Driving Standards

[Teaboy]

I actually don't have an issue with blanket 20mph zones although I agree some really are not necessary. What pisses me off is as someone who abides by them (I really only drive for work and I'm fucked if I'm getting a speeding ticket on work time) is that I will always have other drivers crawling all over the rear of my car. In general I'd say 20mph zones are ignored and unenforced anyway.

 

[George & Bill]

there is a stack of evidence that blanket 20s simply DON’T WORK regardless of the mode of transport and can even create a more dangerous environment.

Genuinely curious to know more about the items that comprise this stack you refer to...

 

[T & P]

I actually don't have an issue with blanket 20mph zones although I agree some really are not necessary. What pisses me off is as someone who abides by them (I really only drive for work and I'm fucked if I'm getting a speeding ticket on work time) is that I will always have other drivers crawling all over the rear of my car. In general I'd say 20mph zones are ignored and unenforced anyway.

.
What to do though? i’m wondering what the supporters of blanket 20 mph zones and advocates of strict adherence of the law at all times think we should do about enforcement. Because IME even those very few drivers who are clearly acknowledging the 20 mph limit on main thoroughfares by going much slower than everyone else are still spiking to 22-24 mph regularly

I can honestly say I have only seen seen one instance in my entire life of someone actually sticking to the limit on a main road throughout the entire time they were within my sight.. And I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the posters here who say they never go over the limit actually do with regularly, even if inadvertently. So what should we set speed cameras to trigger at? 21? 24? 27?

 

[George & Bill]

.
What to do though? i’m wondering what the supporters of blanket 20 mph zones and advocates of strict adherence of the law at all times think we should do about enforcement. Because IME even those very few drivers who are clearly acknowledging the 20 mph limit on main thoroughfares by going much slower than everyone else are still spiking to 22-24 mph regularly

I can honestly say I have only seen seen one instance in my entire life of someone actually sticking to the limit on a main road throughout the entire time they were within my sight.. And I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the posters here who say they never go over the limit actually do with regularly, even if inadvertently. So what should we set speed cameras to trigger at? 21? 24? 27?

It doesn't seem like something beyond human intelligence to come up with a fair enforcement program. I'd suggest some combination of:

- An information campaign to give people fair warning that the speed limits will be enforced
- People who go, say, over 30 in a 20 to be consistently fined in the normal way
- People caught between 22 and 30 to be subject to a progressive system: first a warning letter, then a small fine, then a full fine for the third offence

 

[George & Bill]

Aside from the reduction in injuries and deaths, cars being kept to 20 in urban areas would mean less noise, a friendlier environment for people to move around in, and the ability for parents to let their kids be more independent from an earlier age.

 

[bimble]

Does it seem likely to anyone else that in a shortish time cars will just come with some sort of inbuilt sensor that knows the speed limit of where you’re driving and limits you accordingly?

 

[George & Bill]

Does it seem likely to anyone else that in a shortish time cars will just come with some sort of inbuilt sensor that knows the speed limit of where you’re driving and limits you accordingly?

I think there's a strong argument that the human-operated car will be gone within the lifetimes of people alive today. A natural knock-on effect seems likely to be a hastened downturn in personal car ownership in general – services like Uber will become much cheaper once they don't need a human driver, and car ownership will become the domain of people who regularly travel to scarcely-populated areas.

 

[bimble]

Well yes but long before that happens, I reckon it’s possible cars will just adhere to speed limits, even whilst there’s still humans putting their foot down inside them.

 

[George & Bill]

Of course, there are lots of variables that could affect this process. On one hand, if strong evidence emerges early on that self-driving cars are dramatically safer than human-driven ones, a case could quickly mount for the latter being phased out. On the other, even a few deaths caused by a new technology that people are naturally wary of could seriously set it back or even kill it off.

 

[George & Bill]

Well yes but long before that happens, I reckon it’s possible cars will just adhere to speed limits, even whilst there’s still humans putting their foot down inside them.

I agree. And concerns about privacy and surveillance, which I do think are valid, will nonetheless hold less weight in the context of all the other ways in which we're increasingly watched over :/

 

[mauvais]

It doesn't seem like something beyond human intelligence to come up with a fair enforcement program. I'd suggest some combination of:

- An information campaign to give people fair warning that the speed limits will be enforced
- People who go, say, over 30 in a 20 to be consistently fined in the normal way
- People caught between 22 and 30 to be subject to a progressive system: first a warning letter, then a small fine, then a full fine for the third offence

Great, but who or what is going to enforce this?

Of course, there are lots of variables that could affect this process. On one hand, if strong evidence emerges early on that self-driving cars are dramatically safer than human-driven ones, a case could quickly mount for the latter being phased out. On the other, even a few deaths caused by a new technology that people are naturally wary of could seriously set it back or even kill it off.

You're behind on this - they've already done millions of miles, and have an apparently better safety record, but they've also killed several people (Uber x1, Tesla x2 at least) with consequences ongoing.

Does it seem likely to anyone else that in a shortish time cars will just come with some sort of inbuilt sensor that knows the speed limit of where you’re driving and limits you accordingly?

No, because although not enormously difficult, it would require massive infrastructure and given the rise of autonomous vehicles, would soon become irrelevant. Plus what problem would it solve exactly? Road casualties where excessive speed was a primary factor are fairly rare, and the sum total of all road casualties (~1700 dead each year) is arguably not amongst the nation's priorities.

 

[bimble]

Road casualties where excessive speed was a primary factor are fairly rare, and the sum total of all road casualties (~1700 dead each year) is arguably not amongst the nation's priorities.

Really? I haven't got much of a clue but if asked to guess primary factor in road casualties I would have guessed speed. The rest of it true, and the nation's priorities are increasingly a total mystery to me anyway.

 

[mauvais]

Really? I haven't got much of a clue but if asked to guess primary factor in road casualties I would have guessed speed. The rest of it true, and the nation's priorities are increasingly a total mystery to me anyway.

Excessive speed as a primary factor would mean that, had the people in question been traveling either at the speed limit or at the appropriate speed for the conditions, the accident wouldn't have happened or its consequences would have been less severe.

That's distinctly separate from, 'if the speed limit was reduced'.

For passenger vehicles (cars), which make up about half of deaths, in practice it means things like, 'went too fast for a bend and crashed through a wall', or other loss of control accidents. Similar for motorbikes. For other road users where another vehicle is involved, it's more complicated.

The government report has 'injudicious action' as the primary cause in about 30% of cases. However this includes other things like tailgating.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjALegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2I48fL5DYq6Twea7jFVZj4

For all this talk about 20 limits, we're talking about 20 deaths a year in these zones.

 

[George & Bill]

Great, but who or what is going to enforce this?

The same people who currently enforce speed limits on some but not all roads?

You're behind on this - they've already done millions of miles, and have an apparently better safety record, but they've also killed several people (Uber x1, Tesla x2 at least) with consequences ongoing.

Sure, I know – and as you say, testing so far does show they're much safer. But the deaths so far can be seen by the public as freak occurrences associated with a technology still at the testing phase. It remains to be seen how people would respond to a larger number of casualties, even if it's clear that that number represents a reduction in comparison to human-operated cars.

Road casualties where excessive speed was a primary factor are fairly rare, and the sum total of all road casualties (~1700 dead each year) is arguably not amongst the nation's priorities.

Several problems with this. First, speed doesn't have to be the primary factor for it to be a significant factor. Second, I'm not in the least bit happy about 1700 people dying each year if that is in any way preventable. Third, the number of deaths is only the tip of the iceberg: many times more are seriously injured; the danger of road accidents is likely to discourage parents from letting their kids play outsider or walk/cycle to school etc, and health problems associated with sedentary lifestyles are another major problem.

 

[existentialist]

Well yes but long before that happens, I reckon it’s possible cars will just adhere to speed limits, even whilst there’s still humans putting their foot down inside them.

I think I'd much prefer the auto equivalent of the "stick shaker" on aircraft - that there is some kind of warning that is given when you are driving above the local limit, but you still have the autonomy to do so. There are situations where it could potentially be dangerous to suddenly have the vehicle decide it's not going to do what you want it to do.

I think a more likely occurrence will be the increasing use of "black boxes", allowing insurers (and potentially police) to determine whether and when you were driving unsafely. That still gives the motorist the autonomy and choice to drive like a dick, but gives authorities the option to detect and deal with it.

I do like the idea of a graduated/cumulative warning system, though. I think rigid enforcement of often quite arbitrary speed limits isn't a particularly good approach, psychologically, while a system whereby the occasional infraction was noticed but tolerated, until it started happening too often (or was too severe to tolerate), at which point some kind of consequence should kick in, would be far more likely to achieve better voluntary compliance.

 

[BigTom]

Does it seem likely to anyone else that in a shortish time cars will just come with some sort of inbuilt sensor that knows the speed limit of where you’re driving and limits you accordingly?

GPS is not consistently accurate enough to allow this to happen, it would need sensors that would take you so close to the point of automated vehicles you may as well just have automated vehicles.

I would like to see black boxes with dash cams and telemetry being sent to police, who could then act accordingly.
If someone is consistently driving at 22-24mph in 20 limits they can be warned and then fine/points of no behaviour change, but the occasional drift over 20 isn't punished.

Larger infractions can be dealt with individually, and the cameras are there for evidence in the edge cases where breaking the speed limit was the right thing to do or if the gps is acting up and thinks you are on a different road to where you were, to avoid the issue of machines not taking circumstance into account.

 

[existentialist]

Several problems with this. First, speed doesn't have to be the primary factor for it to be a significant factor. Second, I'm not in the least bit happy about 1700 people dying each year if that is in any way preventable. Third, the number of deaths is only the tip of the iceberg: many times more are seriously injured; the danger of road accidents is likely to discourage parents from letting their kids play outsider or walk/cycle to school etc, and health problems associated with sedentary lifestyles are another major problem.

I think the biggest problem with speed has been the excessive focus on it. Whether or not it's the main, sole, or aggravating factor in a majority of collisions, it's not the only one, and yet we seem to have arrived at a situation where drivers are likely to be focused on their speed almost to the exclusion of all else. I've spoken to people who genuinely believe that their inattentive driving is irrelevant so long as they are driving below the speed limit - it's almost as if they think that nothing can go wrong provided they don't go faster than the sign says.

Which is scary, for two main reasons. First of all, and having been the passenger of one or two of these, it's clear to me that there's a lot more about driving safely than speed. One in particular seemed determined to tailgate anything they could, and I remember getting out of the car with my brake leg aching from unconsciously trying to make the car drop back - and when I (somewhat bravely) commented on it, his reaction was "Why? I wasn't going too fast.". Someone else had a habit of pulling out of side turnings alarmingly close to approaching traffic, and justified this by insisting that the other driver was "going too fast", as if that was going to trump the laws of physics. Both of those drivers, incidentally, have had >1 accident in the last 10 years, but obviously none of those were their fault, so that's OK, then.

The other thing is the emphasis it puts on speed for drivers, and especially inexperienced ones. If you know your car, and you're reasonably experienced, you have a pretty good sense (±10% ) of how fast you're going. If you don't, then you're likely to be doing a lot of squinting at your speedo as you go along, especially in places where there are speed cameras. And guess where they put speed cameras? Yep, accident blackspots, where perhaps rather MORE attention on the road would be beneficial.

I don't have anything against enforcement of the law in general, but I think that how it is done is important, and I am really not convinced that scattering highly visible speed cameras around the place is a good way to enforce often quite arbitrary limits. Pain that they are, I think the average speed cameras work better, because they encourages a more continuous awareness and conservative approach to speed, though I still think that the psychological pressure of not crossing that hard-and-fast x mph line is a powerful distraction from all of the other things we should be paying attention to.

I've spent the last week doing about 1000 miles in a vehicle whose performance meant that I rarely needed to worry about speed - the combination of 3½ tons and a very clattery diesel engine means that 30mph feels like 50 , and its acceleration is sufficiently poor that it demands a completely different approach to driving, especially on motorways. One of the things that I think too few motorists do is to "read" the road ahead - to see what's going on not just for the vehicle in front, but further ahead than that. Granted, a nice high driving position helps a lot there, but you do see a lot of sudden braking as people fail to anticipate changes in the traffic flow, and that is not only potentially dangerous, but creates holdups and impedes the flow of traffic. We could be doing a lot more to train drivers in these skills, but we don't really take that very seriously - it all becomes all about not going too fast, and precious little else. Where are the "tailgating" cameras, or the "driving 2 miles with an empty lane to your left" cameras, for example? I'd quite like to see gantry signs that said "XX99 XXX, you are tailgating" once or twice, before saying "XX99 XXX, tailgating NIP in the post". With the added benefit of public shaming of the offender

 

[hash tag]

I note that people are only referring to speed limits when breaking the law but there are of course, many other issues like wearing seat belts, use of mobile phones, siting of mobile phones, not to mention tints or dodgy number plates or exhausts.

Ignoring those, if waiting at traffic lights, who would not automatically move if an ambulance or fire engine with a blue light approached. It is of course illegal to cross the line At a traffic lnless specifically instructed To do so by a police officer.

 

[existentialist]

I note that people are only referring to speed limits when breaking the law but there are of course, many other issues like wearing seat belts, use of mobile phones, siting of mobile phones, not to mention tints or dodgy number plates or exhausts.

Ignoring those, if waiting at traffic lights, who would not automatically move if an ambulance or fire engine with a blue light approached. It is of course illegal to cross the line At a traffic lnless specifically instructed To do so by a police officer.

Yep. And I've seen quite a few situations where exactly that has happened - fire engine/ambulance coming through the traffic, only to get stuck behind someone who wouldn't cross the line even just to get over to the side a bit more. Although it's not the only reason it happens, I think a large part of that is the fostering of a black-and-white punitive approach to driving "transgressions".

 

[George & Bill]

I think the biggest problem with speed has been the excessive focus on it. Whether or not it's the main, sole, or aggravating factor in a majority of collisions, it's not the only one, and yet we seem to have arrived at a situation where drivers are likely to be focused on their speed almost to the exclusion of all else.

Well that is just obviously not true. Speed is one thing that gets a lot of attention because it's easy to quantify. But there are also others that are very prominent and topical: texting and drugs and alcohol are two obvious ones. Overall, we'd have less need to go on about it if there were not so many people going around with the sense that they're generally entitled to endanger people through their driving.

 

[bimble]

Was pulling out of my spot earlier (narrow residential street with cars parked both sides) and some twat come zooming down at I don't know what speed. Just pure luck i think that I hadn't edged out a tiny bit further. I'm getting the hang of cursing people whilst driving.

 

[existentialist]

Well that is just obviously not true. Speed is one thing that gets a lot of attention because it's easy to quantify. But there are also others that are very prominent and topical: texting and drugs and alcohol are two obvious ones. Overall, we'd have less need to go on about it if there were not so many people going around with the sense that they're generally entitled to endanger people through their driving.

Most people will be aware that those other things are external to actually driving. You're not nearly so likely to accidentally get stoned while driving as you are to accidentally go too fast, and the same goes for texting. Driving faster than the speed limit, like tailgating, cutting people up, hogging the middle lane, etc., are all things people can do as an intrinsic part of their driving behaviour. Yet we only really focus on the speed thing, probably because it's technologically easier and cheaper to enforce.

 

[existentialist]

Was pulling out of my spot earlier (narrow residential street with cars parked both sides) and some twat come zooming down at I don't know what speed. Just pure luck i think that I hadn't edged out a tiny bit further. I'm getting the hang of cursing people whilst driving.

I developed a good cursing-people-while-driving habit, then began to wonder if that was such a great thing. My stepdaughter has elevated it to something of a driverage state, and I think it's very distracting. So I've worked hard on going the other way, and being very pragmatic about the appalling failings of everyone else on the road, bar me

 

[2hats]

But there are also others ... Overall, we'd have less need to go on about it if there were not so many people going around with the sense that they're generally entitled to endanger people through their driving.

Consequent air pollution directly arising from motor transport being another, which accounts for something like 20 times (or more) deaths than (kinetic) road traffic accidents annually.

 

[mojo pixy]

Heart attacks and strokes from driving-related stress? I reckon for a lot of people who commute by car or use one to do a school run, driving constitutes a major source of blood-pressure spiking.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Most people will be aware that those other things are external to actually driving. You're not nearly so likely to accidentally get stoned while driving as you are to accidentally go too fast, and the same goes for texting. Driving faster than the speed limit, like tailgating, cutting people up, hogging the middle lane, etc., are all things people can do as an intrinsic part of their driving behaviour. Yet we only really focus on the speed thing, probably because it's technologically easier and cheaper to enforce.

Unfortunately, too many people seem to be stuck on the 'speed kills' bandwagon. I regularly see people texting and updating their Facebook status whilst driving, and it's far more dangerous than speeding.
I ride motorbikes, and I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been taken out by someone texting whilst driving. Just a couple of weeks ago a girl pulled out directly into my path from a side road, then stopped in the middle of my lane when she finally saw me. I had to stand the bike on its nose to stop before hitting her, and I was literally 6 inches from her door when I stopped, and I watched as she threw her phone onto the passenger seat. I got off the bike and knocked on her window, which she lowered a couple of inches, and I asked her whether or not she would have admitted she was using her phone if I'd crashed into her. She lost the plot and started screaming at me, saying she wasn't using her phone, and I should mind my own fucking business.
I couldn't give a rat's arse if someone goes a couple of mph over the speed limit, but someone texting is another matter. They're far more likely to cause an accident, but next to nothing is being done to stop it.

 

[existentialist]

Unfortunately, too many people seem to be stuck on the 'speed kills' bandwagon. I regularly see people texting and updating their Facebook status whilst driving, and it's far more dangerous than speeding.
I ride motorbikes, and I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been taken out by someone texting whilst driving. Just a couple of weeks ago a girl pulled out directly into my path from a side road, then stopped in the middle of my lane when she finally saw me. I had to stand the bike on its nose to stop before hitting her, and I was literally 6 inches from her door when I stopped, and I watched as she threw her phone onto the passenger seat. I got off the bike and knocked on her window, which she lowered a couple of inches, and I asked her whether or not she would have admitted she was using her phone if I'd crashed into her. She lost the plot and started screaming at me, saying she wasn't using her phone, and I should mind my own fucking business.
I couldn't give a rat's arse if someone goes a couple of mph over the speed limit, but someone texting is another matter. They're far more likely to cause an accident, but next to nothing is being done to stop it.

I agree, but what do you think could be done to stop it? There have been several very well-reported cases where people have been prosecuted for using their mobiles and causing accidents, and it appears quite straightforward to get the evidence to prove that's what happened, but I wonder what can be done in terms of prevention. I'm aware that the whole profile of drink driving changed, not least because of a very effective campaign, in the late 70s/early 80s, to the point that anyone boasting about it as they used to risked serious pariah status. I guess something similar needs to happen with texting/facebooking to make a real difference.

I wonder what would have happened if you'd made a call to the police giving the exact time of the incident - would they, I wonder, have checked it out and found that texts were being sent from the driver's phone at around that time, or do they only do that kind of followup after an accident has happened?

 

[Looby]

I’ve reported someone once for using their phone. I felt like a bit of a cunt doing it but she was veering all over the road and nearly caused at least two accidents when I was behind her.

I see so many people clearly on their phones every day, I don’t get it.

 

[existentialist]

I’ve reported someone once for using their phone. I felt like a bit of a cunt doing it but she was veering all over the road and nearly caused at least two accidents when I was behind her.

I see so many people clearly on their phones every day, I don’t get it.

Temptation. "Ach, it's only a quick call/text/Facebook update".

There's that hoary old stat that says 95% of drivers think they're above average standard. The corollary of that is probably that a lot of that 95% believe that they're good enough that they, unlike all those inferior drivers, can drive safely and text.

I did it once. Even though I'm not really one of the 95%, I was quite horrified at just how much of a distraction it was. I do occasionally start and stop a podcast while underway, but even that simple task is pretty distracting to the point that you wouldn't want to do it except on a clear straight road with no traffic nearby. The idea of squinting at a phone screen while composing a message...well, anyone who wasn't 100% sure of their ability to safely drive a car while spending seconds at a time not watching the road ahead would be fucked. It's lucky there's so many above-average drivers out there

 

[Saul Goodman]

I agree, but what do you think could be done to stop it? There have been several very well-reported cases where people have been prosecuted for using their mobiles and causing accidents, and it appears quite straightforward to get the evidence to prove that's what happened, but I wonder what can be done in terms of prevention. I'm aware that the whole profile of drink driving changed, not least because of a very effective campaign, in the late 70s/early 80s, to the point that anyone boasting about it as they used to risked serious pariah status. I guess something similar needs to happen with texting/facebooking to make a real difference.

I wonder what would have happened if you'd made a call to the police giving the exact time of the incident - would they, I wonder, have checked it out and found that texts were being sent from the driver's phone at around that time, or do they only do that kind of followup after an accident has happened?

I doubt this would cost the taxpayer very much, and it would be very effective. Just send a few cops out on bikes with cameras.



But the penalty for texting whilst driving needs to be increased to a more fitting level, similar to that of drink driving, because it's every bit as dangerous.

I’ve reported someone once for using their phone. I felt like a bit of a cunt doing it but she was veering all over the road and nearly caused at least two accidents when I was behind her.

I see so many people clearly on their phones every day, I don’t get it.

I don't think there's anything the cops could do without video evidence.
I see it every single day, and it's endemic amongst younger people. It's almost as if the world would end if they went more than 10 minutes without typing "OMG hon! U OK?"