[OT] No fines for 39mph in a 30 limit.

[Peter B]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Peter B wrote:
>
> > He's a lorry driver by trade restricted to 40 mph when driving his lorry
on
> > NSL dual carriageways and prior to the course didn't know he could do 60
mph
> > in his car so drove that at 40 maximum also! Since being enlightened on
the
> > course he said he now drives his car at up to 60 mph.
> >
> > No further comment.
>
> I'm confused. The NSL limit for _dual carriageways_ is 70mph for cars,
> 60 for <7.5 tonnes and 50 for >7.5 tonne lorries. Did he mean that he
> thought as a lorry he was restricted to 40?
>

Sorry, some time elapsed between me hearing the item and posting, plus I was
driving at the time of listening but IIRC 40 & 60mph were definately
mentioned but the 'phone-in respondent may have said single carriageway
rather than dual carriageway.

--
Pete
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/P

 

[DavidR]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote

> Per vehicle or passenger mile undercounts in places where mileage is
> high. Per hour travelled is more acceptable but figures are hard to come
> by. I think per capita is as relevant, as I'd imagine it's as close to
> per hour travelled as per passenger mile.

The French publish data by department. at
http://rp.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/onisr/accueil.srv
where the data is broken down by department. This gives 100 data points
varying between rural, lightly populated areas where people drive a lot to
densely populated urban areas where distances are less.

It would appear to show that casualties are primarily population based, not
vehicle usage based. In 2001 852 pedestrians were killed. While vehicle use
varies from 50k to 140k in different departments, the pedestrian death rate
sits at around 10-20 per million head.

Similarly, for all road users, injuries are also steady at about 2000-3000
per million head. Interestingly, as people drive further their crashes are
more lethal and fatals overall *do* rise with vehicle distance.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

"DavidR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Per vehicle or passenger mile undercounts in places where mileage is
>> high. Per hour travelled is more acceptable but figures are hard to come
>> by. I think per capita is as relevant, as I'd imagine it's as close to
>> per hour travelled as per passenger mile.
>
> The French publish data by department. at
> http://rp.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/onisr/accueil.srv
> where the data is broken down by department. This gives 100 data points
> varying between rural, lightly populated areas where people drive a lot to
> densely populated urban areas where distances are less.
>
> It would appear to show that casualties are primarily population based,
> not
> vehicle usage based. In 2001 852 pedestrians were killed. While vehicle
> use
> varies from 50k to 140k in different departments, the pedestrian death
> rate
> sits at around 10-20 per million head.
>
> Similarly, for all road users, injuries are also steady at about 2000-3000
> per million head. Interestingly, as people drive further their crashes are
> more lethal and fatals overall *do* rise with vehicle distance.
>
Thanks for that, you looked at the data much better than I did, and that's
an interesting result.

Ambrose

 

[sothach]

> It would appear to show that casualties are primarily population based, not
> vehicle usage based.
That figures: drive a car at speed onto a crowded pavement (large
population) and you will most likely achieve a much higher per-car
pedestrian death rate than if you repeat the experiment on a less
crowded pavement.