Baronage-Phase
Well-Known Member
Human error and distraction are the biggest killers of road users.
Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Human error and distraction are the biggest killers of road users.
Baronage-Phase
Well-Known Member
Since when do we have to stick to replying to only one post?
2hats
Dust.
Few motorways have blind summits. Perhaps cresting some bridges (but doubtful, especially if driving within the posted limits).
I'd say a head on impact is far worse.
Not mutually exclusive with speed. DoT data underlines that there is "no single underlying factor that drives road casualties".
weltweit
Well-Known Member
It should be overridable - but speed limit indication and some sort of cruise control is fine. Sometimes you find yourself in a situation where it is safer to get away from a car or group of cars by speeding up a bit. Also sometimes Sat Nav type indicators get things wrong, imagine being limited to 30 when trying to merge with vehicles travelling at 70, sometimes you must be able to override.
2hats
Dust.
I find slowing down a bit, or taking a different route provide for at the least the same outcome. Exponentially increasing kinetic energy never improves safety.
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
Really? Never Knew horses were on roads!
Passing horses my clutch goes in on bike and car as not to spook them. I hold up traffic if I don't think it's a 100% safe to pass a cyclist. I've been pushed into kerbs when on my pushbike. As for mopeds, they can fuck off. I'm done now.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Sometimes taking a different route isn't an option, if there are cars that are driving too close to me and there is a gap in front I sometimes move forwards into that gap. I do also slow down if I am approaching vehicles ahead.
What bothers me about this initiative is that we could end up with queues of cars all travelling at exactly 70mph on the motorway, close to one another and relaxing their concentration because they are driving at the limit set by their vehicles. There will of course still be HGVs and the like.
At the moment there are vehicles going around 50 to others doing 70 and others perhaps as much as 85. Everyone has to keep their wits around them, as they should.
editor
hiraethified
But what other kind of error can there be but 'human error'? And wouldn't that vague description include mistakes made while travelling too fast?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is a powerful advert
editor
hiraethified
You really think that's going to happen?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Yes, I think it is quite likely. People are giving up one of the controls of their vehicles, they could easily relax their guard and lose concentration.
When I have used cruise control it has had a relaxing effect.
I suspect, although I may be corrected, that "human error" only refers to the humans involved in the accident directly. Manufacturer and mechanical errors probably are excluded from Lupa's claim.
I'll confess that I haven't read the whole of this thread. Has the emissions factor been mentioned at all, either for particulate or CO2, and their relation to speed and public health?
Cid
Proper break this time
Yeah, I do find most of the examples people give seem to involve ill-advised overtaking and the like.
Mind you, I can think of a couple of times where I've just wanted to get away from a car that's driving really badly. But vanishingly rare, and plenty of time to work out what to do... And probably better solutions than overtaking.
mauvais
on reddit or something
There's nothing wrong with overtaking, but it's one of the most difficult and potentially dangerous things you can legally do in a car on a public road.
I certainly consider the speed limit when planning an overtake (including whether it's worthwhile or not), but once it's on and I'm committed, the last thing I care about is compliance. I'm going to get it done as quickly as possible to reduce time exposed to danger. This is one example of why I think 'never' is wrong.
I certainly consider the speed limit when planning an overtake (including whether it's worthwhile or not), but once it's on and I'm committed, the last thing I care about is compliance. I'm going to get it done as quickly as possible to reduce time exposed to danger. This is one example of why I think 'never' is wrong.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Yes it has. But how much more or less pollution overall might be generated nobody seems to know. Much of the pollution caused by cars happens during the first couple of miles before the engine warms up. Urban driving with frequent stop-starts produces far more pollution than a steady cruise.
So as far as a hypothetical increase to 80 on mways goes, and given than many vehicles would not travel faster regardless, the net increase of the pollution grand total levels would be very small indeed. And the speed increase was couple with reductions elsewhere and with the natural reductions overall enforced by the limiters, the grand total pollution levels would almost certainly go down.
Can I ask what this is based on?
2hats
Dust.
Then that car that was too close behind typically closes back in on you.
We already have that. Besides which any limiters are naturally going to have a spread of settings about (eg) 70, so all will be moving at slightly different speeds (even if some of the drivers decide to drive a little below the limit, which some will).
Yet many demonstrably don't. This, more so than speed, is why I stay alert.
There's no need to overtake where it involves exceeding the speed limit. Overtake significantly slower vehicles at appropriate junctures, sure. But only a hard-of-thinking, self-obsessed, inadequate would feel the need to overtake vehicles already travelling at >=0.9 of the prevailing limit on a single carriageway.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I have to choose one of those routes due to not having the choice, but it’s not *always* the optimal one.
Not that it happens often.
mauvais
on reddit or something
I don't know about 90%, it's probably marginal, but it wouldn't take much less before you failed an advanced driving test for not overtaking where safe to do so.
I would at least consider overtaking someone doing 54 in a 60, so you can apply your labels all you like
2hats
Dust.
A car journey will always be suboptimal.
The case for speed limiters continues to be made.I don't know about 90%, it's probably marginal, but it wouldn't take much less before you failed an advanced driving test for not overtaking where safe to do so.
I would at least consider overtaking someone doing 54 in a 60, so you can apply your labels all you like
Baronage-Phase
Well-Known Member
Mechanical error?
Speed can lead to loss of control.... in certain circumstances. Especially if there are poor conditions....
There are many causes of distraction. Speed is not exactly a distraction. It is deliberate in most cases and can be classified as a driver behaviour.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Well, facts and logic. I don't claim to be able to offer figures, but a percentage of all motor vehicles on the road are not capable of reaching 70 mph, let alone 80 (most small engine scooters for instance). Others are not legally allowed or are limited already. That includes coaches, lorries, and many commercial and fleet vehicles. Other vehicles will mostly be used on non mways simply because their owners don't live near them and rarely use their car for longer trips.
And then of the remaining vehicles that use mways and are capable and allowed to to travel at 70, by no means all do. I know plenty of drivers who feel most comfortable traveling at 60-65 tops and don't have any interest to hit 70, let alone 80.
So once you take out of the combined vehicle pool in the UK the percentage that cannot hit anywhere near 80, those that aren't allowed on mways, the countless lorries and commercial vehicles that are limited to or banned from anything higher than 50 or 60, the cars that rarely or never set foot on a mway anyway, and the many drivers (and there are lots) who don't like to travel faster than 60-65, the percentage left that can or will take advantage of a motorway speed increase will be not significant at all.
mauvais
on reddit or something
As does this particular flavour of dogma.
I consider myself reasonably qualified to make assessments about safety of choices when driving - not perfectly so, but reasonably. Whether or not anyone else agrees with that is entirely up to them, but they would probably need to know something about my driving history before making a call on it.
In that vein, what driver training have you had?
neonwilderness
What would Badgers do?
There's a few bits of dual carriageways round here that have frequent short slip roads. A lot of people don't bother to match the speed of the main carriageway and just pull on at whatever leisurely pace they like, causing others to either brake or change lanes to avoid them.
These are on 50mph limits (with the traffic often going slower than this), so there's no need to "tank it" either.
Drivers need to be more aware of what's going on around them and how their driving affects others.
2hats
Dust.
I hold a UK driving license. But that nor your level of experience (which I'm neither questioning nor am interested in) isn't relevant to the point at hand.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fuck 'em. Stick a plastic body kit to your car and you deserve to be tasered while standing in a pool of meths.
mauvais
on reddit or something
There are three fundamental ways to improve road safety:
(1) the physical environment - safer cars, safer road engineering, ultimately more autonomous systems
(2) the legal environment - more restrictions, more delegation to authority, greater punishments
(3) the road user - education, responsibility & accountability
The proposed form of speed limiters combined with speed limits makes them mostly (2), a tiny bit of (1).
(2) & (3) are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they are at least in a degree of conflict. Until autonomous vehicles remove the human element, a successful (3) would be better than (2), for reasons that should be obvious. To get people to a point where they continuously make informed, honest judgments about their driving is the aim of a number of organisations. However it is extremely difficult to do en masse, we as a society have mostly given up on it, and so we settle for (2). This doesn't render (3) impossible or worthless.
Because of the above, I take the view that it is better to perform some action - which could include breaking the law - having assessed it to be safe, than it is to passively follow something (another vehicle, the law) not knowing or considering whether what you're doing is safe or not. In the context of the discussion, this means I feel it's better to be at a level of competence where you can make a judgement on the safety of e.g. overtaking and indeed breaking the speed limit than it is to have that choice removed or delegated away, again at least until robots take over. For avoidance of doubt, this doesn't mean I think the average person is at that level.
My experience is relevant to this, because I've learnt that it is possible to reach that point on an individual basis, even if it's not scalable. It does not, as you claimed, 'make the case for speed limiters', because I doubt you knew what the basis for it was.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
What exactly counts as an ‘optimal’ journey, if anything?
Similar threads
