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

No a blind spot is where you can't see something else its not an object.
You know a blind spot is there because you can't see other things.

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

I know of an accident where a group drove into a bridge support at 90. It
killed everyone in the van.
Some people are lucky most aren't.

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.

Have you or he done the tests to prove that assumption?
If not then itis just cr@p being used to justify speed.


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..

Do you want a bet?

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.

Fixed maximum speed limits don't detract from safety provided drivers obey
them.
If you can't obey a simple law then what hope have you got?
What other road laws do you suggest we ignore?
Red lights, level crossing barriers, pedestrian crossings, driving with
lights on all of which fit into the you could do this safely some of the
time.

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

No driving too slow doesn't.
Other drivers wanting to drive too fast who get irate and do stupid things
cause the accidents.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
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.

But they don't make the news because there is very little damage or injury.

Most of them are from somebody driving into someone else because they are
going too fast for their mental state.

Andy Hall wrote:

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

The ones in the highway code also seem to assume that you are driving a
Moris 1100 with crossply tyres and non servo assisted drum brakes.
(which since the published numbers have not changed since that may have
been the case is perhaps not surprising)

I was working on one project which involved the occasional trials
session over at the TRL research labs site. Some of the guys took the
opportunity to play with some of the measurement gear on their own cars.
They found that even the most mundane modern family cars could stop in
less than half the distance presented by the highway code.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

A friend of mine crashed into a horse in just those circumstances. He
had just fitted new piston rings to his bike and was pottering along a
country road at 20mph to run them in a bit. A horse jumped out of a
field and landed directly in front of him. The bike carried on between
its legs (acquiring some horse hair in the brake callipers), and my mate
came to an abrupt halt as he broadsided the horse. I don't know which of
them was the most surprised!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 9 May 2007 13:01:12 +0100 Dennis@home wrote :
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?

Not horses but

"The number of people dying on UK roads fell to 3,221 last year [2004] - the
lowest since records began in 1926."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4636913.stm

1926 being an era of relatively slow cars (with a few exceptions) with poor
brakes and no driving tests needed.

If you stand by almost any road you won't have to wait long to see someone
driving in a manner that would deserve a friendly warning (or more) from a
traffic cop. But those drivers now go largely unchecked, whilst the non
speed camera detector owners get pulled for what is very often a technical
breach only, causing no risk to anyone. (statistically the maximum safe
speed on any road is on average probably 5 mph higher than the speed limit)

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 2007-05-09 15:49:09 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:

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

The ones in the highway code also seem to assume that you are driving a
Moris 1100 with crossply tyres and non servo assisted drum brakes.
(which since the published numbers have not changed since that may have
been the case is perhaps not surprising)

I was working on one project which involved the occasional trials
session over at the TRL research labs site. Some of the guys took the
opportunity to play with some of the measurement gear on their own
cars. They found that even the most mundane modern family cars could
stop in less than half the distance presented by the highway code.

Exactly. Same here, and I live quite close to TRL.

The message
from judith contains these words:

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

or traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions.

Don't be silly. Speeding is shorthand for a specific statutory offence.
"traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions" is excessive speed
and would be prosecuted as careless or dangerous driving depending on
circumstances. My remark that you truncated is repeated below.

"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."

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

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.

If speeding per se was really dangerous then the police wouldn't be
allowed to indulge.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

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'

Blame the politicians, not the bureaucrats in this case. The rot set in
in 1965 when an antediluvian socialist without so much as a learners
driving licence was appointed Minister of Transport and decreed that the
toffs in their fast cars would henceforth not be allowed to go any
faster than the peasants in their Volkswagens. VW Beetles were widely
advised at one time of being capable of being driven flat out all day. I
suppose we should be thankful that the bloody Beetle had a top speed as
high as 70 mph.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

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'

Blame the politicians, not the bureaucrats in this case. The rot set in
in 1965 when an antediluvian socialist without so much as a learners
driving licence was appointed Minister of Transport and decreed that the
toffs in their fast cars would henceforth not be allowed to go any
faster than the peasants in their Volkswagens.

And yet the land of the free has draconian speed limits

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

The ones in the highway code also seem to assume that you are driving a
Moris 1100 with crossply tyres and non servo assisted drum brakes.
(which since the published numbers have not changed since that may have
been the case is perhaps not surprising)

I don't think they have changed (other than the units) for a good bit
longer than that.

I was working on one project which involved the occasional trials
session over at the TRL research labs site. Some of the guys took the
opportunity to play with some of the measurement gear on their own cars.
They found that even the most mundane modern family cars could stop in
less than half the distance presented by the highway code.

I can't find a single copy of The Highway Code atm (I have 3 stretching
back over the later half of my driving experience) but ISTR that the
formula is 0.5 seconds thinking distance plus retardation at two thirds
g. I wouldn't doubt halving the thinking distance but retardation well
in excess of g from an ordinary road car seems a little suspect to me.
IIRC brake efficiency for cars only needs to be 50% so was it that that
was doubled?

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 9 May 2007 19:13:49 +0100 Roger wrote :
I can't find a single copy of The Highway Code atm (I have 3 stretching
back over the later half of my driving experience) but ISTR that the
formula is 0.5 seconds thinking distance plus retardation at two thirds
g. I wouldn't doubt halving the thinking distance but retardation well
in excess of g from an ordinary road car seems a little suspect to me.
IIRC brake efficiency for cars only needs to be 50% so was it that that

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm

In the units in which I learned to drive,

stopping distance (ft) = v(1+v/20) where v is the speed in mph

or v + v^2/20 thinking time approx 2/3 second and 0.6G ?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

wrote:

A safety margin is essential. 100% doesn't seem excessive.

Then why was it not included in the original figures for the vehicles
current at the time then? ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
wrote:

A safety margin is essential. 100% doesn't seem excessive.

Then why was it not included in the original figures for the vehicles
current at the time then? ;-)

Its probably more to do with the requirements of the MOT which only require
0.5G.
Cr@p really, mine stalled the rolling road when they were done three weeks
ago.

The message
from Tony Bryer contains these words:

I can't find a single copy of The Highway Code atm (I have 3 stretching
back over the later half of my driving experience) but ISTR that the
formula is 0.5 seconds thinking distance plus retardation at two thirds
g. I wouldn't doubt halving the thinking distance but retardation well
in excess of g from an ordinary road car seems a little suspect to me.
IIRC brake efficiency for cars only needs to be 50% so was it that that

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm

In the units in which I learned to drive,

stopping distance (ft) = v(1+v/20) where v is the speed in mph

or v + v^2/20 thinking time approx 2/3 second and 0.6G ?

Perhaps it was the braking test I was thinking of, not thinking distance. :-)

I have now found 2 of my Highway Codes and the earlier one copyright
1978 still has the figures in feet. Thinking distance is conveniently is
one foot per mph and braking distance at 30 mph is 45 feet - 0.67% g.
The metric equivalents of 9m and 14m translate to 29.5 feet and 45.9
feet so the metric equivalents are a bit of a fudge, but then so
probably were the original figures.

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:38:13 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Indeed. Driving too slow also causes accidents.

No driving too slow doesn't.

Other drivers wanting to drive too fast who get irate and do stupid
things cause the accidents.

So 40mph on a not particulary busy motorway is OK then?

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Roger wrote:

I can't find a single copy of The Highway Code atm (I have 3 stretching

Here's one:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/

This would be the (in)famous page:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm#105

back over the later half of my driving experience) but ISTR that the
formula is 0.5 seconds thinking distance plus retardation at two thirds
g. I wouldn't doubt halving the thinking distance but retardation well
in excess of g from an ordinary road car seems a little suspect to me.
IIRC brake efficiency for cars only needs to be 50% so was it that that
was doubled?

Many modern cars can pull over 0.6g in a corner, they can usually stop
much better than that.

Most bods who tried found they could stop in the dry within 55m
including thinking time. If you accept the highway code thinking
distance at 70mph (31m/sec) being 21m, then that only leaves 32m to
actually stop in.

In g terms that gives us:

v^2 = u^2 - 2as

a = (v^2 - u^2) / -2s

a = (0 - 31^2) / -64

15 m/sec^2 or about 1.5g

(It maybe that their thinking time in these tests was less than in real
life because they were anticipating the event).

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:38:13 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Indeed. Driving too slow also causes accidents.

No driving too slow doesn't.

Other drivers wanting to drive too fast who get irate and do stupid
things cause the accidents.

So 40mph on a not particulary busy motorway is OK then?

Its more than the legal minimum and large vehicles on motorways do less than
that at times.

I take it you don't see them when you drive on the motorways.. asleep maybe?

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

I know of an accident where a group drove into a bridge support at 90. It
killed everyone in the van.
Some people are lucky most aren't.

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.

Have you or he done the tests to prove that assumption?
If not then itis just cr@p being used to justify speed.

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..

Do you want a bet?

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.

Fixed maximum speed limits don't detract from safety provided drivers obey
them.
If you can't obey a simple law then what hope have you got?
What other road laws do you suggest we ignore?
Red lights, level crossing barriers, pedestrian crossings, driving with
lights on all of which fit into the you could do this safely some of the
time.


Indeed.

However to exactly keep within a speed limit means spending most of your
time on cruise control or looking at the speedo all the time. Hardly
conducive to safety.

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

No driving too slow doesn't.

Does.

You pull out in front of another car, driving very slowly, and watch
what happens..

You try dreiving non stop to teh other end of teh country at 20mph, and
see hwo tired you get, and how many accidents you cause.

Other drivers wanting to drive too fast who get irate and do stupid things
cause the accidents.


No, its the trees leaping out in front of you, stupid.

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

Many modern cars can pull over 0.6g in a corner, they can usually stop
much better than that.

The handbooks for the 60s/70s Lotus Elan and Plus 2 contain the following:

"capable of exceeding .9g retardation"
and
"capable of exceeding .8g lateral side load".

Were they really 40 years in advance of their time? :-)

Most bods who tried found they could stop in the dry within 55m
including thinking time. If you accept the highway code thinking
distance at 70mph (31m/sec) being 21m, then that only leaves 32m to
actually stop in.

In g terms that gives us:

v^2 = u^2 - 2as

a = (v^2 - u^2) / -2s

a = (0 - 31^2) / -64

15 m/sec^2 or about 1.5g

(It maybe that their thinking time in these tests was less than in real
life because they were anticipating the event).

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.

--
Roger Chapman

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:38:13 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Indeed. Driving too slow also causes accidents.
No driving too slow doesn't.

Other drivers wanting to drive too fast who get irate and do stupid
things cause the accidents.

So 40mph on a not particulary busy motorway is OK then?

Ive got no problem with anyone doing that If its uncrowded.
Ive done 25mph down the M1 towing about 2 tons up a steep hill.

I have to say that the tailbacks it caused were embarrassing and
frightening.

Although not illegal it was in my opinion dangerous.

An accident is caused by tow objects at different velocities occupying
te same space. Whether one is too fast, or the other too slow, or both
in the wrong place, is open to endless argument.

However the fact remains that if you insist of travelling at a vastly
different rate from those around you, you are a de facto hazard to them.

If you decide to drive down a mortorway at 40mph, the only safe thing is
for everyone else to drop to that speed. You MAY consider that is
precisely what should happen, but the days when everyone else magically
conformed to YOUR opinion were left behind the moment your mother
whipped her tit out of your mouth.

dennis@home wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
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.

But they don't make the news because there is very little damage or injury.

Most of them are from somebody driving into someone else because they are
going too fast for their mental state.


Which is permanently switched off because they think they are driving
slowly..

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007 19:13:49 +0100 Roger wrote :
I can't find a single copy of The Highway Code atm (I have 3 stretching
back over the later half of my driving experience) but ISTR that the
formula is 0.5 seconds thinking distance plus retardation at two thirds
g. I wouldn't doubt halving the thinking distance but retardation well
in excess of g from an ordinary road car seems a little suspect to me.
IIRC brake efficiency for cars only needs to be 50% so was it that that

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm

In the units in which I learned to drive,

stopping distance (ft) = v(1+v/20) where v is the speed in mph

or v + v^2/20 thinking time approx 2/3 second and 0.6G ?

IF you are a habitual fast driver thinking distance is about 0.2 seconds
or less.

However 0.6g is pretty fair..many trucks and vans won't do that..many
sports cars will do .8-1g or so..but few more than that.

John Rumm wrote:
wrote:

A safety margin is essential. 100% doesn't seem excessive.

Then why was it not included in the original figures for the vehicles
current at the time then? ;-)


In the days when I first saw that,a Morris 1100 was a pretty modern car.
Now my cousins sit up and beg ford popular with cable brakes on
oversized crossply motorcyle tyres..was a different thing altogether.

Even then they had to write rules for idiots in crap cars. But in those
days they weren't enforced for intelligent people in decent cars, by Big
Brother cameras.

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

A friend of mine crashed into a horse in just those circumstances. He
had just fitted new piston rings to his bike and was pottering along a
country road at 20mph to run them in a bit. A horse jumped out of a
field and landed directly in front of him. The bike carried on between
its legs (acquiring some horse hair in the brake callipers), and my mate
came to an abrupt halt as he broadsided the horse. I don't know which of
them was the most surprised!


Yep. At least with a horse you can blame someone. Deer you can't.

Stuart Noble wrote:
Roger wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

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'

Blame the politicians, not the bureaucrats in this case. The rot set in
in 1965 when an antediluvian socialist without so much as a learners
driving licence was appointed Minister of Transport and decreed that the
toffs in their fast cars would henceforth not be allowed to go any
faster than the peasants in their Volkswagens.

And yet the land of the free has draconian speed limits

that are largely unenforced.

On Wed, 9 May 2007 21:29:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Its more than the legal minimum

What legal minimum, references please?

I've yet to see any signage that there is a minimum limit on entering a
motorway or the end of a minimum limit when leaving. Indeed minimum speed
limits are very rare in the UK.

and large vehicles on motorways do less than that at times.

Not very often, these days most wagons sit at 56mph on the limiter no
matter the gradient. Other large vehicles, mobile cranes etc, have
flashing orange beacons and/or an escort.

I take it you don't see them when you drive on the motorways..

No, at least not wagons or large vehicles without beacons. The dangerous
ones are ordinary cars doing 40mph.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

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

But they don't make the news because there is very little damage or
injury.

Most of them are from somebody driving into someone else because they are
going too fast for their mental state.
Which is permanently switched off because they think they are driving
slowly..

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..

Luck.
Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007 21:29:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Its more than the legal minimum

What legal minimum, references please?

I've yet to see any signage that there is a minimum limit on entering
a motorway or the end of a minimum limit when leaving. Indeed minimum
speed limits are very rare in the UK.

snip..

No, at least not wagons or large vehicles without beacons. The
dangerous ones are ordinary cars doing 40mph.

I wholly endorse that! Go with the flow, but leave space. Folk who
travel at 40 mph in a car on the motorway cause havoc, are inconsiderate
to HGVs and seem to have no appreciation of the dangers to which they
put all other users of the motorway. There does not seem to have been
any purge to advise and/or prosecute such inconsiderate drivers.

On 2007-05-09 23:17:08 +0100, "Dave Liquorice" said:

On Wed, 9 May 2007 21:29:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Its more than the legal minimum

What legal minimum, references please?

I've yet to see any signage that there is a minimum limit on entering a
motorway or the end of a minimum limit when leaving. Indeed minimum speed
limits are very rare in the UK.

and large vehicles on motorways do less than that at times.

Not very often, these days most wagons sit at 56mph on the limiter no
matter the gradient. Other large vehicles, mobile cranes etc, have
flashing orange beacons and/or an escort.


That's it. Sussed. Dennis is a mobile crane escort driver.....

Roger wrote:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.

The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran
until the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance
travelled from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking
time - although I expect less than real world for someone who has been
plodding down a motorway for a couple of hours.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

dennis@home wrote:

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..

Luck.

Probably more down to judgement. Most fast drivers I know don't speed in
silly places (i.e. through villages, in close proximity to where they
are people etc).

Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?

Don't know about Dave, but on the three occasions someone has managed to
involve me in an accident, they all occurred well below the speed limit.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

And yet the land of the free has draconian speed limits

that are largely unenforced.

I wouldn't know but that reputation (for freedom) is more myth than
truth. The right to bear arms is about the only one that has stood the
test of time. Prohibition doesn't exactly smack of freedom and in the
same era teaching evolution was a criminal offence. They were still
practising slavery in the 1860s and apartheid in the 1960s.
--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.

The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran
until the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance
travelled from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking
time - although I expect less than real world for someone who has been
plodding down a motorway for a couple of hours.

ISTR that in quick fire contests the total time from signal to shot can
be less than 0.1 seconds. Keyed up drivers could perhaps match that. So
I was wrong about not including thinking time but I remain convinced
that retardation rates much in excess of 1 g are outside the realms of
reality for normal road cars even on the best of road surfaces.

--
Roger Chapman

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Wed, 9 May 2007 21:29:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Its more than the legal minimum

What legal minimum, references please?

I've yet to see any signage that there is a minimum limit on entering a
motorway or the end of a minimum limit when leaving. Indeed minimum speed
limits are very rare in the UK.

There is requirement for a vehicle to do more than 25 mph or it isn't
allowed on the motorway.

and large vehicles on motorways do less than that at times.

Not very often, these days most wagons sit at 56mph on the limiter no
matter the gradient. Other large vehicles, mobile cranes etc, have
flashing orange beacons and/or an escort.

So you can see a flashing light but not a car?

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.

The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran until
the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance travelled
from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking time -
although I expect less than real world for someone who has been plodding
down a motorway for a couple of hours.

Lets think about it...

"drive at 60mph and jump on the brakes when the lamp lights" no thinking
involved

"drive at 60mph and maybe something unexpected will happen, then jump on
brakes" considerable thinking involved

I wonder which one will produce thinking time?

So the test was *totally* invalid for thinking time.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..

Luck.

Probably more down to judgement. Most fast drivers I know don't speed in
silly places (i.e. through villages, in close proximity to where they are
people etc).

Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?

Don't know about Dave, but on the three occasions someone has managed to
involve me in an accident, they all occurred well below the speed limit.

But were you driving too fast to avoid them?