In message , Vir
Campestris writes
On 23/01/2015 21:17, bert wrote:
I would have thought speed was a factor in all RTAs. I've never heard
of an accident between two stationary vehicles.

Yes, but is the difference between the actual speed and the limit the cause?

We have a road down here that I reckon I could take at a ton (given
road closures - there are side turnings) yet several people seem to
have driven off it and crashed. So they've imposed a 50 limit. I have a
feeling those crashes weren't under 60 either - the most recent
(non-fatal) one was over a ton, and drunk too.

Our village by-pass, completed in 1977, had 5 incidents of vehicles
leaving the road and arriving in our fields in the first 2 years! There
have been none since! Some on-road shunts of course.

Did '79 coincide with a speed limit change or do drivers need time to
learn a new route? Traffic flow has hugely increased so it may be clear
roads that cause accidents:-)
--
Tim Lamb

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 26/01/2015 07:38, Tim Watts wrote:
On 25/01/15 21:48, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/01/2015 21:17, bert wrote:
I would have thought speed was a factor in all RTAs. I've never heard
of an accident between two stationary vehicles.

Yes, but is the difference between the actual speed and the limit the
cause?

We have a road down here that I reckon I could take at a ton (given road
closures - there are side turnings) yet several people seem to have
driven off it and crashed. So they've imposed a 50 limit. I have a
feeling those crashes weren't under 60 either - the most recent
(non-fatal) one was over a ton, and drunk too.

Andy

There was a massive crash the other day in a nearby town. It happened at
a junction that used to be bad.

The crash was bad enough to need the roof cutting off one of the cars
and 5 ambulances in attendance. Interesting that the junction has had
traffic lights for the last year which should make crashes unlikely.

There is a growing number of drivers that think they know better than the
people that installed the lights

And sometimes they do in some situations.

and that they can see its safe to ignore the lights.

And sometimes they are right in some situations.

Its probably a subset of those that can drive safely above the speed
limits.

Those that know they can, actually.

It may even be a progression.

Unlikely.

On 26/01/2015 08:51, Tim Lamb wrote:

Did '79 coincide with a speed limit change or do drivers need time to
learn a new route? Traffic flow has hugely increased so it may be clear
roads that cause accidents:-)

Clear roads do cause accidents, the speed goes up until it exceeds the
drivers ability. Some drivers learn their limits before they have a
major crash, some just aren't capable of learning.

There was an idiot around here that borrowed his parents car and wiped
himself out by crashing into a gatso in the central reservation. The
parents blamed the camera! I suppose that if the camera wasn't there he
could have crossed the central reservation and not killed someone coming
the other way but I don't see how a camera can be blamed.

Its a 40 limit so there should be no trouble negotiating the bend.

In article . com,
Dennis@home wrote:
On 26/01/2015 08:51, Tim Lamb wrote:

Did '79 coincide with a speed limit change or do drivers need time to
learn a new route? Traffic flow has hugely increased so it may be clear
roads that cause accidents:-)

Clear roads do cause accidents, the speed goes up until it exceeds the
drivers ability. Some drivers learn their limits before they have a
major crash, some just aren't capable of learning.

There was an idiot around here that borrowed his parents car and wiped
himself out by crashing into a gatso in the central reservation. The
parents blamed the camera! I suppose that if the camera wasn't there he
could have crossed the central reservation and not killed someone coming
the other way but I don't see how a camera can be blamed.

Its a 40 limit so there should be no trouble negotiating the bend.

we had an accident near hewre a few years ago, when a Volvo estate hit a
tree on a road with a 40mph limit. Theer were accusations of teh limit
posts being too far apart, etc. Nobody noted that the two killed were 14 &
13 years old.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Dennis@home wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

Did '79 coincide with a speed limit change or do drivers need time to
learn a new route? Traffic flow has hugely increased so it may be clear
roads that cause accidents:-)

Clear roads do cause accidents,

Must explain why freeways have MUCH lower
accident rates than the roads they replace.

the speed goes up

Yes.

until it exceeds the drivers ability.

Nope. Particularly with fully divided freeways/motorways,
those require MUCH less of the drivers so that doesn’t in
fact happen enough to matter.

Some drivers learn their limits before they have a major crash,

And those that don’t see freeways MUCH more forgiving
given that everyone is going in the same direction etc.

some just aren't capable of learning.

Those don’t get license to drive.

There was an idiot around here that borrowed his parents car and wiped
himself out by crashing into a gatso in the central reservation.

There will always be fools like that. The whole point of modern clear
road design is that they are MUCH more forgiving of that sort of
terminal stupidity.

The parents blamed the camera!

Clearly the problem is in the genes.

I suppose that if the camera wasn't there he could have crossed the
central reservation and not killed someone coming the other way

The better designed systems ensure that the central reservation can not be
crossed.

but I don't see how a camera can be blamed.

Its a 40 limit so there should be no trouble negotiating the bend.

Depends on how ****ed/drugged he was at the time.

On 26/01/2015 08:51, Tim Lamb wrote:

Did '79 coincide with a speed limit change or do drivers need time to
learn a new route? Traffic flow has hugely increased so it may be clear
roads that cause accidents:-)

Dry roads cause accidents round here. Grey miserable years have rather
fewer motorcyclists stuffing themselves into things than sunny years.

I don't know the data to determine whether this is a feature of the
numbers coming out or change in their behaviour though.

On 25/01/2015 23:34, Tim Streater wrote:
Which road is that?

A1307 Haverhill-Linton section.

Andy

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/01/2015 23:34, Tim Streater wrote:
Which road is that?

A1307 Haverhill-Linton section.

Yeah, thought so. It's a dodgy section of road but I never quite
figured out why.

Too many Cambridge-Haverhill commuters.

Wait till they build more houses on the South side at Linton.


--
Tim Lamb

In article , Tim Lamb
scribeth thus
In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 25/01/2015 23:34, Tim Streater wrote:
Which road is that?

A1307 Haverhill-Linton section.

Yeah, thought so. It's a dodgy section of road but I never quite
figured out why.

Too many Cambridge-Haverhill commuters.

Wait till they build more houses on the South side at Linton.



Its overloaded, too many artics use it and really can't get up to any
decent speed or follow each other too close then someone gets frustrated
and tries to overtake and then;-(..

A bad section is at the dean road crossroad's just to the east of Linton
where there is a downhill dual carriageway stretch with a crossroad
junction people try to overtake long strings of vehicles and there have
been a few fatalities there..

Whole road is marked with small shrines in Memoriam to mainly young
drivers who have killed themselves along it..

Another bad road is the A505 at Duxford to Thriplow another two were
killed there the other day ..

--
Tony Sayer