|
Agreed, but Government idiocy has left very little choice int he matter. Successive Gubbermints have heeded the idiotic advice of the Greenie weenies. Why? Because the GW's told the Gov EXACTLY what it wanted to hear. ie
Raise taxes and you can feel good about some imaginary big thing. And your voters will thank you for it.
Don't listen to motorists they are all evil planet killing dinosaurs, who will be first up against the wall come the green revolution..
The transport problems of the 21st Century all have 19th century answers. Rail, Bicycles etc.
A cowed and subservient population wants to be tied to one locality and live in the cold and dark with no lighting. So close power stations and rely on bird mincing windy mills. Don't even think of going nuclear.
And fools that people are they voted for these easily led political idiots. We pretty much deserve the misery that the Greenies created since we didn't oppose them sufficiently.
|
|
It's already been in use on the M6 (and others) for some time. I reckon it's great as it would appear the majority of drivers can't understand the signs, so you get your own personal fast-lane.
|
It's already been in use on the M6 (and others) for some time. I reckon it's great as it would appear the majority of drivers can't understand the signs, so you get your own personal fast-lane.
Agree totally with this... amazing how many cars (and HGV's too) just don't use the shoulder... I let them sit in a traffic jam whilst I gently cruise down the shoulder past them all....
|
|
The M42 system has been operational a few years now. No mass carnage as far as I can remember and the odd occasion I have used it it has proved to provide a very relaxing experience.
Four lanes are only used when there is heavy traffic. In heavy traffic the speed limit is also reduced and the cameras ensure drivers obey the limit. You then get four lanes moving at a speed around the posted limit which improves traffic flow.
Using the M62 is a pain at the moment as it has 17 miles of 50mph limit, but the pain will be worth it once the hardshoulder running scheme is complete.
|
|
It's also quite amazing to see how many stupid drivers there are out there who continue to use the hard shoulder when it isn't even operational at the time that they are barreling down it at 70mph!
|
|
|
|
Agree totally with this... amazing how many cars (and HGV's too) just don't use the shoulder... I let them sit in a traffic jam whilst I gently cruise down the shoulder past them all....
Undertaking is is illegal and rightly so. Hefty fines and points are the order of the day if you are caught.
What you are doing is totally irresponsible, just because other do it does not make it accaptable.
If more drivers doing this lost their licence maybe it would be stopped.
|
Undertaking is is illegal and rightly so. Hefty fines and points are the order of the day if you are caught.
What you are doing is totally irresponsible, just because other do it does not make it accaptable.
If more drivers doing this lost their licence maybe it would be stopped.
...but it's not as clear cut as that. You can overtake other vehicles on their nearside if their lane is moving slower than yours and you are all in a queue of traffic (at least, that used to be what the highway code said). So, if the hard shoulder is open for business, and the other lanes are stationary, then it would be quite legal and in accordance with the highway code, although I personally wouldn't cruise down it at 70.It does of course depend on what you define as a queue of traffic.
|
|
>>Undertaking is is illegal and rightly so
Are you sure? I've looked into this and can find no clear ruling. Other offences may be used to try and prevent it.
I've become a prolific undertaker. I'll often find myself cruising the inside lane at around 70, undertaking a car in lane 3 of a near empty 4-lane motorway.
|
|
My attitude is that if I can undertake you, then you are in the wrong lane.
I don't nip round someone on the inside but I don't feel guilty about gliding past a member of the Middle Lane Owners' Club.
|
I don't nip round someone on the inside but I don't feel guilty about gliding past a member of the Middle Lane Owners' Club.
Some years ago on the M25 at a quiet time (they do exist), I was sitting in the inside lane, along with everyone else, at a tad over 70. A CLOG member hoves into view ahead doing all of 60 in the middle lane.
The cars ahead of me went down the inside and he went beserk, blowing his horn and flashing his lights at each one.
I decided not to give him the satisfaction, perfomed a three-lane change behind him, with a solid flash 'n blast on the way out and then another three-lane back in ahead of him.
Afterwards I looked in the rearview mirror to find a "snake" of vehicles behind doing the same thing. He still didn't get the message.......
|
another three-lane back in ahead of him.
I once had the pleasure of finding a partner-in-crime at the right time to perform an X manoeuvre on a CLOG.
The white van in front of me moved out to lane three to overtake and I stayed in the inside lane. Simultaneously the CLOG was over/undertaken, then the white van cuts back into lane one whilst I moved into lane three crossing over in front of the CLOG.
Ah, the joys of being bored on an empty motorway!
|
|
|
|
I've become a prolific undertaker. I'll often find myself cruising the inside lane at around 70, undertaking a car in lane 3 of a near empty 4-lane motorway.
If you can get round the entire M25 without undertaking anyone, it's a miracle! Your use of the inside lane is often the safest way to make sensible progress. The option of moving ou from lane 1 to lane 4, to overtake mimer in lane 3, is a pain. It's the mimsers that should be tackled.
|
|
I often find that the inside lane is the fastest through traffic jams due to people all hogging the outside lane...
I think the police should have a bit of a crackdown on the CLOG lot. its clearly stated in the highway code.
Lane discipline
264
You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking. You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency or if directed to do so by the police, HA traffic officers in uniform or by signs.
And what is it about this that people don't understand??
282
When passing the scene of an incident or crash do not be distracted or slow down unnecessarily (for example if an incident is on the other side of a dual carriageway). This may cause a collision or traffic congestion.
|
|
Both the M42 and M6 hard shoulder lanes work very well there is no issue with vehicles breaking down as the limits are always set to 60 (or less) when 4 lanes are in use and monitored via cameras which give advance warning of a problem. Additionally, large overhead signs advise which lanes are available with a big red X showing when the hard shoulder is closed.I have never seen anyone (accidentaly) driving on the shoulder when it is not open.
There is much rubbish talked about 'undertaking' as though it is the crime of the century.
It isn't, it is widely practised and not illegal per se.
|
|
|
282
When passing the scene of an incident or crash do not be distracted or slow down unnecessarily (for example if an incident is on the other side of a dual carriageway). This may cause a collision or traffic congestion.
Giant bugbear of mine.......if I had a quid for the number of times I have been forced to creep past the AA man changing a wheel on the hard shoulder because of swivelheads, I would be rich enough to employ someone to chauffeur me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is also my understanding...
Skidpan, are you seriously suggesting that if lanes 1,2 and 3 are at a stansdtill, and i'm on the shoulder (which is open for traffic) that I should immediately stop when I get level with the back car in lane 1, even with an empty hard shoulder ahead of me....???
|
|
QUOTE:...""If using the hard shoulder eases congestion, and saves billions then, even if it results in a dozen or so extra deaths a year, withstands a compelling cost/benefit analysis.""
This is a decidedly ridiculous way of looking at things, but taking it seriously for a second, what if one of the people killed in a hard-shoulder accident was someone who was in the final stages of perfecting an invention that would save the world trillions of pounds / dollars / euros?
QUOTE:...""Why would the HGV be tailgating? If lorries find your driving to slow, then you are too slow!""
I only hope you aren't an HGV driver! What tailgating lorry drivers forget is if they pile into the back of a car at speed, they'll probably come to a stop with the back of a crushed car wedged under the cab, complete with a petrol tank, which might have split and one spark away from a fireball..
Edited by Sofa Spud on 23/03/2012 at 17:33
|
This is a decidedly ridiculous way of looking at things, but taking it seriously for a second, what if one of the people killed in a hard-shoulder accident was someone who was in the final stages of perfecting an invention that would save the world trillions of pounds / dollars / euros?
Before accusing others of being ridiculous, it is best best to check that one isn't being ridiculous.
Cost benefit analysis is undertaken on every potential safety measure. The NHS use it in the form of NICE which basically weighs up if the treatment that prolongs your life is worth the cost. If the cost per life 'saved' is too high, it is not implemented. Period.
The sentimental and naive might find the idea of putting a monetary valve on human life distasteful. But most other people have to do just this.
Only morons believe that old solgan "one life lost is one life too many".
What tailgating lorry drivers forget is if they pile into the back of a car at speed,
No, I don't think HGV drivers forget this. I think they are are more aware of the impact of driving an HGV than non-HGV drivers. As with car drivers, there good truckers and bad truckers. But a higher proportion of truckers are good drivers than among the general driving population.
When an HGV and a car have a quarrel, it is usually the car that will be found to be at fault.
As I said before; if your driving is so pedestrian that even lorries become frustrated you need a bus pass, not more legislation.
Edit:
complete with a petrol tank, which might have split and one spark away from a fireball..
Only Hollywood petrol tanks explode into flame upon impact!
Edited by unthrottled on 23/03/2012 at 17:50
|
|
|
|
Undertaking is is illegal and rightly so. Hefty fines and points are the order of the day if you are caught.
What you are doing is totally irresponsible, just because other do it does not make it accaptable.
If more drivers doing this lost their licence maybe it would be stopped.
...but it's not as clear cut as that. You can overtake other vehicles on their nearside if their lane is moving slower than yours and you are all in a queue of traffic (at least, that used to be what the highway code said). So, if the hard shoulder is open for business, and the other lanes are stationary, then it would be quite legal and in accordance with the highway code, although I personally wouldn't cruise down it at 70.It does of course depend on what you define as a queue of traffic.
It is illegal to use the hardshoulder other than for stopping in an emergency. Driving on it quite rightly attracts a huge fine and points.
Undertaking is also illegal except when the traffic is moving slowly, it is certainly ilelgal at 70 mph.
A few lengthy jail terms for both offences would make people think.
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware undertaking is legal providing you are not exeeding the speed limit and the vehicles in the lane you are traveling in are moving faster than your offside lane.
|
|
Quiote:...""Only Hollywood petrol tanks explode into flame upon impact!""
What a stupid remark.
Quote:...""Only morons believe that old solgan "one life lost is one life too many"
Surely you must be trolling now! un-T-h-RO-tt-L-ed ?? :)
Edited by Sofa Spud on 23/03/2012 at 19:31
|
|
Very few petrol tanks explode-even in serious accidents. Exploding petrol tanks sound plausible but are seldom encountered. You've seen the demonstration of tossing lit cigarettes into a bowl full of petrol and nothing happens, haven't you??
|
|
As a boy, perhaps foolishly but with some understanding of the danger involved, I threw a match, or possibly a ball of burning paper (I can't remember) into a bowl containing a small amount of petrol and it went off with an explosive whoomph. I also tried it with parrafin, which was less spectacular.
I will remind you that a terrible accident happened on the M5 at Taunton in which several vehicles burst caught fire, the most obvious caude being ruptured fuel tanks.
What you're saying applies to diesel fuel, which is more difficult to ignite.
|
what you're saying applies to diesel fuel, which is more difficult to ignite.
At elevated temperatures, diesel lights more readily than petrol.
The burning paper provided both the heat to create a flammable vapour and a source of ignition. A spark only provides the latter.
Petrol tanks cannot explode because the mixture inside the tank is too rich to burn. If the fuel leaks out of a ruptured tank, the rate of combustion is controlled by the ability of the fuel to find oxygen.
Very few people have been burned alive in cars. The perceived risk is many times greater than the actual risk because the terror of being trapped in a burning car distorts our perception of risk.
Applied for that bus pass yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:...""Only morons believe that old solgan "one life lost is one life too many"
Surely you must be trolling now! un-T-h-RO-tt-L-ed ?? :)
There is a finite risk of mortality associated with any non-trivial activity. As the perceived risk of an activity diminishes, complacency tends to creep in and raises the actual risk. Therefore there is always a non-zero risk of death/injury. If enough people partake in an activity, sadly a tiny number of them will die.
Sorry to burst your bubble. BTW, The tooth fairy isn't real either. Oops!
|
|
I'm beginning to believe trolls are real, though!
|
|
Aside from the Ford Pinto I've never known a car to explode in a crash.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:...""Petrol tanks cannot explode because the mixture inside the tank is too rich to burn. If the fuel leaks out of a ruptured tank, the rate of combustion is controlled by the ability of the fuel to find oxygen.""
Here is a video of a car's petrol tank igniting rapidly (if not exploding) during a test - Ford Pinto in the 1970's - which probably had a steel tank as opposed to the modern plastic type, but I doubt that makes much difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcNeorjXMrE
Edited by Sofa Spud on 23/03/2012 at 20:10
|
|
I just mentioned the Pinto and the Pinto example proves nothing. The Pinto had a monumental design flaw which Ford's bosses apparently knew about yet put the car on sale anyway, thinking compensation payouts for chargrilled drivers would be less than a total re-design.
|
|
|
|
I remember seeing this on TV live - nobody thought Gerhardt Berger could have survived, but he wasn't badly hurt.
But this illustrates the danger of a ruptured fuel tank, especially in a petrol engined car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXKTGz9txTw
So the Ford Pinto was anatomically totally different from any other car before or since and it was designed and funtioned by totally different processes that have no relevance to any other car???? I didn't realise that. Sorry.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 23/03/2012 at 20:22
|
So the Ford Pinto was anatomically totally different from any other car before or since
Actually you're not far off.
The Pinto's design meant the filler neck to the fuel tank could come off in a crash and there was basically zero re-inforcement between the tank and rear panels so it could easily move and be burst by other vehicle components, resulting in far more spilt fuel than in any other car. Even by 70s standards this form of car design was horribly out of date and unlike anything else being mate.
|
|
|
As Jamie points out, the Pinto had a famous design flaw. Even so, the number of deaths caused was tiny. According to the infallible Wikipedia:
"...27 deaths were attributed to Pinto fires (the same number of deaths attributed to a Pinto transmission problem) and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem..."
To put this into context about 40,000 Americans used to die in automobile accidents every year.
|
|
You've missed the end of that sentence unthrottled which states...
"In 1978, Ford initiated a recall providing a plastic protective shield to be dealer-installed between the fuel tank and the differential bolts, another to deflect contact with the right-rear shock absorber, and a new fuel-tank filler neck that extended deeper into the tank and was more resistant to breaking off in a rear-end collision"
I'm on your side but I do hate selective quoting.
|
|
Fair point. Honestly, I was not trying to be selective.
Do you think that might be a reaction to the adverse publicity rather than any real safety risk? [I don't know]
If the NHTSA decided that the problem wasn't worth a recall, it can't have been that bad.
There have been several safety scares in America: The Ford explorer/Firestone tyres, the Audi 5000 and unintended acceleration, the Toyota Prius and unintended acceleration.
In each case, the NHTSA investigated and found that most of the problems were actually the result of drive error rather than real design flaws.
This reflects real world accident statistics.
|
|
When it become public knowledge that Ford knew of the design flaw but found repairs and payouts to be cheaper than a re-design, it severely damaged their PR. They appeared to be a company which put a price on customers lives and decided they werent worth an 11$ repair or something like that, they had no choice but to recall it in the end.
Much like with Lancia here in the 80s, they were eventually forced to compensate customers and it led to them leaving the UK market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
