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

On May 8, 8:36 am, "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.

uk.legal

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.

I have several ways out of this problem
1. Turn left not right, *wherever* legal.
2. Find another route.
3. Have a reliable car and put your foot down after *any* turn, so that you
can get to the speed limit. I had a car written off by a Boy Racer hitting
the rear of the car after a turn.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

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

I suppose the question is, are there regulations which cover the
"visible distance" for different road categories (speeds)?

I doubt it, there are many junctions on derestricted roads that have
nothing like the your 100m visibilty. Not to mention the overall stopping
distance at 60mph is 73m (http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm). So 100m
leaves you 27m (88') of "clearance" anyway so you can double the
"thinking" time and still stop in time (in theory).

It would be easy to restrict the speed on the slip road to 40mph until
after this junction.

The quickest way to get a speed limit or signage is there to be an injury
"accident". Accident in quotes as *very* few "accidents" are truely
accidental most are down to driver error of some sort.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

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


This is covered by the fact that driving within the limits of what you
can see/react to is considered correct driving, and failure to do so is
driving without due care and attention, at the least.
The fact of road being unrestricted does not mean it is safe or legal
to proceed at the maximum for that class of road. The one and a half car
lane past my house is a 60mph limit..few people exceed 40..

Carrying your thesis to its logical conclusion would have a variable
speed sign at every bend, and on every road, every few hundred yards,
able to detect the conditions and respond accordingly.

In reality, that is the job of the DRIVER.

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

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.

The driver should not be at a speed exceeding their visible stopping
distance, irrespective of the speed limit.

You need a few accident reports to badger a councillor.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

I have several ways out of this problem
1. Turn left not right, *wherever* legal.

What difference would that make if the car stalled?

2. Find another route.

FFS

3. Have a reliable car and put your foot down after *any* turn, so
that you can get to the speed limit. I had a car written off by a
Boy Racer hitting the rear of the car after a turn.

How would reliability prevent an unintentional stall? Sometimes, Dave, your
answers are beyond belief. What about actually answering a question rather
than trying to find ridiculous work-arounds?

Si

"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*.

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.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote

This is covered by the fact that driving within the limits of what you can
see/react to is considered correct driving, and failure to do so is
driving without due care and attention, at the least.
The fact of road being unrestricted does not mean it is safe or legal to
proceed at the maximum for that class of road. The one and a half car lane
past my house is a 60mph limit..few people exceed 40..


Thanks NP

3 points worthy of mention in response:

1 The slip road section in question gives the impression of being a
dedicated access to a busy A road, so even alert drivers could well miss the
fact that an (almost hidden) access road is ahead - will have to check the
signs, or lack of them, to see how clearly the side road is highlighted.

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.

3 Your "driving within limits" point is noted, but considering what a
gamble it can be pulling out of this junction, many users must assume that a
road rated at 60mph is good for that speed (assuming clement weather).

Phil

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.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 10:16:41 +0100, "Mungo \"Two Sheds\" Toadfoot"
wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|!
|! I have several ways out of this problem
|! 1. Turn left not right, *wherever* legal.
|!
|!What difference would that make if the car stalled?
|!
|! 2. Find another route.
|!
|!FFS
|!
|! 3. Have a reliable car and put your foot down after *any* turn, so
|! that you can get to the speed limit. I had a car written off by a
|! Boy Racer hitting the rear of the car after a turn.
|!
|!How would reliability prevent an unintentional stall? Sometimes, Dave, your
|!answers are beyond belief. What about actually answering a question rather
|!than trying to find ridiculous work-arounds?

This is uk.d-i-y I gave DIY answers to a stupid/confused question.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

"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


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. )***

TheScullster wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote

This is covered by the fact that driving within the limits of what you can
see/react to is considered correct driving, and failure to do so is
driving without due care and attention, at the least.
The fact of road being unrestricted does not mean it is safe or legal to
proceed at the maximum for that class of road. The one and a half car lane
past my house is a 60mph limit..few people exceed 40..


Thanks NP

3 points worthy of mention in response:

1 The slip road section in question gives the impression of being a
dedicated access to a busy A road, so even alert drivers could well miss the
fact that an (almost hidden) access road is ahead - will have to check the
signs, or lack of them, to see how clearly the side road is highlighted.

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.

3 Your "driving within limits" point is noted, but considering what a
gamble it can be pulling out of this junction, many users must assume that a
road rated at 60mph is good for that speed (assuming clement weather).

Phil


Seems like a case for either redesigning the access road, or a bloody
great sign saying !access road!

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.

"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.

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. 10-50g minor
contusions. 50-150g probably broken bones,but survivable, over 150g,
probably internal organ damage, and above about 300g, at least 50%
chance of fatality.

Say you take 100g as a nice upper limit. Shaken, badly bruised, cracked
ribs, a bit of concussion, but still alive.

That 3200 feet per second squared

Given that stopping distance is v squared over 2a, consider a car
stopping in - say - the distance of its crumple zone..say 5 feet.
5=v squared/6400..for 100g decelaration.
V comes out to 178 feet per second.

About 120 mph.

So a head on to a concrete wall in a car with a well designed 5ft
crumple zone and rigid passenger cell and a well strapped in passenger
at 120mph is easily survivable.

As evinced by any motorsport accident analysis. I've personally seen a
mini - race prepared - do just that a bit shy of 90mph and the driver
walked away..

Nelson Piquet's final accident was estimated to peak at over 250g. He
broke his legs, but lived. Nigel Mansells Indy car accident was similar.

It's a different story where pedestrians are involved..they do not come
equipped with 5ft crumple zones.

If you are going to crash, try and make it head on, where the crumple
zones and the headrests and airbags will protect you..whiplash will
break your neck in a side impact..

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.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

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.

"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. 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.

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?

Andy

"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?

"Andy McKenzie" wrote in message
...

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?

Google for maser.

"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.

Phil

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?

I suppose that you could argue that the car that pulled out was
traveling too fast in that he shouldn't have pulled out at all.
However, I don't think anybody would sensibly argue that this accident
was on the basis of either party speeding.


Are you suggesting that cars travel at 5mph with a man waving a red
flag walking in front?

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 10:16:41 +0100, "Mungo \"Two Sheds\" Toadfoot"
wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|!
|! I have several ways out of this problem
|! 1. Turn left not right, *wherever* legal.
|!
|!What difference would that make if the car stalled?
|!
|! 2. Find another route.
|!
|!FFS
|!
|! 3. Have a reliable car and put your foot down after *any* turn, so
|! that you can get to the speed limit. I had a car written off by a
|! Boy Racer hitting the rear of the car after a turn.
|!
|!How would reliability prevent an unintentional stall? Sometimes, Dave, your
|!answers are beyond belief. What about actually answering a question rather
|!than trying to find ridiculous work-arounds?

This is uk.d-i-y I gave DIY answers to a stupid/confused question.

Needs rearranging.

This is uk.d-i-y Fawthrop gave stupid/confused answers to a DIY
question.

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.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

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?

I'd assign the blame to the one on the main road in that case. If he can't
stop within 15m from 15mph, either his driving or his car is severly
defective.

clive

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.

On 2007-05-08 14:30:55 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

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?

I'd assign the blame to the one on the main road in that case. If he
can't stop within 15m from 15mph, either his driving or his car is
severly defective.

clive

Probably. I chose an example to illustrate the point rather than
calling up TRL and asking them for the stopping distance of a Mondeo on
the specific road surface with a weight of 20kg in the back and three
passengers totalling 200kg on a damp Thursday morning in April.

The point is that one can be well within the speed limit and people can
do stupid and unexpected things for which it is not possible to
guarantee that there won't be an accident. It is not reasonable to
then hold the driver on the main road to blame.

In the particular example originally given, there should at least be
warning signs on the main road, or if the junction is so bad for
visibility, traffic lights.

"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?


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. )***

The message
from "Autolycus" contains these words:

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?

But at 55mph he would be less likely to be unaware of his surroundings.
Driving needs to be sufficiently stimulating to keep the driver alert
and concentrating on the job in hand, rather than the scenery, how he is
going to make his mother-in-laws death look like an accident or
whatever.

--
Roger Chapman

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.

--
Roger Chapman

"TheScullster" wrote in message
...
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 don't think I've stalled a car when starting off since I passed my driving
test.

I suppose the question is, are there regulations which cover the "visible
distance" for different road categories (speeds)?

There are rules used by Highway Authorities to decide on visibility
distances for new junctions or entrances. However, the actual distances vary
according to a number of factors, including traffic density.

It would be easy to restrict the speed on the slip road to 40mph until
after this junction.

You can always contact the Highways Department of the Local Authority and
make that suggestion. At the very least, you should get an informed response
as to why they decided not to do it.

Colin Bignell

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
....
3. Have a reliable car and put your foot down after *any* turn, so that
you
can get to the speed limit. I had a car written off by a Boy Racer
hitting
the rear of the car after a turn...

He probably curses the Trilby Hat who pottered out in front of him without
allowing for the speed of approaching traffic.

Colin Bignell

Roger wrote:
The message
from "Autolycus" contains these words:

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?

But at 55mph he would be less likely to be unaware of his surroundings.
Driving needs to be sufficiently stimulating to keep the driver alert
and concentrating on the job in hand, rather than the scenery, how he is
going to make his mother-in-laws death look like an accident or
whatever.


Haven't read all this, but this is the place for motoring law

http://www.pepipoo.com/

Andy Hall wrote:

Probably. I chose an example to illustrate the point rather than
calling up TRL and asking them for the stopping distance of a Mondeo
on the specific road surface with a weight of 20kg in the back and three
passengers totalling 200kg on a damp Thursday morning in April.

The point is that one can be well within the speed limit and people
can do stupid and unexpected things for which it is not possible to
guarantee that there won't be an accident. It is not reasonable to
then hold the driver on the main road to blame.

In the particular example originally given, there should at least be
warning signs on the main road, or if the junction is so bad for
visibility, traffic lights.

You won't win, y'know; this group's full of ****s who'd say black was white
if it got someone to listen to them.

Si

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 14:30:55 +0100, "Clive George"
said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

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?

I'd assign the blame to the one on the main road in that case. If he
can't stop within 15m from 15mph, either his driving or his car is
severly defective.

clive

Probably. I chose an example to illustrate the point rather than calling
up TRL and asking them for the stopping distance of a Mondeo on the
specific road surface with a weight of 20kg in the back and three
passengers totalling 200kg on a damp Thursday morning in April.

The point is that one can be well within the speed limit and people can do
stupid and unexpected things for which it is not possible to guarantee
that there won't be an accident. It is not reasonable to then hold the
driver on the main road to blame.

In the particular example originally given, there should at least be
warning signs on the main road, or if the junction is so bad for
visibility, traffic lights.

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?

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

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.


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.

It's all too easy to lay blame in connection with speed, but reducing
speed *may* simply serve to reduce the frequency and severity of
accidents. On this basis, one could argue for reducing the speed to
zero and not having motorised transport at all. Clearly that's not
acceptable.

So what does one do? Reduce all speed limits by 20km/h?
Statistically, that would reduce accidents and their results because
people would have more time to react and would not collide with as much
force.
Reduce limits by 30 km/h and the effect would be even greater.

Where does one draw the line on that? If people are going to drive
carelessly, they will do. Where that is the situation and an accident
is caused, the prosecution should be for the accident, as TNP says, not
for the speed, unless they were exceeding the limit.

The rules need to be as crisp as possible, which is the whole reason
for speed limits in the first place.

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

"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.


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