Driving Standards
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
That’s the day this whole thing dawned on me, that first motorway trip. Even google maps time of journey estimates are not based on speed limit but probably average actual speeds, leaving me always way behind estimated arrival time.
You need to get a faster car then.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
It's not a question of impatience though, at least not with me. It is a question of applying common sense and achieving a sensible compromise according to the conditions and circumstances of the area. If you are not in favour of banning cars from cities altogether, you are de facto accepting that some lives will be lost as a result of the vehicle use in populated areas you are condoning.
I would wager that if a survey was carried out amongst people who support blanket 20mph limits asking them if they would support the limit being lowered to 5 mph, a majority of them would deem it too slow and vote against it. Would you describe such people as being impatient? At the end of the day a 5 mph limit would save so many more lives than a 20 limit...
I'm not saying I'm unequivocally right about my belief that 30 mph limits are the best for some trunk roads in cities, but I don't think is fair to dismiss anyone questioning a certain speed limit for being too low as impatient, or (as I've seen from others in past discussions) reckless, selfish or uncaring.
Last edited:
mojo pixy
interesting times
I looked. The road was empty. The fact it's 3am is irrelevant, surely!
hash tag
Books, not bombs
No! And certainly not an Audi.
2hats
Dust.
A speed attainable by a reasonably fit adult when walking, let alone cycling, would be fairly pointless.
Not until all vehicles are zero emission it wouldn’t (traffic pollutants, which you’d be both increasing the output and linger time of, account for several times more deaths each year than traffic accidents).
Yet within a few years it will all be moot.
mojo pixy
interesting times
That is probably the single most reckless suggestion I have ever heard about road safety
Why? Passengers should get every safety feature possible. It's the driver who should have no seatbelt or airbag, then they might consider slowing the fuck down as a precaution.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Don't be daft. Drivers are often hit through no fault of their own and as Mauvais said, prior to about the mid-80s most cars were pretty unsafe places to be in the event of an accident and everyone still drove like twats.
Last edited:
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Yeah but it would save some lives wouldn't it? In any case the 5 mph suggestion is of course an extreme example. Would you support a 10 mph limit? And if not, how come? A 10 mph limit is about three times faster than a walking person, so still pretty useful and of course you can carry heavy loads, elderly passengers or indeed yourself if you have mobility issues. So why not force all motor vehicles to travel at such speeds in cities? It'd certainly save more lives.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Aside from the 'I'm so hard done by' liars who don't understand how the system works, I reckon that some don't even know what the limit was despite getting a NIP with it on, i.e. it's really for 42 in a 30 (SACs are offered for 35-42) but they think it's for 42 in a 40 cos they're a moron.
2hats
Dust.
You’ve ignored what I wrote.
mojo pixy
interesting times
Hit by whom? Other drivers, driving like idiots because they know they've got a seat belt and air bag to stop them dying if they crash. Take it away. There's always the option of not driving a car at all, if driving one slowly without seatbelt and airbag feels too dangerous.
mauvais
on reddit or something
What do you drive?
mojo pixy
interesting times
What? No, because seatbelts are obligatory. And I only have faith in the airbag, there's no knowing for sure it'll work when it has to.
I don't want anyone to die, what I want is for people to drive more safely just because it's an inherently dangerous thing to do. I think it feels less dangerous than it should because of all the safety features cars now have. If driving were made to feel more dangerous, say perhaps as dangerous as it is, people might take a bit more responsibility for their own safety rather than expecting car manufacturers to do it for them.
I don't want anyone to die, what I want is for people to drive more safely just because it's an inherently dangerous thing to do. I think it feels less dangerous than it should because of all the safety features cars now have. If driving were made to feel more dangerous, say perhaps as dangerous as it is, people might take a bit more responsibility for their own safety rather than expecting car manufacturers to do it for them.
mauvais
on reddit or something
As explained, it didn't work in past decades when cars were not only far more dangerous but obviously so - long before NVH reduction and infotainment, long before collapsible steering columns and crumple zones - so why do you believe it'll work now?
Seatbelts aren't mandatory. If you believe in your own logic then commit to it by driving a car from before 1972.
Also, there is no illusion of safety. Modern cars are genuinely safe, at least for their own belted occupants.
Seatbelts aren't mandatory. If you believe in your own logic then commit to it by driving a car from before 1972.
Also, there is no illusion of safety. Modern cars are genuinely safe, at least for their own belted occupants.
mojo pixy
interesting times
Seatbelts are mandatory in my car, and I don't want a 50-year-old rust bucket just to prove a point.
Obviously I don't know if cutting out safety features for drivers (but not passengers) would make drivers drive less recklessly, but if it doesn't then only drivers will suffer for it; and if drivers don't fancy that then other transport options are available for scaredy cats
Obviously I don't know if cutting out safety features for drivers (but not passengers) would make drivers drive less recklessly, but if it doesn't then only drivers will suffer for it; and if drivers don't fancy that then other transport options are available for scaredy cats
mojo pixy
interesting times
I'd gladly drive without the aforementioned safety features, because I drive safely.
Exactly my point. The people inside are safer than the people outside, the driver is arguably safest of all (most prepared, most observant, steering wheel in hand to brace against etc) and this is all the wrong way around IMO.
Exactly my point. The people inside are safer than the people outside, the driver is arguably safest of all (most prepared, most observant, steering wheel in hand to brace against etc) and this is all the wrong way around IMO.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I don't believe that you never make mistakes but even otherwise, do you think that means you'll never have an accident?
mojo pixy
interesting times
I have had accidents, once because I was too close behind someone (never do that again) and once because the car had a bad tyre that blew out, and I came off the road, over a ditch and ended in a field. I was lucky to survive and lucky not to hit anyone else.
I was glad in that case that I was wearing a seatbelt, it definitely safed my life - but who's to say I might not have driving a little slower, a little more carefully, if I hadn't been wearing one? I don't know. I might have hit a tree and died anyway, seatbelt or no seatbelt. The point is that (I believe) the feeling of safety and security behind the wheel - and the consensus seems to be this is real safety, not just the perception of safety - does make people behave more recklessly, that Nah it'll be fine feeling we all know. If we weren't wearing seatbelts in the driving seat, would we take those risks? Would we drive at that speed?
I think the safer we already feel at any given moment, the more likely we are to take risks at that moment, and the more risky the risks will be that we take. It's just an opinion, not a particularly controversial one, and I think it applies to driving as to any other risky thing that people do. More broadly I have a theory that more security exists everywhere around us the more H&S applies everywhere, all the time, the less mindful we gradually become about the risks that do exist and our approach to them.
tl;dr - the more protected we feel the less we look to protect ourselves.
I was glad in that case that I was wearing a seatbelt, it definitely safed my life - but who's to say I might not have driving a little slower, a little more carefully, if I hadn't been wearing one? I don't know. I might have hit a tree and died anyway, seatbelt or no seatbelt. The point is that (I believe) the feeling of safety and security behind the wheel - and the consensus seems to be this is real safety, not just the perception of safety - does make people behave more recklessly, that Nah it'll be fine feeling we all know. If we weren't wearing seatbelts in the driving seat, would we take those risks? Would we drive at that speed?
I think the safer we already feel at any given moment, the more likely we are to take risks at that moment, and the more risky the risks will be that we take. It's just an opinion, not a particularly controversial one, and I think it applies to driving as to any other risky thing that people do. More broadly I have a theory that more security exists everywhere around us the more H&S applies everywhere, all the time, the less mindful we gradually become about the risks that do exist and our approach to them.
tl;dr - the more protected we feel the less we look to protect ourselves.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
So imagine you'd been using a wide main 'A-road' in your town/ city for many years that had always had a 30 mph limit, and regularly drove at speeds not even near the limit but around 25-27 mph, which is very prudent for many if not most main thoroughfares.
If that road was overnight changed to a 20 mph limit, because, say, there was a local election and the winning party had made a pledge to introduce city-wide 20 mph limits, would that mean in your opinion that you and just about and everyone else had been driving at unsafe speeds for decades and that the new limit is actually the maximum acceptable speed limit? Or do you accept the possibility that sometimes exceeding the stated speed limit does not mean you"re driving at unsafe speeds?
hash tag
Books, not bombs
I tend to obey speed limits (or better) because I don't want to injure or kill anyone. Insurance and licence are secondary considerations.
bimble
floofy
I think (my great wisdom here as expert motorist) that some of the problem is due to the blanket imposition of 20mph like in Lambeth where i live. On many of these roads obviously 20 is right, or even less, because they are narrow and there's loads of pedestrians etc. Those roads usually have speed pumps as extra enforcement. But other bits there's big wide straight roads with just a long park railing one side and no shops etc at all and I get why people become frustrated and judge for themselves that going over 20 is safe. So they overtake trundling 20mphers and that then does sometimes get dangerous.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
There are loads of roads like this. The start of the Camden Road is a 3 lane carriageway that has no business whatsoever having a 20 limit and of course they put a camera on it which must have raised a fortune. I think that’s changed now after uproar from motorist groups, the camera has certainly gone, but there are plenty of others.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
So what some people are saying is that the speed limits don't apply to them in some circumstances but thats ok because they are really good drivers. 
cupid_stunt
Where's the bloody sun?
Blanket imposition of 20mph is crazy, around here there's proposals for 20mph on residential streets, but not the 'prime routes' across the town.
Similar threads
