On 2007-05-08 20:18:12 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now
the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.

So its OK to ignore warning signs then.

No; and I didn't say it was.



Why should he need warning signs? Is he driving too fast for the
conditions?

There can be blind entrances and turnings with no visual clues at all. If
these represent a hazard, then they should be appropriately signed,
keeping in mind that if there are too many, people will have information
overload and not notice them as much.

Are the warning lines in the midle of the road adequate rather than
clutering the place with more signs?

These are an indicator regarding crossing of the centre line. They
are used both when roads bend and when they undulate. Neither is
necessarily an indicator of a blind turn.



(Hands up those of you that don't know what I am talking about.)

Have you put your own hand up?

On 2007-05-08 20:01:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 14:28:19 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:42:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
|!
|!
|! |!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING
ACCIDENTS.
|! |!the roads would be a far safer place.
|!
|! In reality *both* happen.
|! Small fine and a few points for speeding which *may* cause an
accident.
|! Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by
speeding.
|!
|!Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

Some years ago I was driving at under the speed limit of 30mph and two
six
year old boys, seated on a skateboard, appeared from an absolutely blind
1in7 side road, doing one hell of a speed, directly in front of me. Had
I
been speeding they would have both have been dead, as it was they were
only
kept in hospital overnight.

How do you stop "boys being boys" and getting killed except by sticking
to
speed limits.

Had you been closer, they would also have been dead.

The speed is not the cause, but only a factor in the outcome as this
example clearly demonstrates.

The speed limit is an arbitrary 50km/h. If it were made 60km/h there
would be statistically more deaths and if it were made 40km/h there would
be less.

So it's a matter of trade off between location, use and risk. But in
none of these cases is speed the *cause* of the accident, only a factor.

In your example, the *cause* of the accident was the boys using the
skateboard inappropriately, or perhaps their parents for letting them do
it.

The cause was two boys going too fast to stop.

Oh, FFS.


Speed was the primary cause as it is in most collisions.

It is *not* a cause, it is simply a contributory factor.

Had they been going faster, they would have crossed the road earlier
and you wouldn't have hit them.

Had the driver been there a few seconds earlier, he would have killed
them anyway regardless of the speed of either.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 20:18:12 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now
the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.

So its OK to ignore warning signs then.

No; and I didn't say it was.

You said it wasn't his fault if there were no other signs.
How many does it take to make it his fault?


Why should he need warning signs? Is he driving too fast for the
conditions?

There can be blind entrances and turnings with no visual clues at all.
If
these represent a hazard, then they should be appropriately signed,
keeping in mind that if there are too many, people will have information
overload and not notice them as much.

Are the warning lines in the midle of the road adequate rather than
clutering the place with more signs?

These are an indicator regarding crossing of the centre line. They are
used both when roads bend and when they undulate. Neither is necessarily
an indicator of a blind turn.

They are known as hazard warning lines and are there to warn of hazards..
Do you have your hands up?




(Hands up those of you that don't know what I am talking about.)

Have you put your own hand up?

Why?

On 2007-05-08 21:21:00 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 20:18:12 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now
the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.

So its OK to ignore warning signs then.

No; and I didn't say it was.

You said it wasn't his fault if there were no other signs.
How many does it take to make it his fault?

That's the whole point. It doesn't.

You can have as many signs, natural clues, etc. as well as opinions on
whether or not somebody was going too fast as you like. It doesn't
alter the outcome.

Unless there is a speed limit in place and the driver has exceeded it,
the rest becomes a matter of opinion.






Why should he need warning signs? Is he driving too fast for the
conditions?

There can be blind entrances and turnings with no visual clues at all.
If
these represent a hazard, then they should be appropriately signed,
keeping in mind that if there are too many, people will have information
overload and not notice them as much.

Are the warning lines in the midle of the road adequate rather than
clutering the place with more signs?

These are an indicator regarding crossing of the centre line. They are
used both when roads bend and when they undulate. Neither is necessarily
an indicator of a blind turn.

They are known as hazard warning lines and are there to warn of hazards..

Continuous white lines are warning lines but don't indicate that there
may be other hazards.


Do you have your hands up?

No need.





(Hands up those of you that don't know what I am talking about.)

Have you put your own hand up?

Why?

Not worked it out yet?

On Tue, 8 May 2007 08:36:22 +0100, "TheScullster"
wrote:

Hi all

Yes I know this is completely off track and if anyone can recommend a good
NG for this question then fine.

However........

My drive to work in a morning involves a tee junction at which a village
road exits onto a slip road.
The slip road speed is unrestricted (60 mph in this case) and allows two way
traffic upto the juction with the village access road.
The slip road is curved as it approaches the tee junction.

So the problem is that turning right out of the village exit road, a car
driver can only see 100 metres of road (approx paced measurement) to the
right. By my reckoning, this means that a car travelling at 60 mph will
take roughly 4 seconds to cover the distance between first-being-spotted to
impact with an unlucky staller.

I suppose the question is, are there regulations which cover the "visible
distance" for different road categories (speeds)?
It would be easy to restrict the speed on the slip road to 40mph until after
this junction.

TIA

Phil


Just because the speed limit is 60mph it does not mean that vehicles
have to drive at that speed. They should always be driven at a speed
such that the driver could stop if necessary - eg is there is a blind
bend in a 60mph limit you would be a fool to approach the bend at 60,
and if you hit something then it would be your fault.

In message , judith
writes
On Tue, 8 May 2007 08:36:22 +0100, "TheScullster"
wrote:

Hi all

Yes I know this is completely off track and if anyone can recommend a good
NG for this question then fine.

However........

My drive to work in a morning involves a tee junction at which a village
road exits onto a slip road.
The slip road speed is unrestricted (60 mph in this case) and allows two way
traffic upto the juction with the village access road.
The slip road is curved as it approaches the tee junction.

So the problem is that turning right out of the village exit road, a car
driver can only see 100 metres of road (approx paced measurement) to the
right. By my reckoning, this means that a car travelling at 60 mph will
take roughly 4 seconds to cover the distance between first-being-spotted to
impact with an unlucky staller.

I suppose the question is, are there regulations which cover the "visible
distance" for different road categories (speeds)?
It would be easy to restrict the speed on the slip road to 40mph until after
this junction.

TIA

Phil


Just because the speed limit is 60mph it does not mean that vehicles
have to drive at that speed. They should always be driven at a speed
such that the driver could stop if necessary - eg is there is a blind
bend in a 60mph limit you would be a fool to approach the bend at 60,
and if you hit something then it would be your fault.

No, really ?

60 mph is really 80 with a bit missing innit



--
geoff

On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:27:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS. the
roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.


Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?

On Tue, 8 May 2007 13:19:02 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 12:45:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are moving
and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.

Umm no.

One could be traveling along a major road within the speed limit.

The other could pull out from a junction and simply not spot the driver
on the main road (e.g. blind spot, distracted by an animal, etc.~)

Neither was traveling too fast, but there can still be an accident - in
this case a mistake by the driver pulling out.


Just because you are driving within the speed limit does not mean that
you cannot be driving *too* fast.
If as you say there was a blind spot, then obviously you should reduce
your speed accordingly and if you hit something around the blind spot
then you would most likely be driving too fast for the
road/conditions.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 14:21:04 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 13:59:49 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 12:45:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are
moving
and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.

Umm no.

One could be traveling along a major road within the speed limit.

The other could pull out from a junction and simply not spot the driver on
the main road (e.g. blind spot, distracted by an animal, etc.~)

Neither was traveling too fast, but there can still be an accident - in
this case a mistake by the driver pulling out.


Why was the driver on the main road driving too fast to take avoiding
action?

He wasn't. He was driving at 15mph and was 15m from the junction when
the other car pulled out.

In the case of this accident, to whom do you think that the insurers
would apply the blame?

The driver of the car going at 15mph.

There would be something wrong with his reaction times or his brakes
or 15mph was too fast for the road conditions if he could not stop in
15m

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:34:08 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.


You seem to persist that you cannot be driving *too fast* if you are
driving at the speed limit.

You are wrong - there are many circumstances where you can be.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:42:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


|!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
|!the roads would be a far safer place.

In reality *both* happen.
Small fine and a few points for speeding which *may* cause an accident.
Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by speeding.

Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

You do talk some ****e.

What about the person who could not see round a bend, traveled around
the bend and found a stalled car which he ran straight in to - where
if he had been traveling more slowly he would have had time to break
and avoid the stopped car.

He caused the accident by speeding - it will probably be you next time
it happens.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 17:59:50 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message
from "Andy McKenzie" contains these words:

Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

I beg to differ. Come into a corner or a junction too fast and your speed
has caused an accident that results. Fail to react in time to an unexpected
hazard and your speed has caused the accident. You can balance a few angels
on the head of a pin by claiming that it was driving too fast for the
conditions or the road that was to blame, rather than the speed, but the
fact is speeding can cause accidents, and makes accidents worse when they
happen.

You are confusing speeding with excessive speed. Speeding is exceeding
the speed limit.......

or traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions.

On 2007-05-08 22:53:23 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:34:08 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.


You seem to persist that you cannot be driving *too fast* if you are
driving at the speed limit.

Read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I said "not exceeding" I didn't say "at"

In terms of the application of speed limits, one is either driving
within it or one is not - that is clear.



You are wrong

No. Within the terms of what I said (as opposed to what you think I
said) I am perfectly correct.

- there are many circumstances where you can be.

That's a different issue.

Once you extend the definition of "too fast" to mean "too fast for the
road surface, the vehicle, the weather conditions and any of umpteen
other criteria" then the judgment becomes a subjective one and you are
entering into a circular argument.

One can always say that an accident wouldnt have happened if the driver
had been traveling more slowly. On the same argement you can argue
that it wouldn't have happened had he reached the point of the accident
at a different time by a couple of seconds.

However, one cannot say that this means that speed is the *cause* of
the accident. It isn't.

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.

On 2007-05-08 22:50:47 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 14:21:04 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 13:59:49 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 12:45:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are
moving
and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.

Umm no.

One could be traveling along a major road within the speed limit.

The other could pull out from a junction and simply not spot the driver on
the main road (e.g. blind spot, distracted by an animal, etc.~)

Neither was traveling too fast, but there can still be an accident - in
this case a mistake by the driver pulling out.


Why was the driver on the main road driving too fast to take avoiding
action?

He wasn't. He was driving at 15mph and was 15m from the junction when
the other car pulled out.

In the case of this accident, to whom do you think that the insurers
would apply the blame?

The driver of the car going at 15mph.

There would be something wrong with his reaction times or his brakes
or 15mph was too fast for the road conditions if he could not stop in
15m

You obviously didn't read the context of the illustration.

In message , judith
writes
On Tue, 8 May 2007 17:59:50 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message
from "Andy McKenzie" contains these words:

Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

I beg to differ. Come into a corner or a junction too fast and your speed
has caused an accident that results. Fail to react in time to an unexpected
hazard and your speed has caused the accident. You can balance a few angels
on the head of a pin by claiming that it was driving too fast for the
conditions or the road that was to blame, rather than the speed, but the
fact is speeding can cause accidents, and makes accidents worse when they
happen.

You are confusing speeding with excessive speed. Speeding is exceeding
the speed limit.......

or traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions.

No it's not

Speeding is exceeding the speed limit set down for a particular stretch
of road

Travelling at a speed faster than that which is safe for a particular
stretch of road is dangerous driving


--
geoff

On 2007-05-08 22:47:19 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 13:19:02 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 12:45:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are moving
and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.

Umm no.

One could be traveling along a major road within the speed limit.

The other could pull out from a junction and simply not spot the driver
on the main road (e.g. blind spot, distracted by an animal, etc.~)

Neither was traveling too fast, but there can still be an accident - in
this case a mistake by the driver pulling out.


Just because you are driving within the speed limit does not mean that
you cannot be driving *too* fast.

You need to make a separation between fact and emotional, subjective judgment.

Traveling at a speed exceeding the speed limit is going too fast. By
definition. There is no argument about that because it can be measured.



If as you say there was a blind spot, then obviously you should reduce
your speed accordingly and if you hit something around the blind spot
then you would most likely be driving too fast for the
road/conditions.

That may or may not be the case. It's entirely possible to have
reduced speed to 15km/h or even less. If the exit onto the road is
narrow enough and blind enough and the driver pulls out from it at the
last moment, then an accident will occur. Here we have a test of
reasonableness and that becomes a matter of opinion. There are very
few people who would consider such a low speed as "too fast" and yet an
accident can still happen.

The problem with the "too fast" argument without relating it to the
speed limit is that it is subjective.

On 2007-05-08 22:43:56 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:27:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS. the
roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.


Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?

No, he isn't.

By your (lack of) logic, it is much closer to your position.

On 2007-05-08 22:43:31 +0100, raden said:

In message , judith
writes
On Tue, 8 May 2007 08:36:22 +0100, "TheScullster"
wrote:

Hi all

Yes I know this is completely off track and if anyone can recommend a good
NG for this question then fine.

However........

My drive to work in a morning involves a tee junction at which a village
road exits onto a slip road.
The slip road speed is unrestricted (60 mph in this case) and allows two way
traffic upto the juction with the village access road.
The slip road is curved as it approaches the tee junction.

So the problem is that turning right out of the village exit road, a car
driver can only see 100 metres of road (approx paced measurement) to the
right. By my reckoning, this means that a car travelling at 60 mph will
take roughly 4 seconds to cover the distance between first-being-spotted to
impact with an unlucky staller.

I suppose the question is, are there regulations which cover the "visible
distance" for different road categories (speeds)?
It would be easy to restrict the speed on the slip road to 40mph until after
this junction.

TIA

Phil


Just because the speed limit is 60mph it does not mean that vehicles
have to drive at that speed. They should always be driven at a speed
such that the driver could stop if necessary - eg is there is a blind
bend in a 60mph limit you would be a fool to approach the bend at 60,
and if you hit something then it would be your fault.

No, really ?

60 mph is really 80 with a bit missing innit

I expect that Judith's car has the hazard lights wired to the ignition
for safety reasons.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.

You can precisely measure the distance that the driver could see and the
stopping distance of the car.
If the stopping distance exceeds the visibility distance he was driving too
fast whatever the speed limit.
It is important to remember that we operate variable speed limits.. its the
safe speed or the speed limit whichever is lower.

On 2007-05-08 23:30:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.

You can precisely measure the distance that the driver could see and the
stopping distance of the car.

Rubbish. The stopping distance is an average across a range of cars
under certain conditions.

One cannot say that this applies to a given car under all conditions so
it's a notional value.


If the stopping distance exceeds the visibility distance he was driving too
fast whatever the speed limit.

Irrelevant. This then enters the realms of opinion.


It is important to remember that we operate variable speed limits.. its the
safe speed or the speed limit whichever is lower.

Except that "safe speed" is not defined, making the statement meaningless.

Andy McKenzie wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


|!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
|!the roads would be a far safer place.

In reality *both* happen. Small fine and a few points for speeding which
*may* cause an accident.
Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by speeding.
Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

I beg to differ. Come into a corner or a junction too fast and your speed
has caused an accident that results. Fail to react in time to an unexpected
hazard and your speed has caused the accident.

In neither case it is the speed, its the speed *in association with a
particular manoeuver*.



You can balance a few angels
on the head of a pin by claiming that it was driving too fast for the
conditions or the road that was to blame, rather than the speed, but the
fact is speeding can cause accidents, and makes accidents worse when they
happen.. And a desire to shave seconds off a journey causes more. My son is
learning to drive at the moment. It's amazing how an L plate on the back of
a car seems to encourage prats to overtake at any cost, even when if they
lifted their eyes for even a fraction of a second they would see the queue
up ahead and realise that their action was going to gain them sod all.


Take your son to a first rate skid pan, go kart track and race track,
and let him learn how to skid, crash a little, and race around
generally, and take him to a few races where he can watch other people
in full race harness, fireproof suits and crash helmets crash, and I
guarantee you he will not bring boy racer tactics of his own to the
public roads.

Being as how this is uk d-i-y, how about a design for a EMP pulse generator
that would fry the prat's engine's ECU from a safe distance. Surely a role
for an old microwave and some sticky back plastic?

sure.

Andy

Roger wrote:
The message
from "Andy McKenzie" contains these words:

Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

I beg to differ. Come into a corner or a junction too fast and your speed
has caused an accident that results. Fail to react in time to an unexpected
hazard and your speed has caused the accident. You can balance a few angels
on the head of a pin by claiming that it was driving too fast for the
conditions or the road that was to blame, rather than the speed, but the
fact is speeding can cause accidents, and makes accidents worse when they
happen.

You are confusing speeding with excessive speed. Speeding is exceeding
the speed limit. Excessive speed is driving too fast for the conditions
and your examples have absolutely nothing to do with speeding.

Judging what is a safe speed for the conditions is something drivers
should be doing constantly but the nanny state has decreed that the law
abiding driver will get very little chance to do that except in
seriously inclement weather or on twisty single track roads where 30 mph
could be far too fast.

My point precisely.
"WHO is as better judge of the safe velocity, m'lud, a driver of 40
years experience at the wheel of his car, or a bureaucrat in Whitehall'

judith wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 17:59:50 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message
from "Andy McKenzie" contains these words:
Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.
I beg to differ. Come into a corner or a junction too fast and your speed
has caused an accident that results. Fail to react in time to an unexpected
hazard and your speed has caused the accident. You can balance a few angels
on the head of a pin by claiming that it was driving too fast for the
conditions or the road that was to blame, rather than the speed, but the
fact is speeding can cause accidents, and makes accidents worse when they
happen.
You are confusing speeding with excessive speed. Speeding is exceeding
the speed limit.......

or traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions.

No, that is driving without due care and attention..

TheScullster wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote

Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

They do and that is essentially the crux of this thread.
It has been pointed out that the stopping distance in the situation being
considered is close to the limit being that the junction is immediately
after a bend.
Therefore, if someone speeds (in this case exceeds 60mph), they leave
themselves with insufficient time/stopping distance before impact with a car
legitimately pulling out from village access road.

That isn't speeding.

Phil

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 23:30:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.

You can precisely measure the distance that the driver could see and the
stopping distance of the car.

Rubbish. The stopping distance is an average across a range of cars under
certain conditions.

One cannot say that this applies to a given car under all conditions so
it's a notional value.


If the stopping distance exceeds the visibility distance he was driving
too
fast whatever the speed limit.

Irrelevant. This then enters the realms of opinion.

No it is a fact that he was travelling too fast.
The question about speed is purely physics and nothing to do with opinion at
all.
The only opinions are about him being competent and if it was a reasonable
thing to do.
Its just an excuse to avoid hard thinking to say the speed is opinion.


It is important to remember that we operate variable speed limits.. its
the
safe speed or the speed limit whichever is lower.

Except that "safe speed" is not defined, making the statement meaningless.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:42:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
|!
|!
|! |!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
|! |!the roads would be a far safer place.
|!
|! In reality *both* happen.
|! Small fine and a few points for speeding which *may* cause an accident.
|! Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by speeding.
|!
|!Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

Some years ago I was driving at under the speed limit of 30mph and two six
year old boys, seated on a skateboard, appeared from an absolutely blind
1in7 side road, doing one hell of a speed, directly in front of me. Had I
been speeding they would have both have been dead, as it was they were only
kept in hospital overnight.

How do you stop "boys being boys" and getting killed except by sticking to
speed limits.

If they had appeared half a second later they would have been dead anyway.

The first accident I ever witnessed at the age of 13,which I gave
evidence for, was an elderly woman who walked out in front of a very
well maintained Rover. Hew was travelling under the speed limit.

I saw the other year, a car overturned by 'traffic calming' ..under the
speed limit, again.

Travelling under the speed limit(which I do as often as over it, more so
these days) is no guarantee of anything. Even the powers that be will
only tell you that 30mph is a speed that, with modern car design, gives
the pedestrian an better than even chance of survival.

Out here in the boondocks someone hits a deer every other year. Its
usually a write-off at anything more than 45mph.

Speed limits are no guarantee of anything. They don't make drivers safer
or better. There is some evidence they make them worse.

One accepts urban speed limits as a necessary evil..but where
pedestrians are not to be found? no.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-08 14:28:19 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:42:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
|!
|!
|! |!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING
ACCIDENTS.
|! |!the roads would be a far safer place.
|!
|! In reality *both* happen.
|! Small fine and a few points for speeding which *may* cause an
accident.
|! Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by
speeding.
|!
|!Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

Some years ago I was driving at under the speed limit of 30mph and two
six
year old boys, seated on a skateboard, appeared from an absolutely blind
1in7 side road, doing one hell of a speed, directly in front of me.
Had I
been speeding they would have both have been dead, as it was they were
only
kept in hospital overnight.

How do you stop "boys being boys" and getting killed except by
sticking to
speed limits.

Had you been closer, they would also have been dead.

The speed is not the cause, but only a factor in the outcome as this
example clearly demonstrates.

The speed limit is an arbitrary 50km/h. If it were made 60km/h there
would be statistically more deaths and if it were made 40km/h there
would be less.

So it's a matter of trade off between location, use and risk. But in
none of these cases is speed the *cause* of the accident, only a factor.


The cause of the accident is always that someone was driving a car.

Ban cars.
Its that simple.

They are lethal weapons. More people are killed by cars than by
handguns. So if handguns are banned lets ban cars,.

In your example, the *cause* of the accident was the boys using the
skateboard inappropriately, or perhaps their parents for letting them do
it.

judith wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:42:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


|!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
|!the roads would be a far safer place.

In reality *both* happen.
Small fine and a few points for speeding which *may* cause an accident.
Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by speeding.
Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

You do talk some ****e.

What about the person who could not see round a bend, traveled around
the bend and found a stalled car which he ran straight in to - where
if he had been traveling more slowly he would have had time to break
and avoid the stopped car.

He caused the accident by speeding - it will probably be you next time
it happens.

No, he caused the accident by doing something silly, and in many cases
an accident can be just that..something SO unexpected that no reasonable
person could be expected to have taken steps to avoid it..like teh
person whose windscreen was shattered by a piece of brake drum that went
through her windscreen and knocked her out..possibly thrown up from a
passing lorry, possibly dropped from a bridge...

The whole point of learning to drive is to find out what you, the car,
and the road together can do, first in isolation, then in conjunction
with other road users...you don't need signs telling you what is safe
and what is not, by and large.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.
Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are moving
and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.


Oh I dunno. Lots of people fall down stairs and break their necks
without any drivers being involved.

If cars did 8mph like horses used to do, would there be less accidents?
Nope. Look up the statistics. In a world of 8mph horses, with extremely
poor brakes and no driving tests, accident rates were far higher than today.

It's never speed on its own. Its nearly always stupidity, bad judgement
or downright recklessness. Or plain ignorance. Or occasionally plain bad
luck, though that is rarer.

Exceeding a speed limit is no sure test of any of the above conditions.

TheScullster wrote:


I suppose the question is, are there regulations which cover the "visible
distance" for different road categories (speeds)?
It would be easy to restrict the speed on the slip road to 40mph until after
this junction.


Take a look here, see para 7.3. Is this the information you're looking for?

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.u...on2/td4295.pdf

dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 12:45:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.
Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.

Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are
moving
and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.
Umm no.

One could be traveling along a major road within the speed limit.

The other could pull out from a junction and simply not spot the driver on
the main road (e.g. blind spot, distracted by an animal, etc.~)

Neither was traveling too fast, but there can still be an accident - in
this case a mistake by the driver pulling out.


Why was the driver on the main road driving too fast to take avoiding
action?


Because at any speed there is always *some* event which will happen too
fast to take avoiding action.

Even if its a tree falling on your car (if only you had been going faster).

There IS no safe speed to travel at. You are always playing a percentage
game.

Theoretically a pedestrian can step out in front of you on a
motorway..should you therefore do 20mph along all motorways?

On 2007-05-09 09:00:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 23:30:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.

You can precisely measure the distance that the driver could see and the
stopping distance of the car.

Rubbish. The stopping distance is an average across a range of cars under
certain conditions.

One cannot say that this applies to a given car under all conditions so
it's a notional value.


If the stopping distance exceeds the visibility distance he was driving
too
fast whatever the speed limit.

Irrelevant. This then enters the realms of opinion.

No it is a fact that he was travelling too fast.

No it isn't.

The only *absolute* definition of "traveling too fast" is if the speed
limit is exceeded.



The question about speed is purely physics and nothing to do with opinion at
all.

No it isn't. Published stopping distances are based on averages under
particular conditions.

To determine the complete story would require details of the precise
vehicle conditions, the road surface and conditions and just as
importantly the reaction time of the driver.

There is a substantial variation between reaction time among individuals.


The only opinions are about him being competent and if it was a reasonable
thing to do.


Incorrect. The only *definition* of "too fast" is exceeding the speed limit




Its just an excuse to avoid hard thinking to say the speed is opinion.

Repeat in English.


You are attempting to make a circular argument based on if the driver
had an accident, he must have been traveling too fast.

There's a basic fallacy in that.

dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.

You can precisely measure the distance that the driver could see and the
stopping distance of the car.
If the stopping distance exceeds the visibility distance he was driving too
fast whatever the speed limit.

Then 100% of all drivers drive too fast all the time.

Since the visibility distance of e.g. a motorway with a hedge down one
side out from which many things could pop, is probably around 15mph.

Likewise anyone driving past a line of parked cars, between which many
things cold lurk waiting to spring out on unsuspecting motorists, should
probably do less than 5mph.


It is important to remember that we operate variable speed limits.. its the
safe speed or the speed limit whichever is lower.



But even that is no *guarantee* of anything.

judith wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 13:19:02 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 12:45:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.
Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.

Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are moving
and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.
Umm no.

One could be traveling along a major road within the speed limit.

The other could pull out from a junction and simply not spot the driver
on the main road (e.g. blind spot, distracted by an animal, etc.~)

Neither was traveling too fast, but there can still be an accident - in
this case a mistake by the driver pulling out.


Just because you are driving within the speed limit does not mean that
you cannot be driving *too* fast.
If as you say there was a blind spot, then obviously you should reduce
your speed accordingly and if you hit something around the blind spot
then you would most likely be driving too fast for the
road/conditions.

One of the definitions of a blind spot is that you don't know its there
and can't see it.

Autolycus wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Autolycus wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING
ACCIDENTS. the roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed
(within broad limits), and accidents.

If this is indeed true (and I'd need rather more than repeated
assertion to convince me), then is there one between vehicle speed
and severity of accident? Hint: m/2*v**2


No. There is a correlation between severity and peak *deceleration*.

That depends on how long it takes to stop the projectile.


In a well belted in passenger, up to 10g no damage. snip

This takes a very narrow view of "severity" and a very tightly-defined
accident. In real life, cars don't always run head-on into concrete
blocks: they hit odd shaped objects with strangely projecting bits at
funny angles, and they do things like flipping onto their roofs if
certain dynamic criteria are met. If my car runs into a road sign at 10
mile/h, I'll probably survive, as I probably would at 40 mile/h. But
which would be the more severe accident?

An imperfect, inattentive, or foolish driver (obviously not a reader of
this group) suddenly realise you are stationary, in front of him and
100ft away when he starts braking. At 48 mile/h, he taps your back
bumper: at 55 mile/h, he's still doing 25 mile/h when he hits you. Which
is the more severe accident?



Depends..on many things.

I've come upon a rover in a ditch that lost it at 125mph (police
estimate, with which I agree..I got up to 110mph myself to check that
bend, and it was fully takable at that) and the front seat passengers
crawled out..the rear seat passengers who were not wearing seat belts,
were pretty badly knocked about..broken bones and multiple lacerations.
They all lived tho..

So accident severity is something that is only vaguely correlated to
speed..one person I knew years ago, found himself faced with a head on
collision with a wall on a motorbike,.. He decided to go out in a blaze
of glory and opened it up wide..in fact he flew over the top of the
wall, knocked himself out and broke an arm and a collar bone. At less
speed he would have been dead.

To an extent, high speed accidents are seldom one thump. They are
rolling tumbling events which bleed speed off progressively.

Its probably better to smash through a brick wall at 100mph, than come
to a dead stop doing 40mph, but it depends on so many factors.

The old experiment of pushing a candle into a piece of wood comes to
mind. It crumples. Fired from a gun, the candle goes right through the
board undamaged..

I am not advocating unlimited speed, just that fixed speed limits are a
poor way of achieving road safety. Driver experience and education is
the only solution. The downside of speed limits is they make people who
keep to them excessively smug and self righteous, and never likely to
question their own behaviour..as can be seen in many posts here.

John Rumm wrote:
TheScullster wrote:

2 The party in most danger (ie the one that will suffer a side
impact) is not the one with the most control over the situation IYSWIM.

Sounds like he needs four wheel drive and a turbocharger ;-)

Turn, accelerate, and you are doing a significant proportion of the
speed of the closing vehicle before it has a chance to get close.


Indeed. Driving too slow also causes accidents.

judith wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:27:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS. the
roads would be a far safer place.
Or *both*.


Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?

Definitley.

As I said earlier, horse drawn transport shows that to be the case.

In article ,
judith writes:
So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?

Most accidents I see happen at that sort of speed.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.
Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are
moving and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.
Oh I dunno. Lots of people fall down stairs and break their necks without
any drivers being involved.

Even in that case its caused by someone hiting the ground too fast.

If cars did 8mph like horses used to do, would there be less accidents?
Nope. Look up the statistics. In a world of 8mph horses, with extremely
poor brakes and no driving tests, accident rates were far higher than
today.

Really?
Where are the figures?


It's never speed on its own. Its nearly always stupidity, bad judgement or
downright recklessness. Or plain ignorance. Or occasionally plain bad
luck, though that is rarer.

Now you are talking about why they were going too fast.


Exceeding a speed limit is no sure test of any of the above conditions.

No but its a common reason why they are going too fast when they have an
accident.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The only non-arguable definition of "too fast" is whether or not the
vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. That can be precisely measured.
Everything else is subjective.

You can precisely measure the distance that the driver could see and the
stopping distance of the car.
If the stopping distance exceeds the visibility distance he was driving
too fast whatever the speed limit.

Then 100% of all drivers drive too fast all the time.

Since the visibility distance of e.g. a motorway with a hedge down one
side out from which many things could pop, is probably around 15mph.

Likewise anyone driving past a line of parked cars, between which many
things cold lurk waiting to spring out on unsuspecting motorists, should
probably do less than 5mph.

You are learning.
Now come up with some sensible answers and you will be a better driver.