for trouble.
|
|
You appear to believe that because you think it crazy then it is crazy. I think that is rather arrogant. You put forward a number of drawbacks : which I consider reasonable comment. However you assume that everybody would want a faster licence which is not necessarily the case, especially if it might entail higher insurance costs. There are the difficulties you outline which may not have a solution, in which case it couldn't work. That isn't included in my definition of crazy it just means it is not practical. I do object to your vocabulary which limits exploring ideas - who would want to put up a possibility ( not a recommendation or proposal but something to consider) if it is then going to be belittled as crazy. Surely a forum is where anyone's views can be heard with respect and courtesy.
I do not consider a cabinet full of trophies for driving fast around a racetrack is the same as dealing with hazards on the road. I respect the driving skill and courage in that situation but do not equate it with safe driving on today's roads.
|
|
On the planet I live on we are allowed to call an idea crazy if we think it is. Its not considered to be arrogant, its considered to be an opinion and in this case my opinion is its a crazy idea.
|
On the planet I live on we are allowed to call an idea crazy if we think it is. Its not considered to be arrogant, its considered to be an opinion and in this case my opinion is its a crazy idea.
That's pretty much where I come from with background of being a Civil Servant who occasionally reviewed ideas for legislation. If proposed policy is impractical for obvious reasons XYZ describing it as crazy isn’t too far of the mark.
|
On the planet I live on we are allowed to call an idea crazy if we think it is. Its not considered to be arrogant, its considered to be an opinion and in this case my opinion is its a crazy idea.
Many of us have been here before. It's not a question of being allowed to say it's crazy - it's just a matter of tact and diplomacy, which may be something Skidpan learnt to do without while hurtling round his racetrack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
