Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Adrian wrote:

> By "clear", I don't mean that there's just you and them in a ten mile
> radius, but that there's no earthly reason they should be going that
> slowly.

Or, given that there is nobody but you and them on the road, why they should
have to go any faster.

Maybe they have a mechanical fault. Maybe the sun is in their eyes and they
are obeying the Highway Code's advice to slow down and if necessary stop.

> The problem is that the wagon you're following has just moved out, so
> you've just seen the mobile roadblock, and you have no gap in lane 2
> to move into.

Failure of anticipation. Go back to square 1.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On 17 May 2004 13:57:05 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Colin Blackburn ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> When you're doing an indicated 60, and approaching somebody
>>> hand-over-fist,
>>> on a clear straight dry motorway....
>
>> Then what's the problem. If the motorway is clear and straight then
>> you not only have time to notice the closing distance and but you
>> also have space to pull out into and pass safely.
>
> By "clear", I don't mean that there's just you and them in a ten mile
> radius, but that there's no earthly reason they should be going that
> slowly.

Ah, a new definition of the word clear.

> The problem is that the wagon you're following has just moved out, so
> you've just seen the mobile roadblock, and you have no gap in lane 2 to
> move into.

So not a clear motorway then.

Colin

 

[Adrian]

Colin Blackburn ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>> By "clear", I don't mean that there's just you and them in a ten mile
>> radius, but that there's no earthly reason they should be going that
>> slowly.

> Ah, a new definition of the word clear.

No, a real-world one.

>> The problem is that the wagon you're following has just moved out, so
>> you've just seen the mobile roadblock, and you have no gap in lane 2 to
>> move into.

> So not a clear motorway then.

As clear as any motorway ever gets on Planet Daytime Weekday UK.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Conor wrote:
> >>
> > You must be bloody blind. Most teenagers I see near roads weave in and
> > out on bicycles and run out in front of traffic without looking. A 12-
> > 16 year old seems to have no sense of self preservation as a
> > pedestrian. Its no wonder that they have so many near misses. Just
> > drive down a road near a secondary school at kicking out time if you
> > want an example.
>
> Thats becuase they are kids, being young and stupid, which is what kids do.
>
> And you think we should stop them doing what kids do so some sad sack can
> play top gear, or hurry to his next arselicking meeting.
>
I don't think that at all. I was just pointing out that it is ludicrous
to think that all of those accidents were primarily the fault of the
driver.


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:29:41 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote (more or less):
>
>
> >You're a bit of a *** aren't you? I was pointing out that in alot of
> >cases, the 12-16 year olds don't do anything to help themselves and
> >actually create the problem.
> >
> >Of course now you're going to tell me that I'm wrong and that I should
> >just know that the teenager walking down the path is suddenly going to
> >change direction and belt across the road.
>
> You're the one who pointed out that that's what 12-16 year olds do.
>
> If you know this, but don't drive expecting them to do it, who's the
> ***?
>
Not me, I've yet to hit one.


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Adrian wrote:
>
> >> Why? Would you rather they drove faster than they felt safe?
> > I'd rather the incompetents who do 40mph on clear motorways either
> > learnt to drive or handed their licences in.
>
> Since I've never seen anyone driving at 40 on a clear motorway I wouldn't
> know. This discussion centres on non-motorway roads, so I am not sure how
> that is relevant anyway.
>
Oh I have..frequently, even daily in Birmingham on the M6 around 10pm.


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Dave J wrote:
>
> > I was talking about the population as a whole. An hour a day wasted
> > dawdling instead of driving
>
> [snip fantasy calculation apparently based on teleportation]
>
> The average journey time in the UK is 45 minutes, so saving an hour a day
> would require an unfeasibly large increase in average speeds. And of course
> what causes delay is not speed limits, but traffic jams. If only "they"
> would do something about all the traffic jams, eh?
>
So...

In 1995 for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in Manchester
for 8.30am, I'd leave around 5.45-6am.

In 2004 for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in Manchester
for 8.30 am I HAVE to leave by 5am otherwise I stand no chance. I
actually have to make sure I'm past J20 on the M62 no later than 7.30
am otherwise I end up sitting in the most horrendous traffic crawling
along.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>> The problem is that the wagon you're following has just moved out, so
>> you've just seen the mobile roadblock, and you have no gap in lane 2
>> to move into.

> Failure of anticipation. Go back to square 1.

You've never driven anything with a lack of acceleration, have you? Or do
you have no consideration for the occupants of the other lane? It's not a
lack of anticipation, it's too much anticipation - but of the wrong
problem.

Let's say you're closing on a wagon in Lane 1 with 5-10mph closing speed,
but have no clear gap to move into. What I would do is to steadily close
the clear distance gap on the wagon, while indicating your desire to move
left and watching for a suitable gap in Lane 2. When that gap appears,
you move left into it, preserving momentum, and avoiding having to try to
accelerate a heavy car trailer in Lane 2. Usually, it will, because
somebody will see you indicating and let you out, appreciating your
position.

What can happen, though, is that the wagon in front is doing the same -
unbeknownst to you - on the Nissan Micra in front proceeding in a world
of their own at a glacial rate.

The problem is largely one of expectation - you don't *expect* cars to be
travelling at 30-40mph on the motorway. The whole reason that motorways
are the safest roads in the country, despite far higher speeds, is that
traffic tends to all be going in the same direction at similar speeds.
Throw one wild card in the middle, and it all becomes much more
unpredictable - and less safe.

That one wild card is driving without due consideration for other road
users. If it's down to a lack of competence or confidence, then should he
be driving on the motorway? I'd say no.

"Clear" was probably the wrong word to use to describe the traffic.
"Lightly busy but free-flowing" would be better.

 

[Adrian]

AndyMorris ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>> You must be bloody blind. Most teenagers I see near roads weave in
>> and out on bicycles and run out in front of traffic without looking.
>> A 12- 16 year old seems to have no sense of self preservation as a
>> pedestrian.

> Thats becuase they are kids, being young and stupid, which is what
> kids do.

Hmm. I managed to survive being 12-16 years old without nearly being run
over even once.

> And you think we should stop them doing what kids do so some sad sack
> can play top gear, or hurry to his next arselicking meeting.

Maybe it's because I went to school in the era of the Green Cross Code and
personal responsibility?

"Don't run into the road, because it'll bloody hurt when some poor sod runs
over your stupid ****. Cretin."

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:[email protected],
Adrian <[email protected]> typed:
> Colin Blackburn ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> The problem is that the wagon you're following has just moved out,
>>> so you've just seen the mobile roadblock, and you have no gap in
>>> lane 2 to move into.
>
>> So not a clear motorway then.
>
> As clear as any motorway ever gets on Planet Daytime Weekday UK.

M74? Or if you meant England when you typed UK, then M6 north of Lancaster?
Or M54? Or M50? M45? etc, etc.

A

 

[Richard]

Dave J wrote:
>>I'm glad that you don't object to me driving at 35 mph down a clear road
>>because whilst I could drive faster, I choose not to. If you're stuck
>>behind me, tough titty; you should've left home five minutes earlier.
>
>
> I left home *ten* minutes earlier, it's just that I've been stuck
> behind you for the past thirty.

Which particular "clear road" were you thinking of, where you can't
safely overtake someone for 17 miles? Or are you just inventing numbers?

R.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Adrian wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :

>> And yet you still continue to enjoy one of the biggest risk factors
>> out there: speed. Primary cause of a third of all crashes

> So what's the "primary cause" of the other 2/3?
> Incompetence? Arrogance?

Probably both.

> Perhaps traffic policing ought to concentrate on stubbing those out,
> instead of encouraging them?

Traffic policing does, especially now speed enforcement can be left to
automated systems. The fact that there are too few traffic plod is entirely
a function of the performance measures which exist for police forces, which
support the Daily Mail's view that the police should be guarding Middle
Britain's video recorders instead of catching careless drivers (who, after
all, only kill a few thousand people annually).

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Trevor Barton]

On 17 May 2004 14:14:52 GMT, Adrian wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>
>>> The problem is that the wagon you're following has just moved out, so
>>> you've just seen the mobile roadblock, and you have no gap in lane 2
>>> to move into.
>
>> Failure of anticipation. Go back to square 1.
>
> You've never driven anything with a lack of acceleration, have you? Or do
> you have no consideration for the occupants of the other lane? It's not a
> lack of anticipation, it's too much anticipation - but of the wrong
> problem.
>
> Let's say you're closing on a wagon in Lane 1 with 5-10mph closing speed,
> but have no clear gap to move into. What I would do is to steadily close
> the clear distance gap on the wagon, while indicating your desire to move
> left and watching for a suitable gap in Lane 2. When that gap appears,
> you move left into it, preserving momentum, and avoiding having to try to
> accelerate a heavy car trailer in Lane 2. Usually, it will, because
> somebody will see you indicating and let you out, appreciating your
> position.

I'm less sure that it's a matter of appreciating your position than the
incontrovertable fact that if many a HGV driver decides that it's time to
move out then it's time for you to get out of the way. In many cases,
it's true, an HGV driver will only indicate *and* move out if at the same
time it *is* possible for you to pull outi or back as well. However, a prudent
driver will if at all possible pull out or back as soon as the HGV indicators
start, not because they appreciate your position, but becasue they
appreiciate that a significant proportion of the time the HGV is about
to pull out regardless.

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Adrian wrote:

>>> The problem is that the wagon you're following has just moved out,
>>> so you've just seen the mobile roadblock, and you have no gap in
>>> lane 2 to move into.

>> Failure of anticipation. Go back to square 1.

> You've never driven anything with a lack of acceleration, have you?

Wrong.

> Or do you have no consideration for the occupants of the other lane?
> It's not a lack of anticipation, it's too much anticipation - but of
> the wrong problem.

Wrong.

> Let's say you're closing on a wagon in Lane 1 with 5-10mph closing
> speed, but have no clear gap to move into. What I would do is to
> steadily close the clear distance gap on the wagon, while indicating
> your desire to move left and watching for a suitable gap in Lane 2.
> When that gap appears, you move left into it, preserving momentum,
> and avoiding having to try to accelerate a heavy car trailer in Lane
> 2. Usually, it will, because somebody will see you indicating and let
> you out, appreciating your position.
> What can happen, though, is that the wagon in front is doing the same
> - unbeknownst to you - on the Nissan Micra in front proceeding in a
> world of their own at a glacial rate.

Except that instead of a Nissan Micra it might be a crane, or another truck,
or a horse box (spit, spit), or another car with an undersized engine and an
oversized caravan - micra louts are not the only slow-moving vehicles on the
roads. You can't ever guarantee that the vehicle you can't see round and
are approaching slowly will not be concealing one of these. There is simply
no way of predicting it. So instead of proceeding on the assumption that it
won't happen, and denouncing one of the many possible causes when it does,
you just have to anticipate the problem as best you can and deal with it if
it does happen. And be calm.

> The problem is largely one of expectation - you don't *expect* cars
> to be travelling at 30-40mph on the motorway. The whole reason that
> motorways are the safest roads in the country, despite far higher
> speeds, is that traffic tends to all be going in the same direction
> at similar speeds.

Actually I thnk you'll find that the main reason is the lack of junctions
and other points of conflict, but lower closing speeds is certainly a
factor. But then, this just argues for not exceeding the limit on
motorways, deosn't it, because the fact is that there can be traffic moving
at slow speeds for various reasons (including cars on spacesaver spares
limited to 50-odd mph) so it pays to limit the maximum possible closing
speed. If traffic ahead is moving slowly, one slows down and ensires safe
space for braking.

> That one wild card is driving without due consideration for other road
> users. If it's down to a lack of competence or confidence, then
> should he be driving on the motorway? I'd say no.

Or not, given that there are several classes of vehicle which are allowed on
the motorway which can be restricted in their speed, especially uphill. And
isn't it funny how the business of due consideration for other road users
only applies to slow moving traffic? After all, tanking past some old biddy
who is in white-knuckle mode at 50 is hardly very considerate is it?
Whether she should be there or not is another matter, it is still foolish
and inconsiderate to fail to take account of her.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Conor wrote:

>> Since I've never seen anyone driving at 40 on a clear motorway I
>> wouldn't know.

> Oh I have..frequently, even daily in Birmingham on the M6 around 10pm.

Ah, theyll be on the way back from the pub, then?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Conor wrote:

>> The average journey time in the UK is 45 minutes, so saving an hour
>> a day would require an unfeasibly large increase in average speeds.
>> And of course what causes delay is not speed limits, but traffic
>> jams. If only "they" would do something about all the traffic jams,
>> eh?


> In 1995 for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in Manchester
> for 8.30am, I'd leave around 5.45-6am.
> In 2004 for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in Manchester
> for 8.30 am I HAVE to leave by 5am otherwise I stand no chance.
> actually have to make sure I'm past J20 on the M62 no later than 7.30
> am otherwise I end up sitting in the most horrendous traffic crawling
> along.

Yes, you have illustrated my point perfectly. Speed limits and their
enforcement have had no effect on your journey time, or at least negligible
effect compared with traffic congestion. That is my experience as well.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Dave J wrote:

>>> It's not my personal convenience that counts, it's my perception of
>>> right and wrong.

>> And the fact that what you think is right just happens to be the
>> thing which gives you benefit at a cost to others is just
>> conicidence, right? Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

> No, I don't perceive added speed as implicitly wrong, I perceive
> dangerous driving as wrong.

Amazingly, there is a strong correlation between multiple speeding
convictions and crashing. Speeding is one of the things which dangerous
drivers do. Continuing to speed after the wake up call of a fixed penalty
fine is certainly a sign of someone who is not getting the hint.

> For total safety we would all drive at 5mph

For total safety we would not drive at all.

> above that speed it is
> added risk for reduced delay, a sliding scale.

A U-shaped curve, actually, such that by the time you're doing 15% or so
over the speed limit your risk of crashing has doubled.

> I see no reason I
> should pay attention to the position of someone *elses* dividing line,
> especially when a dividing line based on safety moves back and forth
> depending on road conditions.

Well, your lack of awareness of the exponential rise of risk when travelling
significantly above the limit indicates that your judgement on this may not
be entirely sound. Are you awre that the probability of fatality in a crash
rises with the fourth power of speed, by the way?

>>> Coincidentally, I don't break very many laws at all, but afaiac laws
>>> only count wrt the risk of getting captured by a sellout.

>> Er, what? A "sellout?" By which you mean what? A police officer?

> Got it. Someone who has sold themselves as a slave to the state and
> has signed away their freedom to decide right from wrong or to think
> for themselves except within proscribed limits.

Oh right. You want uk.politics.anarchy, it's over there. I am very glad I
don't live in an anarchist country myself. Apart from anything else, there
are laws which are there to protect me from myself and others, and plod to
enforce them.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Russ]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> No, I don't perceive added speed as implicitly wrong, I perceive
>> dangerous driving as wrong.

> Amazingly, there is a strong correlation between multiple speeding
> convictions and crashing. Speeding is one of the things which dangerous
> drivers do.

Clearly speeding is one of the things which dangerous drivers do. To jump
from there to all speeding drivers are driving dangerously is a step of
logic that takes extrapolation to the (unjustified) extreme which is what
you are seeking to imply without actually stating.

It's more likely to be something along the lines of "there is a strong
correlation between being so unobservant as to get repeatedly caught
speeding and being a poor enough driver to be involved in crashes"

However speed limits (and their enforcement) do us the favor of legislating
against these poor drivers and should therefore be supported. They also give
a decent guide to drivers of the sort of hazards to expect.

However I'm not sure I've ever made a complete journey in any car with any
driver in free traffic conditions and completely stayed within the speed
limit 100% of the time which just goes to show how speed limits as laws to
be obeyed absolutely and without question are percieved by the population in
general. To take a stance as such is I'm afraid akin to King Canute.

Russ

 

[Tony Raven]

"Dave J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There was a discussion I wanted to start earlier about the number of
> incompetent fools behind the wheel. I don't count myself as a
> brilliant driver but I am tolerably competent, as are the majority of
> road users. It is those who are driving at 35mph down a clear road
> because they feel that to be the fastest speed they are capable of
> that I object to.
>

Presumably you are anxious to get these motorist off the road so you can race
ahead and sit behind the next HGV travelling at the legal limit of 40mph for
single carriageway roads. I can't see it being an issue anywhere else as you
can pass them easily on dual carriageways and motorways.

Tony

 

[PeterE]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>
>>> The average journey time in the UK is 45 minutes, so saving an hour
>>> a day would require an unfeasibly large increase in average speeds.
>>> And of course what causes delay is not speed limits, but traffic
>>> jams. If only "they" would do something about all the traffic jams,
>>> eh?
>
>> In 1995 for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in Manchester
>> for 8.30am, I'd leave around 5.45-6am.
>> In 2004 for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in Manchester
>> for 8.30 am I HAVE to leave by 5am otherwise I stand no chance.
>> actually have to make sure I'm past J20 on the M62 no later than 7.30
>> am otherwise I end up sitting in the most horrendous traffic crawling
>> along.
>
> Yes, you have illustrated my point perfectly. Speed limits and their
> enforcement have had no effect on your journey time, or at least
> negligible effect compared with traffic congestion. That is my
> experience as well.

Er, while Conor is on the motorway he has no opportunity to exceed the speed
limit, even if the road is empty.

If he was limited to 40 on the motorway it undoubtedly would substantially
increase his journey time.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)