The post that was quoted here has been removedI know what you mean. The people who slow down to 3 miles per hour when they want to make a turn. 😠 Those are the kinds of people who cause accidents, but I really don't understand it cause I have lots of older friends and they don't drive like that. In fact, some of them are power sliding around the corners. 😵
The post that was quoted here has been removedi've a flatmate whose mother has been stopped for slowing. twice.
personally i agree with nordlys-speeding is silly. you use more fuel and you save 5 maybe 10 minutes? and then there is the whole added risk of, you know, crashing. you have less time to repond to anything that happens around you, your braking distance is longer and if you do hit anything the results are worse. and it's not just you is endangered, but those around you.
However, what irritates me more than people driving fast is people driving fast and stupidly. i was in my grilfriends car the other day when we were stuck behind a tractor going not too little under the speed limit and another two cars. so, in total, there were 3 cars and a tractor in front of the stupid rich middle-aged man in the new BMW that overtook the procession. but it's okay-the tractor caught up with him at the next roundabout...
The post that was quoted here has been removedi agree that some roads should have a greater speed limit, yes. but not all.
i do not, however, agree that it is "not speed that kills but bad driving". (i do though agree that both speed does not necessarily equal bad driving and that driving fast is fun. but that does not make it right or acceptable.) if the speed limit was 15 mph everywhere-towns, motorways, country lanes and even outside schools then very very few people would die. bad driving would not be a problem.
if you are going at 40 though a 30 zone and a guy nips out in front of you because he thinks your going at 30 and you both collide, whose fault is it? i mean, he thinks he has more time that he has-if you had been going at 30 he would have had time to pull out.
speed kills. bad driving kills. a combination of the two kill even more.
plus, accidents happen...
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by geniusDepends on a lot of factors really. But to show why people spead, I drive about 40,000 miles a year, mostly on motorways. If I stick to UK speed limits on all roads my average speed is around 37mph when you take into account all the traffic and congestion once you get into town. If I drive on motorways at 95mph my overall average goes up to around 52mph which over 40,000 miles means I spend weeks less in the car over a year.
i've a flatmate whose mother has been stopped for slowing. twice.
personally i agree with nordlys-speeding is silly. you use more fuel and you save 5 maybe 10 minutes? and then there is the whole added risk of, you know, crashing. you have less time to repond to anything that happens around you, your braking distance is longer and if you do hit anything th ...[text shortened]... ertook the procession. but it's okay-the tractor caught up with him at the next roundabout...
The petrol cost is far out weighed by the far greater time I get to spend with my family. The chances of me getting caught for speeding on a motorway in the UK are minimal as long as I respect average speed cameras in roadworks. I won't drive over 100mph as it is an instant ban if I were to get caught - 3 points is not much of a deterent if you have a clean license.
My car is designed to drive at these speeds on German autobarns so its far safer at 95 than a lot of smaller cars doing 70, and would hold up a lot better in a crash at 95 than say a little Kia at 70. Your breaking distance is a large as the gap you leave between you and the car in front, road awearness in a car is as much a product of driving experience and using you mirrors than sticking to the speed limit.
In your example, was the guy stupid because it was a dangerous manouver i.e. around a blind bend, the brow of a hill, car coming the other way, road markings prohibited overtaking, or was it because he had a car fast enough to overtake and you did not like that? If the BMW had enough room to overtake from 4 cars back why were the other cars not over taking the tractor first? On a lot of single carriage roads there are only a few places where it is safe to overtake, if the cars in front are not going to use a safe overtaking spot then do other cars just have to sit behind them for mile after mile?
The biggest cause of accidents I see on roads is frustration with other road users not simply speed. Frustration leads to undertaking on motorways when drivers sit at 70 in the fast or middle lane for when the middle, slow lane is empty. Lorries over taking Lorries up hill for mile after mile, endless roadworks, congestion and many other factors out there that make people take risks. Its these risks that cause people to crash not the speed.
The post that was quoted here has been removedVery true, tailgaters are dangerous but if you get out of their way, they do give you a bit of head, they will be trying to plow into the next car in line and so by definition will give you more room. At least till the next idiot comes along. That said, there is also a lot to be said for having a CB tuned to channel 19, the truckers channel.
On the interstate, at least in the USA, the truckers keep an eye out for the cops, they sit higher off the streets than regular cars and vans and so can see them first and they usually give a cop alert on the radio. Just another tool to use. Radar and laser detectors are not always very reliable, and one trick I heard about is in the states where they are illegal, the cops will wait till a car passes by, then shoot him with the beam and usually the detector does not discriminate very well between beams coming at you from the front v the back so your detedtor goes off, so your immediate reaction is to hit the brakes. The cops know full well there was a cause and effect relationship between them sending a quick beam and your braking because they are in back and can see your taillights, so they trap you that way, and you don't get a speeding ticket but a ticket for merely possesing a detector. I thought of a way around that one though, a detect and you hit the brakes, but the detector is wired into the brake light circuit and delays the lights coming on, that might throw off the cops.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by geniusyou should not enter another road unless it is safe to do so, by pulling out you have caused the crash regardless of the other cars speed. It is highly unlikey that you would be able to prove the car was going 40 rather than 30 anyway so you would have to take the blame.
i agree that some roads should have a greater speed limit, yes. but not all.
i do not, however, agree that it is "not speed that kills but bad driving". (i do though agree that both speed does not necessarily equal bad driving and that driving fast is fun. but that does not make it right or acceptable.) if the speed limit was 15 mph everywhere-towns ...[text shortened]... ills. bad driving kills. a combination of the two kill even more.
plus, accidents happen...
If it was say 60 in a 30 that should cause the other car to lock up under breaking enough for the police to measure and analyse the skid marks and charge the driver with dangerous driving which caused the crash, so you would probably get away with the blame.
i personally have no issue with cars being forced to 15 in residential streets, but I think you have to look at both sides and have a speed limit of around 100 on motorways and 80 on dual carriage ways. You also need to look at what type of traffic uses roads at what times.
Do lorries need to be on motorways in the in the morning and evening rush? Why do we not have a school bus system like in the USA? Why do we all work the same hours? Why do bin collections happen in the rush hour? Why to large lorries have to drive up single track roads? Why is lane disapline and tail gating not policed? Why are there not tax breaks to get freight back on trains?...Solving these issues will reduce far more accidents than speed.
A modern car doing 40 in a 30 can stop far quicker, manouver better at speed, and impact far less damage in a crash than a car doing 30 build to 1984 standards when they last uptated the road taffic act for 30mph zones.
1 edit
Genius. All of the ones for Branch and St Joseph counties are absolutely correct. Also, Kalamazoo/Portage as well. Though they are missing a few good ones. I didn't have a ticket for eight years until I moved back to Michigan in 2001. Of course Seattle=no car=no tickets. My first 18 months back in Michigan I got three. Last one falls off in July. Living six blocks from work has helped me as I only drove about 3000 miles last year. Plus I mostly rode my 1968 Suzuki T200 which can barely make 70MPH. My no ticket streak may soon come to an end though as I purchased a 230HP PT Cruiser GT. Wayyy too fun to drive fast 😵
The big danger in lower Michigan are the large rats known as deer. I got to test out the four wheel discs last week, they work.
3 edits
Originally posted by giantrobotI used to drive out of state to a lot of chess tournaments. After 5 or 6 hours of driving home from another state my worst fear was when I was back in Michigan and within 60 miles of home. 🙁
Genius. All of the ones for Branch and St Joseph counties are absolutely correct. Also, Kalamazoo/Portage as well. Though they are missing a few good ones. I didn't have a ticket for eight years until I moved back to Michigan in 2001. Of course Seattle=no car=no tickets. My first 18 months back in Michigan I got three. Last one falls off in July. ...[text shortened]... are the large rats known as deer. I got to test out the four wheel discs last week, they work.
Seriously, I can't leave my apartment and drive 1/4 mile to the local store without seeing at least one cop. Michigan has a huge deficit so they issued an order to ticket anybody they can to bring in more revenue. Last ticket I got was for 5 miles over the speed limit but it cost me over $100 bucks. 😠